Religion Clause

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Christian Camp Sues Over Gender Identity Requirements

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by a Christian children's summer camp challenging state regulations that require the camp to allow transgender children to use restroom, shower, dressing and sleeping facilities that conform to their gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Camp Id-Ra-Ha-Je Association v. Roy, (D CO, filed 5/12/2025), alleges in part:

Requiring IdRaHaJe to forfeit its religious status, beliefs, and exercise to maintain an otherwise available license to operate as a children’s resident camp in Colorado triggers strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause....

... [T]he Department engaged in impermissible religious hostility by refusing to grant a religious exemption to IdRaHaJe while granting exemptions from regulations for secular reasons and despite clear precedent that prohibits the State from excluding IdRaHaJe from licensing based on its religious character and exercise....

The gender identity regulations are not neutral or generally applicable because the Department has discretion to create individualized and categorical exceptions, which it has done for certain organizations.

The gender identity regulations also are not neutral and generally applicable because the practical “effect” of those provisions is to exclude only those organizations with religious beliefs and practices like IdRaHaJe’s....

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the Department from excluding IdRaHaJe from licensing because of its religious status, character, beliefs, and exercise....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

West Virginia Governor Tells Schools to Provide Religious and Philosophical Exemptions from Vaccine Requirements

Last week, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey released a letter (full text) addressed to parents, students and school officials reaffirming that his Executive Order 7-25 is still in effect. The Executive Order issued last January provides for religious and conscientious exemptions for students from compulsory school immunization requirements. He based the Order on the provisions of the state's Equal Protection for Religion Act of 2023. The Governor's recent letter, issued in light of the fact that the state legislature has not taken action on the matter, sets out a procedure for parents to use in applying for a religious or philosophical exemption. The governor's office also issued a press release summarizing the letter. The Inter-Mountain reports on the Governor's action.

Employees' Suit Against School Board for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Moves Ahead

Decisions in suits by former employees who were denied religious exemptions from employer Covid vaccine mandates continue to be handed down by the courts. Here is a recent example:

In Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, (ED MO, May 8, 2025), a Missouri federal district court in a 76-page opinion refused to dismiss 16 employees' free exercise, equal protection, Title VII and state human rights act claims against the St. Louis school board. However, damage claims against the superintendent and the chief human resource officer were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiffs all had requested religious exemptions from the Board's Covid vaccine mandate. The Board received 189 requests for religious exemptions from its 3500 employees. None of the requests were granted. The board granted between 40 and 50 disability and medical exemptions. The court said in part:

Defendants have failed to meet their initial summary-judgment burden of showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs....

... [T]he very providing of exemptions rendered the contract not generally applicable because it “‘invite[d]’ the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy [were] worthy of solicitude.”... For these reasons, the Court holds that the strict-scrutiny standard governs here....

Defendants point to three interests that Policy 4624 purportedly served: (1) education, (2) stemming the spread of COVID-19, and (3) promoting “the health, safety, and general welfare of students.”...

Defendants argue that Policy 4624 was necessary to providing “children of any and all backgrounds safe access to education, social mobility, and athletic, cultural[,] and social development.”... The Court agrees that these interests are compelling. ...

But the Court disagrees that Defendants have satisfied their summary-judgment burden and proven that Policy 4624 was narrowly tailored to serve those interests....

... [T]he Board could have granted every request for religious exemption, while still granting all the disability and medical exemptions that it granted, and achieved a total employee vaccination rate of between 93.1% ... and 93.4%.....

In sum, the record at a minimum strongly indicates that the Board denied all religious-exemption requests wholesale, and Plaintiffs thus received vastly different treatment than their comparators did....

Plaintiffs marshal evidence that the Board denied Plaintiffs’ religious-exemption requests because the Board thought that the religious-exemption requests were less important than other exemption requests. With this evidence, Plaintiffs more than show that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Defendants unlawfully intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ protected religious beliefs....

Monday, May 12, 2025

Forest Service Is Enjoined from Transferring Apache's Sacred Land While Cert. Petition Is Pending

As previously reported, in September 2024 a petition for certiorari was filed this week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Apache Stronghold v. United States. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians. The Supreme Court has not yet acted on the petition. In April 2025, the Forest Service published a notice regarding publication of its final environmental impact statement which would have the effect of authorizing moving ahead with the land transfer as soon as June 16, 2025. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, May 9, 2025), an Arizona federal district court granted an injunction barring the government from transferring the land until the Supreme Court either denies review or decides the appeal. Explaining its decision, the court said in part:

... [E]nough has changed to suggest that the Supreme Court, should it grant certiorari—and there is good reason to anticipate that it will grant certiorari, given the fact that the case has been relisted thirteen times for consideration ...—could change the existing precedent in a way that would necessarily change the outcome of this case....

