Religion Clause

Monday, August 04, 2025

Crisis Pregnancy Center Gets Injunction Against Abortion Reversal Ban

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Aug. 1, 2025), the Colorado federal district court that had previously granted a preliminary injunction in the case now granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement against plaintiffs of Colorado's law that defines providing medication abortion reversal as unprofessional conduct by doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Bella Health operates two faith-based Catholic crisis pregnancy centers. The court said in part:

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are sincerely held or that they are substantially burdened by application of Section Three and the Boards’ rules.... And it is not within the province of this Court to second-guess the truth of Bella Health’s religious callings or suggest alternative means of satisfying them.... The only question, therefore, is whether this section’s prohibition against medication abortion reversal is generally applicable to other non-religious uses of progesterone. It is not....

Overall, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Plaintiffs’ use of progesterone is not being regulated neutrally—it is being singled out....

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Friday, August 01, 2025

Fact Questions Remain as to Whether Sex Abuser's Confession Was Privileged

In Doe v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (AZ App., July 29, 2025), an Arizona state appellate court, reversing a trial court's dismissal of a case, held that issues of fact remain in order to decide whether two bishops in the Church had a duty to report to authorities Paul Adams' confession that he had sexually abused his minor daughter. While clergy are mandatory reporters, Arizona law excludes clergy reporting of a communication or confession if the member of the clergy determines that it is "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion" to do so. The court held that a fact finder could conclude that Paul waived the clergy-penitent privilege when he repeated his confession in the presence of his wife who was invited by the bishop to hear it, or when Paul repeated it at a church council meeting convened to excommunicate him. The court also held that it was unclear whether under church doctrine it was "reasonable and necessary" to withhold the information. The court said in part:

[Paul's wife] Leizza did not meet the bishop with her husband for confession but met with Paul and [Bishop] Herrod after Paul had already confessed to Herrod. Paul then confessed directly to Leizza in Herrod’s presence.... Herrod had invited Leizza “so [she] would know what Paul had done and so she could protect her children.” A reasonable fact finder could conclude that in such circumstances, Herrod did not receive Paul’s confession to Leizza; he merely observed it. As noted, § 13-3620(A)(2) does not exempt a clergy member’s personal observations....

... [T]he Does argued the Church Defendants’ failure to report Paul’s confession was not “reasonable and necessary” according to Church doctrine because the Church’s General Handbook nullifies the confidentiality of confessions in instances where “serious injury,” such as child sex abuse, occurs....

This ... raises the question of whether the Church Defendants violated Church doctrine by not reporting Paul to the authorities.

Axios reports on the decision.

Columbia and UCLA Settle Antisemitism Charges

Last week (July 23), Columbia University announced that it had reached a settlement with the federal government to restore its research funding and federal grants that had been frozen. The University entered a Resolution Agreement (full text) with the Justice Department, Department of Education and HHS. It also entered a separate EEOC Agreement settling Title VII discrimination claims charging antisemitism suffered by Columbia employees. According to the EEOC's press release:

Columbia University will pay $21 million for a class settlement fund to resolve alleged civil rights violations against Columbia employees occurring on its campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks.... This settlement resolves EEOC charges, including a Commissioner’s Charge brought ... on behalf of a class of all Jewish employees, alleging that since at least Oct. 7, 2023, Columbia engaged in a pattern or practice of harassment based on national origin, religion, and/or race, in violation of Title VII....

The full text of the EEOC Agreement does not appear to have been publicly released even though it is incorporated by reference in the Resolution Agreement.

The broader Resolution Agreement provides in part that Columbia will appoint new faculty members with joint appointments in the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and economics, political science or public affairs. It also calls for the appointment of a new administrator who will act as a liaison on antisemitism issues.

A statement by Columbia's president says in part:

The agreement builds on Columbia’s broader commitment to combating antisemitism, reflected most recently in a set of additional institutional actions announced on July 15, 2025, including the incorporation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism into the work of the University’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), the appointment of Title VI and Title VII coordinators in OIE, and the expansion of university-wide education and training initiatives.

