California May Proceed With False Advertising Charges Against Abortion Pill Reversal Promoters

In Culture of Life Family Services, Inc. v. Bonta, (SD CA, June 13, 2025), a California federal district court refused to enter a preliminary injunction to prevent California's attorney general from moving ahead with an enforcement action against a Catholic community health clinic that promoted "abortion pill reversal". California claimed that the clinic violated Unfair Commpetition and False Advertising laws. The clinic contended its promotion of abortion pill reversal is speech protected by the First Amendment. The court said in part:

The Court has already found that the challenged laws are not content-based and do not warrant application of a strict scrutiny standard.... But as content-neutral regulations, they are generally subject to heightened scrutiny: the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open....

The court concluded that the clinic was engaged in commercial speech and that, "it would be at the very least potentially misleading to state that supplemental progesterone can “reverse” an abortion." It went on to conclude that a number of other staements that the clinic made regarding abortion pill reversal are, or are potentially, false and misleading. The court went on to say in part:

Although this regulation involves reproductive rights, AG Bonta is not aiming to limit the actual practice of APR. And reproductive choices are not apart from consumer choices: women, in exercising their reproductive rights, are also consumers who must be given the correct information to make knowledgeable decisions for themselves....

In sum, Plaintiff cannot carry its burden of showing likelihood of success. Commercial speech that is inherently false or misleading does not receive First Amendment protection. For potentially misleading speech, the AG has more than carried his burden under Central Hudson.

Cert. Granted In Litigation Over Investigatory Demands

The U.S Supreme Court today granted review in First Choice Women's Resource v. Platkin, (Docket No. 24-781, certiorari granted 6/16/2025). (Order List). The petition for certiorari describes the complex fact situation involved:

New Jersey’s Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors’ names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General’s motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice’s federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice’s constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.

The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided percuriam decision.. [T]he majority concluded First Choice’s claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court.... It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.

The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?

Supreme Court GVR's Battle Over Health Insurance Abortion Coverage

In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Harris, (Sup. Ct., June 16, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of New York's highest court and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. At issue in the case that was gvr'd today was whether the "religious employer" exemption to the state's requirement that health insurance policies cover medically necessary abortion services is too narrow.  The exemption is only available to entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and that primarily employ and serve persons who share their religious tenets. (See prior posting.)

Texas Supreme Court Interprets Religious Services Clause of State Consitution

As previously reported, in a suit by members of the Lipan Apache tribe challenging improvements to a park that destroyed  their ability to use a sacred site for certain religious ceremonies, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Consitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In Perez v. City of San Antonio,(TX Sup. Ct., June 13, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court in an 8-1 opinion said in part:

When the Texas Religious Services Clause applies, its force is absolute and categorical, meaning it forbids governmental prohibitions and limitations on religious services regardless of the government’s interest in that limitation or how tailored the limitation is to that interest, but the scope of the clause’s applicability is not unlimited, and it does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands. We express no opinion on whether the Free Exercise Clause or the Texas RFRA protect the religious liberties Perez asserts, and we leave it to the federal courts to apply our answer in the underlying case.

Justice Sullivan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

With deepest respect for my esteemed friends on the Fifth Circuit and on our Court, I would decline this expansive invitation to issue an advisory opinion on a “new provision” of our Bill of Rights that “[n]o Texas court has construed.”

Court Denies TRO In Challenge To Trump's Executive Orders on Antisemitism

In McClanahan v. Trump, (WD MO, June 9, 2025), a Missouri federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order in a challenge to President Trump's Executive Orders directing federal agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition of antisemitism in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and which direct federal agencies to withhold funding from universities that do not bar criticism of Israel.  According to the court:

Plaintiff brings his action challenging the constitutionality of Executive Orders 13899 and 14188 based on alleged violations of his First Amendment Right of free speech, Violation of his Fifth Amendment Right under the Due Process Clause; and violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment....

Plaintiff identifies five constitutional arguments he believes have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. Those arguments are First Amendment – Viewpoint Discrimination; First Amendment – Chilling Effect; First Amendment – Right to Petition; Establishment Clause; and Fifth Amendment – Due Process and Vagueness. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has alleged not facts indicating a reasonable belief that he will lose his federal benefits and no link betweean y prospective loss of his federal benefits and the challenged executive orders. 

The court concluded that plaintiff's likelihood of success on any of these claims was low.

Supreme Court Review Sought In High School Football Game Prayer Dispute

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S.Supreme Court last week in Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 6/6/2025).In th e case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise claims by a Christian school that was refused the use of a stadium's public address system for a pre-game prayer at the FHSAA state championship football game in which it was playing. (See prior posting).