Both sides’ positions hold water, but the Court is more persuaded by Plaintiff’s emphasis on the fundamental freedoms at stake in this case. After all, “[r]eligious liberty and the concept of free exercise are grounded in the bedrock of our founding and the structure of our system of government.”... However, the Court’s determination regarding the balance of equities need not rest on such considerations alone. Plaintiff also enumerates various harms it will suffer if the land transfer occurs during the pendency of this appeal, which affect both the balance of equities and the likelihood that it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction....

After the transfer is completed, Plaintiff argues that the Court may lose the equitable authority to rescind the transfer later once Resolution Copper takes certain irreversible actions.... Furthermore, Plaintiff posits that if the Supreme Court were to reverse and remand this case after the land exchange occurs, Defendants could then argue that the initial preliminary injunction request—which sought to prevent that transfer from occurring—is rendered moot, and Plaintiff would have to move for a new PI seeking a mandatory, rather than prohibitory, injunction.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Sunday, May 11, 2025

South Carolina Abortion Law Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, May 7, 2025), a South Carolina federal district court refused to dismiss claims by five physicians that the health and fetal anomaly exceptions to South Carolina's abortion ban are unconstitutionally vague. The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise challenge. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory is that “South Carolina has made a value judgment that secular (e.g., procreative) motivations for ending a potential life are important enough to overcome its asserted general interest in preserving it, but that religious motivations are not.”... Accepting Plaintiffs’ argument would require this Court to accept that the performance of abortions is a religious practice protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....

... Plaintiffs’ argument hinges on a finding that the Abortion Ban favors “secular conduct” over “religious conduct” by permitting limited exceptions (with the effect of undermining the State’s interest in preserving life), but prohibiting such exceptions in unenumerated circumstances where the Abortion Ban infringes upon their free religious exercise. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. The State has a legitimate interest in both fetal and maternal health and exercised its plenary authority in enacting legislation that considers these interests....

Saturday, May 10, 2025

Former Justice David Souter Dies; Described As Champion of Church-State Separation

The U.S. Supreme Court announced yesterday that former Justice David Souter died on May 8 at his home in New Hampshire. Souter served on the Court from 1990 until his retirement in 2009. In a press release mourning his death, Americans United described Souter as a champion of church-state separation. The press release summarizes eight Supreme Court cases involving church-state issues in which Souter wrote dissenting, concurring or majority opinions.

Friday, May 09, 2025

5th Circuit: Religious Liberty Training Order Against Attorneys in Title VII Case Was Improperly Punitive

In Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, (5th Cir., May 8, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed portions of a Texas federal district court's judgment against Southwest Airlines and its employee union that found violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At issue was the airline's firing of a flight attendant for posting on Facebook and privately sending to the president of the flight attendants’ union images and videos of aborted fetuses. The flight attendant opposed the union's support for abortion rights. The appellate court held that a judgement in favor of Southwest should have been entered on the flight attendant's claim that she was fired because of her religious beliefs. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment against Southwest on belief-based intentional discrimination. The court however affirmed the jury's verdict that found Southwest had violated Title VII by firing the employee for her religious practices. Southwest failed to convince the jury that accommodating the flight attendant by granting an exception to its social media, bullying and harassment policies would create an undue hardship for Southwest.

The 5th Circuit held that the district court's injunction entered in the case was overbroad and vague. The court also vacated a contempt order that had been issued against Southwest, and which subsequently became the center of much press attention. (See prior posting.) As explained in part by the 5th Circuit:

... [A]s part of its judgment, the district court ordered Southwest to “inform Southwest flight attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs, including—but not limited to—those expressed on social media and those concerning abortion.” The notice that Southwest distributed to its flight attendants, however, stated a court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.”...

Carter moved the district court to hold Southwest in contempt, arguing the email merely stated that Southwest “does not discriminate,” rather than “may not discriminate,” a material deviation from the court’s language... The district court agreed with Carter and held Southwest in contempt. As a sanction, the district court ordered Southwest to circulate a statement—verbatim—to its flight attendants “to set the record straight,” and ordered three of Southwest’s in-house attorneys to attend religious-liberty training with the Alliance Defending Freedom....

