Suit Challenges Minnesota Policies Allowing Transgender Girls to Compete on Girl's High School Teams

A Title IX suit was filed this week in a Minnesota federal district court by an advocacy organization challenging Minnesota's high school policies on participation in sports by transgender women. The complaint (full text) in Female Athletes United v. Ellison, (D MN, filed 5/19/2025), alleges in part:

120.  Minnesota allows athletes to participate in sports solely based on gender identity. There are no limitations based on testosterone level, whether male puberty has been started or completed, or other metrics know to magnify the physiological advantage males have over women, advantages raising safety concerns for female athletes....

180. Under Title IX, Defendants are required to provide competitive opportunities for females that accommodate them by “equally reflect[ing] their abilities” and offer “equal opportunity in . . . levels of competition” as compared to the competitive opportunities enjoyed by boys. 

181. Because of the measurable physical advantages that male athletes enjoy both before and after puberty, regardless of whether puberty blockers or testosterone suppression was administered, the athletic opportunities of girls are unequal when males are allowed to compete against them or compete with them for spots or playing time on their team....

187. Providing equivalent treatment and opportunities entails ensuring that both sexes have equal opportunities to participate and compete in competitive athletics, both in-season and post-season. Further, it precludes policies that are “discriminatory in language or effect” or have the effect of denying “equality of athletic opportunity.”  

188. Minnesota’s Policy has a detrimental effect on girls’ opportunities to compete safely and on a level playing field....

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

New Montana Law Requires Schools to Offer Released-Time Programs

On May 12, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed HB 343 (full text) which requires public schools to create released time programs under which a student, on request of their parent or guardian, is released for at least one hour per week to receive off-site religious instruction. The new law makes mandatory released-time programs that previously were optional. Public funds may not be used for the programs. The new law adds an option for schools to award academic credit for released-time religious instruction. Schools must use neutral secular criteria similar to the criteria used for other courses in order to determine the amount of credit to be awarded. ADF issued a press release discussing the new law.

Court Invalidates EEOC Guidance on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In State of Texas v. EEOC, (ND TX, May 15, 2025), a Texas federal district judge held that portions of the EEOC's 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace are contrary to law.  The court held that Guidance requiring bathroom, dress and pronoun accommodations for transgender employees are inconsistent with the text, history and tradition of Title VII. The court said in part:

First, the Enforcement Guidance contravenes Title VII's plain text by expanding the scope of "sex" beyond the biological binary: male and female....

The court invalidated the portions of the Enforcement Guidance which define "sex" in Title VII to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" and which define sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The court also specifically invalidated an Example of a Hostile Work Environment that focused on regular and intentional misgendering (using pronoun that does not match gender identity) of a transgender employee by supervisors, coworkers, and customers. AP reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Ioanna Tourkochoriti, LGBTQ Wedding Party: Conscientious Objections to the Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Law, (60 Tulsa Law Review 421-485 (2025)).
• Victoria Litman, Psychedelic Policy, Religious Freedom, and Public Safety: An Overview, (August 07, 2023).
• Barak D. Richman, On Rabbis and Mentors, (GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Reva B. Siegel, Foreword: Democratizing Constitutional Memory,  (Forthcoming 123 Mich. L. Rev. (2025)).
• Catherine E. Smith, et. al., Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents: Mahmoud v. Taylor, (April 17, 2025).
• Amy J. Sepinwall, The Conduct-Status Connection and Expressive Wedding Vendor Cases, (Wayne Law Review, forthcoming).
• Ainslee Johnson-Brown, On The Constitutional Requirement For Adequate Prenatal Care Post-Dobbs, (15 ConLawNOW 195 (2024)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Michael P. Foran, It's Not What You Said, It's The Way That You Said It: Manifesting Protected Beliefs in the Workplace Following Higgs v Farmor's School, (Industrial Law Journal (2025) (forthcoming)).
• Jeffrey A. Brauch, Freedom of Religion under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, (Forthcoming in Volume 28 Issue 2 of the Gonzaga Journal of International Law).
• Chagai Schlesinger, Weber in Jerusalem: The Rabbinical Debate over the Establishment of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals, 1918-1921, (October 24, 2024).
• Chagai Schlesinger, Religious Legal Pluralism in the Shadow of the Centralistic State, (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2025).
• Xing Wang, Jennifer Griffiths, Adam Gibson & Pakhee Kumar, Disaster Management Practices in Churches in London, UK, (2025).
• Godfrey Lukindo J, Critical Examination Of The Execution Of Death Penalty In The East Africa: A Case Study Of The Law And Practice In Tanzania And Uganda, (June 20, 2022).
• Inebu C. Agbo-Ejeh, Regulating 'God's Business': A Legal Analysis of Part F of The Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, (June 14, 2023).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Masood Ahmed, Zakah in Non-Islamic Countries: Addressing Economic Struggles and Religious Commitments of Muslims (September 09, 2024).
• Tanzeela Shafique, International Best Practices in Policy Formation for Sharīʿah Governance, (May 13, 2025).
• Ghazal Hisham Daadoush, The Intersection Of The Cisg (Convention On Contracts For The International Sale Of Goods) And Islamic Law (Saudi Arabia), (January 22, 2025).
• Badreddine, The UNIDROIT Principles and the SSs: Any Room For Cooperation?, (May 15, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Neil H. Buchanan, Feminism, Theocracy, and Righteous Anger: Sherry Colb Unbound, 109 Cornell Law Review 1765-1778 (2025).
• Catherine L. Fisk, Jewish Lawyers and the Labor Movement, 93 Fordham Law Review 1159-1176 (2025).
• Ria Ivandic, Tom Richmaier & Stephen Machin, International Terror Attacks and Local Out-Group Hate Crimes, 67 Journal of Law & Economics 589-610 (2024).
• Wejdan Hleihel, Ido Shahar & Karin Carmit Yefet, Transforming "Transformative Accommodation": Palestinian–Muslim Women's Maintenance Suits as a Case Study, 49 Law & Social Inquiry 2102-2127 (2024).