DOJ Sues California Coffee House for Discriminating Against Jewish Customers

On Monday, the Justice Department filed suit in a California federal district court against an Oakland, California coffee house alleging violations of Title II, the Public Accommodation provisions, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The suit alleges that the coffee house refuses to serve Jewish patrons.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Harara, (ND CA, filed 6/9/2025), alleges in part:

Among the drinks the coffee house sells are "Iced In Tea Fada," an apparent reference to intifada and "Sweet Sinwar." The coffee house announced these new drinks on Instagram on the one-year anniversary of the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel....

The Justice Department's press release announcing the filing of the suit summarizes the discrimination charges in the complaint, saying in part:

The lawsuit ... alleges that defendants discriminated against Jewish customers through policies and practices that denied them the full and equal enjoyment of the Jerusalem Coffee House’s services, accommodations, and privileges. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that on two separate occasions, Harara ordered Jewish customers — identified because they were wearing baseball caps with Stars of David on them — to leave the coffee house. During one incident, an employee told a Jewish customer who was trying to make a purchase, “You’re the guy with the hat. You’re the Jew. You’re the Zionist.  We don’t want you in our coffee shop. Get out.” During another incident, Harara accused another Jewish customer who was with his five-year-old son of wearing a “Jewish star,” being a “Zionist,” and supporting “genocide.” Harara repeatedly demanded that the customer and his son leave and falsely accused them of “trespassing” to the Oakland police....

Iowa Enacts Law Allowing Released-Time Religious Instruction in Schools

On June 6, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed a bill that gives students in public and accredited nonpublic schools the right to attend up to five hours per week of off-site released time religious instruction offered by private organizations. HF 870 (full text) provides that the students must agree to make up any school work that they do not complete while attending the religious classes. The new law also provides:

A child’s parent, guardian, or legal or actual custodian ... who alleges that a school district has violated this section may bring a civil action for injunctive relief and actual damages against the school district....

ADF issued a press release commenting on the new law.

NYC Mayor Adams Signs Executive Order on Antisemitism

On June 8, New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed Executive Order No. 52, Defining Antisemitism (full text), which instructs New York City Agencies to "consider as appropriate, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism ... as well as the 11 contemporary examples." The Forward, reporting on Mayor Adams' action, said in part:

Mayor Eric Adams is getting the jump on his rivals in the November mayoral race by adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism, a key issue in the crowded campaign....

Adams has made combating antisemitism central to his campaign. Elected as a Democrat in 2021, he has since left the party and is running for reelection on an independent line dubbed “End Antisemitism.”...

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Controller Scott Stringer and investor Whitney Tilson pledged to adopt the IHRA definition if elected. Others, including Brad Lander, who is Jewish, have argued that the definition would suppress criticism of Israeli policy.

Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and a vocal critic of Israel who identifies as anti-Zionist, has spoken out against the use of measures which he says silence Palestinian voices and their allies. Mamdani is running second behind front-runner Cuomo.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Xiao Wang, Sacred Thoughts, Secular Harms, (125 Colum. L. Rev. F. 133 (2025)).
• Amy J. Sepinwall, Uncompelling: The Specious Case Against Compelled Speech, (June 01, 2025).
• Michael Conklin, God on Trial: Applying Modern Legal Standards to Assess Arguments for and Against the Existence of God, (June 01, 2025).
• Isaac Barnes May, Sabbath Accommodations as a Civil Right: Jewish History, Title VII, and the Path to Groff v. DeJoy, (FIU Law Review, volume 19, issue 3, 2025).
• Aviva Orenstein, The Religion of Evidence, (25 J.L. Soc'y 181 (2025)).
• Rona Kaufman Kitchen, Never Again: Zionism and the Jewess, (FIU Law Review, volume 19, issue 3, 2025).
• Michael Foran, Sex, Gender Recognition, and Equality Law: For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, (June 04, 2025).
• Kenneth Grad, Should Hate Speech be Criminalized? Lessons from the Canadian Experience in R v. Zundel and R v. Keegstra, (FIU Law Review, volume 19, issue 3, 2025).
• David Eliot Bernstein & David L. Bernstein, Supporting Free Speech and Countering Antisemitism on American College Campuses, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Per Curiam, Forthcoming).
• Mohammad Fadel, Doctrinal Change in Mālikī Law: the Case of Judicial Divorce On Account of Harm (ḍarar), (Forthcoming, Journal of Comparative Legal History).
• Nathan Cortez & Joanna L. Grossman, Who Regulates Abortion Now?, (110 Iowa L. Rev. 1579 (2025)).
• Erin Morrow Hawley, A Mandate to Discriminate? Why the Establishment Clause Does Not Justify the Exclusion of Religious Charter Schools, (May 01, 2025).
• S. Ernie Walton & Mark David Hall, Pierce at 100, (May 30, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Ian Huyett, What Does "Sectarian" Mean?: The Evolution of an Epithet, 54 Cumberland Law Review 369-390 (2024).
• Ismael Musah Montana, Ahmad Bey's 1846 Istifta: Its Dual Legislative Framework and Religio–Political Context, 42 Law & History Review 31-48 (2024).