... We ... cannot say the district court abused its discretion in holding the airline in contempt....

... [B]ut religious-liberty training would do little to compel compliance with the order or to compensate Carter. The attorneys ordered to attend training were not involved in the decision to terminate Carter, and no evidence offered at trial suggests they demonstrated animus against Carter or her religious beliefs.... Additionally, the training would not be limited to Title VII training but instead was to encompass topics irrelevant to securing compliance with a Title VII judgment. It was plainly not the least-restrictive means of remedying Southwest’s non-compliance....

Punitive sanctions exceed the scope of a federal court’s civil contempt authority.

Reuters reports on the decision.

President Trump Congratulates New Pope

In a message posted yesterday on Truth Social and X, President Trump congratulated newly elected Pope Leo XIV, saying:

Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope. It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope. What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!

EEOC Sues Marriott Over Refusal to Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist

On Wednesday, the EEOC announced that it had filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against two Marriott corporate entities that sell vacation timeshare programs for hotels and vacation clubs, saying in part:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, management at Marriott Vacations Worldwide and Marriott Ownership Resorts initially allowed an employee, who is a Seventh-Day Adventist, a religious accommodation that allowed her to avoid Saturday shifts. After a change in management, the companies began scheduling her for Saturday shifts. After the employee made repeated complaints, they changed her schedule, negatively impacting her sales and commissions, and continued to schedule her for Saturdays, forcing her to choose between showing up to work and her religious practice. This led her to resign, the EEOC said.

Thursday, May 08, 2025

Bankruptcy Court Allows Child Abuse Victims to File Suits to Avoid New Limits on Damages in Maryland

As previously reported, in September 2023, the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore filed for bankruptcy protection in advance of the Oct. 1, 2023 effective date of the Maryland Child Victims Act. That Act removed the statute of limitations for civil actions by victims of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor. However, in an amendment enacted this year (full text), the Maryland legislature reduced the amount of noneconomic damages that can be recovered in suits under the Act. The new limitation applies to actions filed on or after June 1, 2025. In In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, (D MD Bkrptcy, May 2, 2025), a bankruptcy court judge issued an order allowing survivors of child sexual abuse to file and serve a complaint against the Archdiocese and its insurance companies in Maryland courts before June 1 so, if the bankruptcy reorganization is not completed, victims will not be bound by the new limitation on damages. Without this modification, the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy court's orders in the case would have prevented the filling of claims while the reorganization proceedings were pending. Baltimore Banner reports on the bankruptcy court's action.

Student's Suit Against University President for Antisemitism Needs Additional Allegations

In Gerwaski v. State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, (D NV, May 5, 2025), a Jewish student at University of Nevada Las Vegas sued the university and its president over antisemitic treatment. The court dismissed all claims against the University on 11th Amendment grounds except those under Title VI and Title VII. Several claims, including plaintiff's free exercise claim, against University President Whitfield were dismissed, but without prejudice so that plaintiff could refile them alleging additional facts. According to the court:

Gerwaski is a Jewish student at UNLV who wears the Jewish skullcap, or kippah, at all times. Gerwaski serves in the UNLV student government and was hired as an employee at the UNLV Lied Library in June 2023. Gerwaski alleges that he was asked inappropriate questions about his Jewish heritage and sexual orientation during the library’s onboarding process and that he was “unjustly terminated” from that job in August 2023, “as a result of the blatant disparate treatment and antisemitism that was exhibited by supervisors.”... Gerwaski has also been exposed to verbal assaults by protesting members of [Nevadans for Palestinian Liberation] who made hateful antisemitic comments to him. Gerwaski has chosen to cover his kippah with a baseball cap or other head covering due to the antisemitic chants and chaos on the UNLV campus....

Whitfield argues that Gerwaski does not plausibly allege a free exercise claim because he alleges only that verbal harassment by non-parties caused him to choose to cover his kippah, not that Whitfield acted to burden his rights. Gerwaski responds that Whitfield fomented and encouraged antisemitic behavior on campus and ignored Gerwaski’s complaints, leading Gerwaski to begin covering his kippah....

... Gerwaski attempts to tie Whitfield’s toleration of protestors on campus to Gerwaski’s feeling that it was necessary to cover his kippah with a baseball cap to avoid conflict with those protestors. However, Gerwaski’s free exercise claim must be based on government action that substantially burdens his religion, not the actions of non-parties.... I grant Gerwaski leave to amend this claim against Whitfield if he can plausibly allege additional facts to support the claim and tie those facts to an ongoing constitutional violation for which he seeks injunctive relief.