Members of Religious Liberty Commission Advisory Boards Named

As previously reported, earlier this month President Trump issued an Executive Order creating a Religious Liberty Commission.  Members of the Commission were also named at that time. Now (May 16), the White House has announced names of members of three Advisory Boards to the Commission: an Advisory Board of Religious Leaders, an Advisory Board of Legal Experts, and an Advisory Board of Lay Leaders. The Board of Religious Leaders and the Board of Legal Experts each includes Catholic, Protestant and Jewish representation. The Board of Lay Leaders includes Protestant and Muslim representation.

Trump Issues Proclamation on Jewish American Heritage Month

Jewish American Heritage Month began May 1. On May 16, President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) formally declaring May as Jewish American Heritage Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

Since the day I resumed my duties as President — and following President Washington’s example — my Administration has been determined to confront anti-Semitism in all its manifestations.  I say that at home and abroad, on college campuses and in city streets, this dangerous return of anti-Semitism — at times disguised as anti-Zionism, Holocaust denialism, and false equivalencies of every kind — must find no quarter.

We proudly celebrate the history and culture of the Jewish people in America, and we hold that President Washington’s words, though nearly 250 years old, still carry the revolutionary promise of our Republic:  that every citizen who demeans himself as a good citizen shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree — a covenant added to a blessing.

I believe there has never been a greater friend to the Jewish people than my Administration.  We will never deviate from our conviction that anti-Semitism has no place in the greatest country in the world.  As the 47th President of the United States, I will use every appropriate legal tool at my disposal to stop anti-Semitic assaults gripping our universities.  We will proudly stand with our friend and ally, the State of Israel.  I will never waver in my commitment.

South Carolina Supreme Court Interprets State's Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina, (SC Sup. Ct., May14, 2025), the South Carolina Supreme Court interpreted the state's ban on abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected to mean the time at which:

electrical impulses are first detectable as a "sound" with diagnostic medical technology such as a transvaginal ultrasound device and the medical professional observes those electrical impulses as a "steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart" during any stage of the heart's development "within the gestational sac."

This point is generally at the end of six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood had argued for a different definition of "fetal heartbeat" that would have placed it approximately after nine weeks of pregnancy.

Justice Hill filed a concurring opinion focusing on the language of the 2023 Fetal Heartbeat Act and the Woman's Right to Know Act, rather than on legislative history of the law.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Montana Court Strikes Down Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

In Cross v. State of Montana, (MT Dist. Ct., May 13, 2025), a Montana state trial court in a 59-page opinion held that Montana Senate Bill 99 that bars hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria is unconstitutional. The court said in part:

First, concerning the right to privacy, Plaintiffs have met their burden ... by providing evidence that the major medical organizations in the United States endorse gender-affirming medical care as a safe, effective way to treat gender dysphoria. Defendants ... fail to demonstrate a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk with respect to the care banned by SB 99....

Second, Plaintiffs have met their burden ... on their equal protection claim by demonstrating that SB 99 classifies based on similarly situated classes, infringes on several fundamental rights, and denies minors equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex and transgender status because it prohibits health care providers from administering certain care when sought to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria, but it allows the same providers to administer the same care to all other adolescent patients for all other purposes....