Trump Issues Message to Christians Celebrating Pentecost

The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Pentecost, 2025 (Full text). The Message reads in part:

Today, I join in prayer with Christians joyfully celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost—one of the most sacred events of the Christian faith. We commemorate the fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s earthly mission and the birth of His holy and living Church....

As we celebrate this glorious feast day, we also honor all Christians who, like the Apostles, have willingly endured persecution because of their faith.  My Administration will always defend the right of every American to worship God freely and without fear.  For this reason, I created the White House Faith Office and proudly instituted the White House Religious Liberty Commission to safeguard and promote America’s founding principle of religious freedom.  Under my leadership, we are protecting God in the public square and emboldening every believer to live their faith freely, openly, and without threat of persecution....

USCCB Releases 2024 Report on Sexual Abuse by Clergy

On June 6, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced the release of their 2024 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (full text of Report). The Preface to the 85-page Report says in part:

Despite our progress, the evil of abuse continues to exist. It is a relentless adversary that demands our ongoing vigilance and initiative-taking measures.... There is a significant cultural shift taking place within the Church. This shift is characterized by an increased emphasis on transparency, accountability, and victim-survivor support....

During the current audit period, dioceses and eparchies provided outreach and support services to 146 victim-survivors and their families who reported during this audit period. Continued support was provided to 1,434 victim-survivors and their families who reported abuse in prior audit periods. The report notes the ongoing work of the Church in continuing the call to ensure the safety of children, the young, and vulnerable adults. In 2024, the Church conducted 2,237,906 background checks on clergy, employees, and volunteers. In addition, in 2024, over 2.2 million adults and over 2.8 million children and youth were trained in how to identify the warning signs of abuse and how to report those signs.

According to the Report's lengthy statistical sections:

Between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, 902 allegations were reported by 855 victims/survivors of child sexual abuse by clergy throughout 195 Catholic dioceses and eparchies that reported information....

...[T]he responding dioceses and eparchies reported that between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, they deemed 122 allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by a diocesan or eparchial priest or deacon to be credible. These allegations were made by 121 individuals against 97 priests or deacons. Of the 122 allegations deemed credible during this reporting period ..., eight allegations involved children under the age of 18 since 2005. All of the other allegations were made by adults who are alleging abuse when they were minors....

Dioceses and eparchies that responded to the survey and reported costs related to allegations, paid out $242,799,401 between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024. Like in previous years’ surveys, this includes payments for allegations reported in previous years....

... [T]he total costs for year 2024 ($242,799,401) is 7 percent lower than that reported for year 2023.... That decrease is mostly due to the change in the amount paid in settlements for the year 2024, which decreased by 15 percent.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies to Title VII Claim of Business Prof at Christian University

In Schmidt v. University of Northwestern- St. Paul, (D MN, June 5, 2025), a Minnesota federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars the court from deciding plaintiff's Title VII claim but sought further briefing on whether it also bars plaintiff's negligent supervision claim. At issue was the hostile environment experienced by plaintiff who had been hired as an Assistant Professor of Business and Program Manager at a Christian university. Plaintiff claims she was subjected to racial discrimination, intimidation and retaliation, and when she reported it, the University took no action. The court said in part:

... Schmidt’s primary argument is that the University is not a religious institution because it did not exercise ecclesiastical decision-making authority over Schmidt.  Schmidt argues that an entity should not qualify as a religious institution for the ministerial exception unless it employs a form of ecclesiastical governance within its structure—in other words, unless an affiliated church is vested with authority to make decisions within the entity. 

The Court finds that the University is a religious institution for the ministerial exception....

Everything considered, and though a close call, the Court finds that Schmidt was a minister for the ministerial exception.  Though Schmidt did not have “minister” in her title, and her position did not require significant formal religious training, the record indicates that the University entrusted her directly “with the responsibility of educating [her] students in the faith” and “expected [her] to guide [her] students, by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith.”...