Cremation of Body When Next of Kin Were Unknown Did Not Violate State RFRA

In Doe v. Marion County, Arkansas, (WD AR, May 5, 2025), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit brought under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At issue in the case is the manner in which an Arkansas county coroner disposed of the body of plaintiff's father after the coroner was unable to locate any next of kin. The body was cremated. When plaintiff discovered this, she sued alleging in part that cremation violated her strongly held religious beliefs. In recommending judgment for defendants on this claim, the magistrate judge said in part:

Simply using the term "sincerely held religious beliefs" ... without stating any accompanying factual detail, is insufficient to state a plausible claim. See Stephens v. Legacy-GoHealth Urgent Care, ... (“[g]eneral references to Christianity.... fail to plausibly suggest that a plaintiff’s anti-vaccination beliefs are in fact religious”)... While it is not for the court to determine the reasonableness of Doe’s alleged religious beliefs, we are not required to take her conclusory assertions of violation at face value....

Even if Doe had pled facts sufficient to state an ARFRA claim, Defendants have sustained their burden of showing that their actions, in accordance with state law, were in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.... Burial is markedly more expensive, and there is no lesser restrictive means to further the government’s interest.... Requiring the state to bury all unclaimed bodies simply because an unknown family member might have a religious belief against cremation would certainly constitute an undue hardship....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Wednesday, May 07, 2025

3rd Circuit: Consular Decisions Cannot Be Challenged Under RFRA

In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Rubio, (10th Cir., May 6, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld a consular officer's denial of an R-1 (non-immigrant religious worker) visa to a South African minister who wanted to serve as the worship leader at an Albuquerque, New Mexico church. Plaintiff contended that the visa denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the majority concluded that it could not reverse the decision of a consular officer under the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The majority said in part:

RFRA’s cause-of-action provision plainly does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions. Also, whether the provision stating RFRA applies to “all Federal law” expressly authorizes judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions is ambiguous. Applying statutory construction tools to that clause, we conclude that RFRA does not do so.....

Calvary argues the constitutional claim exception to the consular nonreviewability doctrine applies because it brought a free exercise claim under RFRA, and RFRA is analogous to a constitutional right.... Even if a RFRA claim could qualify for the exception, Calvary has not plausibly alleged that (a) the consular officer failed to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason to deny Mr. Green’s visa application or (b) the officer acted in bad faith....

Judge Bacharach dissented, contending that RFRA's language authorizes review of consular decisions.

Church's Removal of Congregant from Services Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Devi v. Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha, (ED CA, May 2, 2025), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of a suit against a church and the city by plaintiff who was removed from a church service by police serving her with a trespass notice at the request of church board members. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Trustees and the President of the Church defendant prohibited her from entering the Church and “exercising her rights to freely practice her religious beliefs and to her rights to free speech” under the First Amendment.... She alleges that she was removed from the Church because the Church defendant did not approve of plaintiff’s opinions and questions and was attempting to stop her from stating these opinions.... She alleges the Church defendant retaliated against her by preventing her from attending services because she expressed her opinions and concerns about the Church’s finances....

To state a claim for a violation of the First Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under the color of state law....

In order to successfully bring her claim, plaintiff has to show that there is significant state involvement in the private party’s actions. Plaintiff has made no allegations that the Church defendant’s alleged decision to exclude her from the Church is a “traditionally and exclusively governmental” function. She also still has not demonstrated that there was “significant” state involvement in the Church defendant’s decision to remove her from the Church. Based on plaintiff’s allegations, the Church decided to call the police to remove plaintiff from the Church premises because she was trespassing. To the extent plaintiff is alleging that the Church defendant was a state actor because it had plaintiff removed by the City of Sacramento Police Department, “merely complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.”

Supreme Court Allows Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in Military to Remain in Effect While Appeals Move Forward

In United States v. Shilling, (Sup. Ct., May 6, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 granted a stay while appeals to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court move forward of a preliminary injunction that, had it remained in effect, would have disqualified transgender individuals from serving in the military. The Supreme Court's one-paragraph order stays the preliminary injunction granted in Shilling v. United States, (WD WA, March 27, 2025). The district court in granting the injunction had said:

The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting “the military’s” new judgment reflected in the Military Ban—in its equally considered and unquestionable judgment, that very same military had only the week before permitted active-duty plaintiffs (and some thousands of others) to serve openly. Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none.