Finally ... Plaintiffs successfully demonstrate that SB 99 unconstitutionally regulates medical providers' speech based on content and viewpoint discrimination, and that it is presumptively invalid.... Moreover, Plaintiffs successfully demonstrate that SB 99 prohibits minors with gender dysphoria and their parents from hearing from health care providers....

The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Mass. Top Court Says Rastafarian Parents Can Bar Vaccination of Their Child Who Is In Temporary State Custody

In Care and Protection of Eve, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., May 15, 2025), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Department of Children and Families could not vaccinate a child in its temporary custody over the religious objections of the child's parents. The Department was granted emergency custody of the child two days after she was born following incidents of domestic violence by the husband against his wife. The couple's three other children had previously been removed because of domestic violence. They are being raised by a relative. At the custody hearing, the parents testified that their Rastafarian religious beliefs were to avoid Western medicine, including vaccines. The lower court held that the child's best interests outweighed the parents' religious beliefs. Massachusetts' highest court reversed the trial court's order that would have allowed vaccination. The Supreme Judicial Court said in part:

Parents who have temporarily lost custody of their child retain a constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of the child.  When they object to vaccinations of their child on religious grounds, the department must demonstrate that allowing that child to remain unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department's compelling interest in the vaccinations.  As the Commonwealth allows religious exemptions from vaccination for parents who have not lost temporary custody of their children and the department has not demonstrated a consistent application of the vaccination requirement for children within its custody, even as between this child and her siblings, the department has not demonstrated that leaving this child unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department's compelling interests.

NYC Mayor Creates Office to Combat Antisemitism

Earlier this week, New York City Mayor Eric Adams issued Executive Order 51 , (May 13, 2025), creating a Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism. The Executive Order provides in part:

The Office shall identify and develop efforts to eliminate antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate crime; coordinate non-law enforcement responses to incidents of antisemitism on behalf of the Office of the Mayor; and serve as a liaison with the Jewish community to address issues related to services for victims of hate crimes and bias incidents motivated by antisemitism, and security for vulnerable populations and institutions.

JNS reports on the Executive Order.

Michigan Court Invalidates 3 Abortion Restrictions

In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, (Ct. Cl., May 13, 2025), the Michigan Court of Claims held that three abortion restrictions currently in Michigan law are unconstitutional under the Reproductive Freedom for All amendment to Michigan's Constitution that was approved in 2022.  The court invalidated the 24-hour mandatory waiting period, the informed consent requirement and the ban on nurse practitioners, midwives and physician assistants performing abortions.  The court said in part:

The Court agrees with intervening defendant that the ostensible goal of the challenged laws is to protect patient health.  The inquiry, however, does not stop there.  In order to survive the constitutional challenge, the challenged laws must achieve the purpose of protecting patient health, by the least restrictive means, and be consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine.  This is where intervening defendant’s argument unravels.   

Against the mountain of expert opinions and citation of accepted clinical standards and medical literature submitted by plaintiffs establishing that the challenged laws do not protect patient health and are contrary to accepted clinical standards..., intervening defendant has produced two witnesses deeply entrenched in the national anti-abortion movement who have frequently and widely testified in favor of complete abortion bans.  These witnesses believe abortion is murder and an offense to God.  Dr. Wubbenhurst’s testimony was based on theologically skewed studies from journals known to support anti-abortion views.  Dr. Wubbenhurst’s testimony also made clear that she interpreted the findings of studies in ways the studies’ authors cautioned against.

However, the court upheld the coercion screening requirements of Michigan law, finding that they do not burden a patient's access to abortion care.

European Court Says Greece Wrongly Refused To Recognize Jewish Community's Title To Property

In Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece, (ECHR, May 6, 2025), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Greece violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights that provides: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions...." At issue was the right of the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki to a 7400 square meter plot of land that the Community thought it had owned since 1934 but which Greece contended was subject to a 1950 law regarding property that had belonged to nationals of World War II enemies. The courts of Greece held that the Community should have brought an action to confirm its title and that the time to do that had long ago expired. The European Court rejected that contention saying that it was not reasonable to expect the Community to realize that it should have filed such an action. The European Court said in part:

... [I]n order for the legislation concerning the transfer of enemy property to have applied to a particular property, there were two fundamental conditions that had had to be met – one being that the property belonged to Italy or an Italian citizen on 22 October 1947 - 1947 – or to Germany or to a German citizen on 24 January 1946.... However, by the Court of Cassation’s own acknowledgement, that condition had not been met in the present case, given that the applicant community had been the owner of the plot since 1934.... No explanation as to why the circumstances of the instant case had warranted a different conclusion was given by the Court of Cassation.... The Court reiterates that where such manifestly conflicting decisions interfere with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and when no reasonable explanation is given for such divergence, such interferences cannot be considered lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because they lead to inconsistent case-law that lacks the required precision to enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions....