The above caselaw emphasizes the importance of keeping courts out of religious institution’s internal governance decisions, even if the claims arise under state law.  But it is unclear at this juncture whether the negligent supervision claim here would implicate ecclesiastical matters, and thus whether the ministerial exception applies to Schmidt’s negligent supervision claim....

EEOC Sues Over Denial of Dress Code Religious Accommodation for Apostolic Christian Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC, alleging that it failed to grant a religious accommodation to an Apostolic Christian employee.  The employee wanted to wear a skirt over her work pants. According to the EEOC:

The company denied the accommodation because of its policy against loose-fitting clothing. The employee only wore close-fitting skirts over her work pants and was in compliance with company policy. Ultimately, the company forced the employee to choose between wearing a skirt or losing her job. The employee chose to continue wearing a skirt, which led to her termination.

Supreme Court: Wisconsin's Religious Nonprofit Exemption from Unemployment Comp. Tax Must Include Catholic Charities

In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, unanimously held that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities Bureau does not qualify for the exemption from unemployment compensation tax that is granted by state statute to nonprofits "operated primarily for religious purposes". The Wisconsin Supreme Court had held that Catholic Charities' activities were no different than those offered by a secular organization; they did not involve worship services, religious outreach, ceremony, or religious education. In reversing the Wisconsin supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court said in part:

A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination....

This case involves that paradigmatic form of denominational discrimination....

Put simply, petitioners could qualify for the exemption while providing their current charitable services if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics. Petitioners’ Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria. Catholic teaching, petitioners say, forbids “‘misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.’” ... It also requires provision of charitable services “without making distinctions ‘by race, sex, or religion.’” ...  Many religions apparently impose similar rules.... Others seemingly have adopted a contrary approach....

Wisconsin’s exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

As a matter of church law, Catholic Charities and its sub-entities are an arm of the Diocese of Superior, and thus, for religious purposes, are not distinct organizations.  But, when determining whether Catholic Charities was a religious organization entitled to a tax exemption, the Wisconsin Supreme Court nevertheless relied on Catholic Charities’ separate corporate charter to treat it as an entity entirely distinct and separate from the Diocese. That holding contravened the church autonomy doctrine....

Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) allows a State to exempt from its unemployment-coverage mandate any “organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.”... The State treats church affiliated charities that proselytize and serve co-religionists exclusively differently from those that do not.... Because I agree that this distinction violates the neutrality principle of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses, I join the Court’s opinion in full.

... [B]oth the text and legislative history of FUTA’s religious-purposes exemption confirm that Congress used the phrase “operated primarily for religious purposes” to refer to the organization’s function, not its inspiration....

Congress sought to extend to most nonprofit workers the stability that unemployment insurance offers, while exempting a narrow category of church-affiliated entities most likely to cause significant entanglement problems for the unemployment system—precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life. It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their §3309(b)(1)(B)-based religious-purposes exemptions with Congress’s true focus.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision. 

Texas Supreme Court: AG May Begin Proceedings to Close Down Catholic Refugee Agency for Harboring Illegal Migrants

In Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., (TX Sup. Ct., May 30, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court held that a state trial court was in error in refusing to allow the state Attorney General to file a quo warranto action as a first step in his attempt to revoke the corporate charter of a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court observed:

Bound up in the dispute are a host of serious questions: What kind of conduct constitutes unlawfully harboring illegal aliens?  Has Annunciation House engaged in such conduct?  Under what conditions may the attorney general demand access to Annunciation House’s records?  Can harboring illegal aliens provide a valid basis for the attorney general to file a quo warranto action?  Does Texas law that protects religious liberty forbid the attorney general from proceeding against Annunciation House under these circumstances?  And more still.

Ordinarily, before this Court addresses such significant issues, the parties would have developed a full record.... This case, however, comes to the Court as a direct appeal because, very early in the litigation, the trial court held that several Texas statutes are unconstitutional.  We accordingly must address this dispute far earlier than we typically would. 

Among other defenses, Annunciation House invoked the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rejecting that defense, the Supreme Court said in part:

... [T]he relevant government action for purposes of applying RFRA here is not the charter revocation that may or may not arrive, but only the filing of the quo warranto information.  Engaging in litigation is generally not itself the sort of burden that RFRA forecloses— RFRA purposefully provides a tool to be deployed within litigation.  In this case, it has been invoked as an affirmative defense focusing not on the mere existence of the litigation but on a potential end result of that litigation.  Undoubtedly, RFRA can be powerful however it is deployed, and its potency often may be felt quite early.  But it is not a tool to convert a proceeding focused on whether litigation may even commence into one that reaches and resolves ultimate issues.  Were we to say more about RFRA at this stage, we would have to reach issues that go well beyond the narrow question of the attorney general’s authority to file a quo warranto counterclaim—and to do so without the benefit of a sufficiently developed record or even the refining that ordinarily comes through the usual litigation and appellate process.