On July 29, the University of California announced that it had reached a settlement in Frankel v. Regents of the University of California. In the case, a California federal district court previously issued a preliminary injunction sought by Jewish students at UCLA who were blocked from accessing portions of the campus by pro-Palestinian encampments protesting Israel's retaliation in Gaza. (See prior posting.) The Settlement Agreement (full text) (fact sheet) provides for a permanent injunction barring defendants from allowing the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty or staff from programs, activities or campus areas. It also provides for payment of $320,000 to UCLA's Initiative to Combat Antisemitism, $50,000 to each of the four student plaintiffs, $2,300,000 in contributions to eight Jewish non-profit organizations, and $3,600,000 for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Passport Denial Violated RFRA

In Jordan v. Rubio, (D DC, July 29, 2025), a D.C. federal district court held that the State Department violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by denying a passport to plaintiff because she refused for religious reasons to furnish a birth certificate or a letter confirming that she lacks one. The court said in part:

All her life, Abigail Carmichael Jordan has avoided the perceived stain of a Social Security Number (“SSN”).... Her devout Christian faith teaches her “that her God-given identity is sacred, and that the allegiance she owes to her government as a citizen of the United States must be subordinate to her allegiance to her Creator.”... She thus rejects the possibility of being “enumerated” or “marked” by the government, such as by obtaining an SSN, as to do so “would be treating the Government as if it were God.” ... (citing Revelation 13:16–18).... Indeed, her parents “did everything in their power to ensure that [she] did not receive a birth certificate when she was born ... for fear that applying for a birth certificate would result in the issuance of an SSN....

In short: The Department withheld a coveted public benefit unless Jordan abandoned the teachings of her faith. Such carrot-dangling is the classic example of a substantial burden on religious exercise....

It very well may be that Jordan never faced a substantial risk of receiving an unwanted SSN—at birth or during adulthood. But for Jordan’s RFRA claim, the actual risk is irrelevant. What matters is whether Jordan sincerely believes that applying for a Letter of No Record conflicted with her faith because it exposed her to the unacceptable possibility that she would be stained with an SSN. And here, there is no dispute that Jordan honestly believes this.... So the Court must credit her fears—it may not tell Jordan that she is mistaken about the dictates of her own faith.

North Carolina Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of Bill on Transgender Issues, Pornography and Religious School Opt-Outs

On Tuesday, the North Carolina legislature overrode the governor's veto of House Bill 805 (full text). The new law deals with a lengthy list of issues, including: (1) requiring recognition only of biological sex in state rules and policies; (2) requiring consent and age verification for appearance in, and procedures for removal of, online pornographic images; (3) prohibiting use of state funds for gender transition procedures; (4) extending statute of limitations for malpractice, and removing damage cap, in gender transition procedures on non-minors; (5) allowing parents to bar their children from checking out specific books from school libraries. The new law also provides:

Local boards of education shall adopt policies to allow a student or the student's parent or guardian to request that the student be excused from specific classroom discussions, activities, or assigned readings that the student, parent, or guardian believes would (i) impose a substantial burden on the student's religious beliefs or (ii) invade the student's privacy by calling attention to the student's religion.

Earlier this month, Governor Josh Stein had vetoed the bill based on his opposition to the provisions on transgender issues. His Veto Message (full text) reads in part:

The initial version of House Bill 805 protected people from being exploited on pornographic websites against their will. I strongly support that policy.... Instead of preventing sexual exploitation, the General Assembly chooses to engage in divisive, job-killing culture wars. North Carolina has been down this road before, and it is a dead end. My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this legislation does. I stand ready to work with the legislature when it gets serious about protecting people, instead of mean-spirited attempts to further divide us by marginalizing vulnerable North Carolinians.

Catholic Vote reports on these developments.

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Missouri Sues Planned Parenthood for False Advertising

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced last week that the state of Missouri has filed suit against the national Planned Parenthood Association under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the state's consumer protection law. The complaint (full text) in State of Missouri ex rel Bailey v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 7/23/2025), alleges that representations on Planned Parenthood's website about the safety of mifepristone, the pill used for chemical abortions, is "brazenly false". The complaint says in part:

25. Planned Parenthood’s statements are outright false, and at the very least unlawfully misleading, for a variety of reasons: i. The rate of emergency room visits is much higher for the abortion pill than the drugs Planned Parenthood cites as comparators; ii. Planned Parenthood is comparing a single dose of the abortion pill to overdoses (i.e. misuse) of other drugs, such as Tylenol; and iii. The abortion pill and other drugs have different uses, are administered differently, and are used by individuals who have different underlying comorbidities or risk factors.

The complaint seeks civil penalties of $1.8 million and restitution of $1000 for each woman in the state to whom Planned Parenthood has furnished mifepristone during the past five years. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Muslim Group Sues Over Denial of Zoning Permit for Mosque

Suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the denial of a special use permit to a Muslim religious organization that wished to build a mosque on land that it owns. The complaint (full text) in Bartlett Muslim Society v. City of Bartlett, Tennessee, (W TN, filed 7/25/2025),

3. After the Plaintiff complied with these extensive, expensive procedural requirements—and despite City staff’s recommendation of approval—the City denied the Plaintiff’s Special Use Permit application based on arbitrary, predetermined reasons and religious animus.

4. The City has approved similarly situated churches ... for a Special Use Permit under comparable or less favorable circumstances.