In its Application for a Stay of the Injunction, the military had argued in part:

Absent a stay, the district court’s universal injunction will remain in place for the duration of further review in the Ninth Circuit and in this Court—a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests.

NBC News reports on the Supreme Court's order.

Tuesday, May 06, 2025

3rd Circuit: Class Videos on Islam Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Hilsenrath v. School District. of the Chathams, (3rd Cir., May 5, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that videos about Islam shown in a 7th grade World Cultures and Geography class did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court focused on the Supreme Court's new "historical practices and understandings" test in Establishment Clause cases. The court said in part:

This kind of historical inquiry “requires serious work. And that work is especially challenging here because “free public education was virtually nonexistent at the time the Constitution was adopted." But “[h]istorical tradition can be established by analogical reasoning,”...

... [The] videos were presented in an academic rather than devotional context, they do “not come close to crossing any line” separating permissible curricular materials from impermissible proselytization....

... [E]ven assuming the Establishment Clause requires equal treatment in primary and secondary school curricula, the record does not show favoritism here. Besides Islam, C.H. and his classmates were introduced to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. And the World Cultures and Geography course represented only a sampling of the expansive world religions curriculum offered at the School District of the Chathams....

...So assuming the Establishment Clause required the Board to treat religions equally, the record shows that it satisfied that requirement here....

Judge Phipps filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

This Establishment Clause challenge comes at a time when the “one-size-fits-all test” from Lemon v. Kurtzman ..., has been emphatically rejected, and there is no longer any lurking constitutional mandate of secularism in governmental affairs....

Thus, with the lifting of the constitutional mandate of secularism, teaching about religious matters in a public school does not violate the Establishment Clause. For that reason, the instructional materials about Islamic beliefs, practices, and modes of worship do not offend that constitutional provision....

Monday, May 05, 2025

Washington State Makes Clergy Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse With No Exceptions for Privileged Information

On May 2, Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5375 (full text) which amends previous law to now require clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred. The bill deletes the previous exemption for clergy, even when they obtain the information through a privileged communication such as in a confessional. The Catholic diocese of Spokane reacted to the Governor's signing of the bill with a message (full text) that reads in part:

This week, Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill 5375, which seeks to force priests to violate the Seal of Confession if child abuse is revealed within the celebration of the sacrament. In light of this, I again, wish to reiterate my previous statement regarding this matter:

I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane....

The Diocese of Spokane maintains an entire department at the Chancery, the Office of Child and Youth protection, staffed by professional laypeople. We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding child sexual abuse.

OSV News reports on the new law.

UPDATE: In a statement (full text) issued May 4, the Archbishop of Seattle said that any priest who violates the seal of Confession in order to comply with the new law will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Sunday, May 04, 2025

Catholic Leaders Criticize Trump Over AI Picture of Him as Pope

An unusual conflict between the President of the United States and Catholic leaders has surfaced. It began last Wednesday with what, according to National Catholic Reporter, was seen as a humorous remark by President Trump to reporters:

"I'd like to be pope. That would be my number one choice," the president joked, before endorsing his friend, New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan for the Catholic Church's top job.

Then on Friday, Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account and his X (formerly Twitter) account this AI generated photo of himself dressed as the Pope. It was also re-posted on the White House's X (formerly Twitter) account.

According to National Catholic Reporter in an article today:

U.S. President Donald Trump is facing a firestorm of criticism from leaders of the Roman Catholic Church after posting on social media a computer-generated image of himself as pope in full papal regalia as Catholics worldwide continue to mourn Pope Francis....

On social media, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, said Trump owes an apology to Catholics.

"This is deeply offensive to Catholics especially during this sacred time that we are still mourning the death of Pope Francis and praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the election of our new Pope," Paprocki wrote.

Paprocki quoted a Bible verse from Galatians that admonishes, "God is not mocked." He said, "By publishing a picture of himself masquerading as the Pope, President Trump mocks God, the Catholic Church, and the Papacy."

The New York State Catholic Conference said on X there is "nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us."

In Rome, Dolan, the archbishop of New York, was stopped by reporters and asked about it. "I hope he didn’t have anything to do with that," Dolan said in a video posted on social media by a multimedia journalist for the New York Archdiocese.

"Are you offended by that?" a journalist asked.

Dolan paused and replied, "It wasn’t good." He repeated that in Italian for Roman journalists and laughed nervously....

A Catholic News Service article quoting Cardinal Dolan was posted today on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.