Here are links to the pleadings and numerous amicus briefs filed in the case. Here is a link to video of oral arguments in the case. El Paso Times reports on the decision.

Washington Bishops Sue Challenging Expanded Child Abuse Reporting Law

Last week, the Catholic bishops in Washington state filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law. The amendment requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred, even when a priest learns of the abuse or neglect in a confessional. The complaint (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 5/29/2025) alleges in part:

1. Consistent with the Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to eradicate the societal scourge of child abuse, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Yakima and Spokane have each adopted and implemented within their respective dioceses policies that go further in the protection of children than the current requirements of Washington law on reporting child abuse and neglect....

3. Yet despite these self-imposed reporting policies—policies that go beyond what Washington law requires—Washington is targeting the Roman Catholic Church in a brazen act of religious discrimination.  Without any basis in law or fact, Washington now puts Roman Catholic priests to an impossible choice: violate 2,000 years of Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication or refuse to comply with Washington law and be subject to imprisonment, fine, and civil liability....  Washington has done so at the same time that it expanded exemptions from mandatory reporting requirements for certain non-clergy.  The object of this law is clear: subject Roman Catholic clergy to dictates of the state. 

4. Putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation, interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges, is a patent violation of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution.

The Pillar reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Over Religious Exemptions from Washington Antidiscrimination Law

On June 3, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown. In the case, a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to a religious organization that operates a homeless shelter and thrift stores. The injunction bars the state's attorney general from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) against plaintiff for limiting all its hiring to coreligionists who adhere to the organization's religious tenets and behavior requirements. In 2021 the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the exemption in the WLAD for non-profit religious organizations to apply only to hiring for ministerial positions. (See prior posting.) Washington State Standard reports on the oral arguments.

State Court Order to Cooperate in Religious Divorce Cannot Be Challenged in Federal Trial Court Proceeding

In Azimi v. Worrell, (WD VA, June 3, 2025), plaintiff appearing pro se, challenged on Free Exercise and Establishment Clause grounds an order by a Virginia state trial court judge in plaintiff's divorce proceeding. The state court had ordered that plaintiff "cooperate with any and all actions and procedures necessary to accomplish a religious divorce pursuant to the Islamic Religion with all due speed and dispatch." A Virginia federal district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that bars federal courts from hearing cases that amount to appellate review of a state court judgment when plaintiff instead should have appealed through the state court system.

Jury Must Decide Reason for Evangelists' Exclusion from Pride Event

In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, June 3, 2025), in an opinion covering three consolidated cases, a Tennessee federal district court held that because disputed questions of fact remain, the cases must go to trial rather than the court issuing summary judgment for either side.  At issue are claims by five Christian evangelists that they were wrongly removed, asked to leave or denied entrance to the 2023 Franklin Pride Festival in violation of their 1st Amendment free speech rights. Those who entered the Festival particularly spoke with representatives of churches that supported LGBTQ+ rights. The court concluded that plaintiffs were engaged in protected speech that did not constitute "fighting words" and that they were not attempting to make their views part of the Festival's message. The court also concluded that the city park remained a quintessential public forum even though the city had issued it a permit to use the park for the Pride Festival. The court then concluded:

... [T]here is a genuine dispute of fact on the rationale for the City and Officer Spry restricting Plaintiffs’ speech that precludes a finding of summary judgment in any party’s favor.... [A]lthough there is evidence in the record suggesting that the City and Officer Spry restricted Plaintiffs’ speech on account of the Franklin Pride staffers’ disagreement with their religious messages, Defendants present conflicting evidence that they restricted Plaintiffs’ speech based on Franklin Pride’s request that they do so to maintain their use of their permit, prevent Plaintiffs’ disruptive behavior, and enforce Franklin Pride’s ban on distributing outside materials. Any one of these content-neutral reasons for curbing Plaintiffs’ speech ... would satisfy the applicable standard.... Given this critical material dispute of fact in the record, the Court finds that the question of what motivated Plaintiffs’ exclusion from the Park must be decided by a jury.  Accordingly, both Plaintiffs’ and the City’s motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims must be denied on this ground.