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

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. 

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....

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.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jack Landman Goldsmith, Citizen of Heaven and Harvard: A Remembrance of Bill Stuntz, (April 02, 2025).
• Nicholas Reaves, Groff v. DeJoy: Hardison is Dead, Long Live Hardison!,  (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy No. 39 (Fall 2023)).
• Nicholas Reaves, Keeping the Faith: How Recent RLUIPA Decisions are Reshaping Religious Freedom for Incarcerated Individuals, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy No. 33 (Fall 2024)).
• Patrick McKinley Brennan, A Constitution for Equals? Building Better Than Students for Fair Admissions, (April 28, 2025).
• Nelson Tebbe & Lawrence G. Sager, Salvaging Tandon, (May 06, 2025).
• Derek Ross, The Meaning of the Right of Equal Access to Public Service. ((2024), 2 Supreme Court Law Review (3d) 81 - 115).
• Matthew I. Hall, Stand-In Standing, (Florida Law Review __ (2025) (forthcoming)).
• Hanoch Dagan & Avihay Dorfman, The Powers of Discrimination, (UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Nina Varsava, How is Law a Moral Practice?, (Forthcoming in the Journal of Moral Philosophy).
• Antony Kolenc, Veritatis Splendor and State Accommodation of Religious Freedom, (March 01, 2023).
• Navdeep Kaur, "Hate Speech: The Pernicious Language That Divides Society", (April 22, 2025).

From SSRN (Abortion Rights):

• Susan Keller, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: Denying Standing for Anti-Abortion Doctor Groups While Expanding Conscience Protections, (SCOTUS 2024, pp. 39-47).
• Gerald S. Dickinson, Abortion Rights from the Bottom-Up, (2026 Utah L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026)).
• David R. Upham, Prenatal Personhood, State Duties, and Congress’s Abortion Power Under the Fourteenth Amendment, (74 Cath. U. L. Rev. 427 (2025)).

From SSRN (Religious Doctrine):

• Pradeep Kumar Deepak, The Historical Significance of the Tribal Religious Cults of Tripura: An Overview, (Proceedings of North East India History Association,41st Session,2022, Pp. 314-322).
• Shima Baradaran Baughman, Systemic Absolution, (April 21, 2025).
• Telia Mary U. Williams, Sola Scriptura and the Magisterium: Reconciling Two Biblical Analogues of Constitutional Interpretation Through a Judicial Hermeneutic of Storytelling, 17 U. St. Thomas J.L. & Pub. Pol'y. 431 (2023).
• Sanjay Koul, The Concept of Dharma in Sanatana Dharma -Beyond Religion: Cosmic Order, Duty, and Ethics, (May 04, 2025).
• Ayaga Max Liambilah, The Legacy and Memory of Pope Francis: A Humanity-Centered Papacy , (May 03, 2025).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Sayed Gewid, To What Extent Is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) Compatible with Sharia Law Principles?, (September 15, 2023).
• Mohamed Youssef, Islamic Finance and Social Justice: A Policy Framework for Egypt's Economic Transformation, (May 05, 2025).
• Dr. Tauseef Ahmad, Waqf Amendment Act 2025 and its Impact on Muslim Endowments in India, (April 13, 2025).
• Jabeur Fathally,  Muslim Influence and the Lesser-Known Story of Contemporary International Humanitarian Law, (July 07, 2024).
• Md. Riazul Haque, Islamic Banking in Bangladesh: Trends and Insights, (February 11, 2025).
• Mumtaz Shah, Froth on the Floodwater: Hadith of Islamic Civilization Decline, (April 08, 2025).
• Zainuddin, Aan Aswari, Rizki Ramadani & Andika Buana, Polarisation of Islamic Scholars on the Legality of Cryptocurrency Usage as Currency, (Arena Hukum, Volume 17, No. 2, Pp. 448-464 (2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Mohamed Elewa Badar, Legal Pluralism, Cultural Defenses, and the Islamic Legal Tradition (Shari'a): Towards a Truly International Criminal Court, 59 Texas International Law Journal 245-290 (2024).
• Noah R. Feldman, Professor Ronna Grady Schneider Lecture on Constitutional Issues and Education Law. Religion in Public Schools: Constitutional Revolution in Action, 93 University of Cincinnati Law Review 299-314 (2024).
• Amelia J. Uelmen, Religious Lawyering in a Polarized Society, 102 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 99-134 (2024).

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....

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.

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.