5. In denying the Plaintiff’s Special Use Permit application, the City has imposed a substantial burden on the Plaintiff’s religious exercise, treated it unequally, and discriminated against it based on religion....

7. Accordingly, the Plaintiff files this civil-rights action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-407.

Tennessee ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Cutoff of Funding to All Planned Parenthood Clinics Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, July 28, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court in a 58-page opinion extended a preliminary injunction it had issued a week earlier barring Congress' defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics that do not offer abortions to preliminarily enjoin Congress's cutoff of funds for non-abortion services even to Planned Parenthood clinics that do offer abortions. the court said in part:

To the extent that Section 71113 may be applied to Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the law impermissibly conditions the receipt of Medicaid reimbursements on these Members foregoing their right to associate with Planned Parenthood Federation and other Members...

... Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do.... [R]estricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion. ...

... [I]n light of the disconnect between the law and its purported ends on the one hand, and the severe burdens it imposes on Planned Parenthood Federation and its Members on the other, Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Congress singled them out with punitive intent. The legislative context bolsters that conclusion. Plaintiffs have thus demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that Section 71113 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. ...

... Where Defendants have not shown the law is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim.

Moreover, Plaintiffs are likely to show that there is no rational relationship between the class burdened by Section 71113—comprised of 47 Planned Parenthood Members and two additional entities—and the goal of reducing abortion. As explained above, Section 71113 affects only a small number of abortion providers and leaves every other conceivable category unaffected.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Office of Personnel Management Says Federal Employee Religious Speech In Workplace Is Protected

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a Memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. The cover letter transmitting the Memo says in part:

The memo provides clear guidance to ensure federal employees may express their religious beliefs through prayer, personal items, group gatherings, and conversations without fear of discrimination or retaliation....

The memo builds on OPMʼs July 16 guidance on reasonable accommodations for religious purposes....

The Memo itself defines kind of religious speech that should be protected in the federal workplace, saying in part:

... Employees should be permitted to display and use items used for religious purposes or icons of a religiously significant nature ... on their desks, on their person, and in their assigned workspaces.

... Agencies should allow ... employees to engage in individual or communal religious expressions in both formal and informal settings alone or with fellow employees, so long as such expressions do not occur during on-duty time...

... Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature. Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities. The constitutional rights of supervisors ...should not be distinguished from non-supervisory employees.... However, unwillingness to engage in such conversations may not be the basis of workplace discipline.

... [W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.....

Among the specific examples of protected employee speech set out in an Appendix to the Memo are:

An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith.
On a bulletin board meant for personal announcements, a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church....
A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer.
A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery.....

The Hill reports on the Memo. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Monday, July 28, 2025

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Cert. Petition Seeks Overturning of Obergefell Decision

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the Supreme Court last week in Davis v. Ermold, (Sup. Ct., cert filed 7/24/2025). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $100,000 damage award to a same-sex couple who were refused a marriage license by Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The petition for review asks the Court to decide whether she, as a public official, has a First Amendment free exercise defense to a claim for damages for emotional distress stemming from her refusal. More broadly, it asks the Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges which gave constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Friday, July 25, 2025

RFRA and Free Exercise Clause Apply to Corporate Entities Exercising Religion

In United States v. Safehouse, (3d Cir., July 24, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause apply to corporate entities, and to non-religious entities exercising religion. The United States contended that defendant's offering of supervised illegal drug use violates federal law. Defendant argued that its overdose prevention services reflect its Board members' religious belief in the value of human life. The court said in part:

RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine are clear that those statutory and constitutional protections extend to non-natural persons, including so-called non-religious entities. In so holding, we express no view about whether threatened prosecution of Safehouse substantially burdens its exercise of religion. We likewise decline Safehouse’s invitation to determine in the first instance whether it has plausibly stated RFRA and Free Exercise claims. We only address the proper object of RFRA’s and the First Amendment’s protections: that object includes a non-natural entity allegedly exercising religion, even if the entity itself is not religious.

Adoptive Parent Rule on Transgender Children Violates Plaintiff's Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights

In Bates v. Pakseresht, (9th Cir., July 24, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Oregon's requirement that to be certified as an adoptive parent, a person must agree to respect and support an adopted child's gender identity and gender expression and use the child's preferred pronouns. Plaintiff contended that it violated her Seventh Day Adventist religious beliefs to use a child's preferred pronouns or take the child for gender transition medical appointments. In a 2-1 decision, the court agreed that the requirement violated plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights. The majority, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

We deal here with two vital such rights: the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. These rights work together, with “the Free Exercise Clause protect[ing] religious exercises, whether communicative or not,” and “the Free Speech Clause provid[ing] overlapping protection for expressive religious activities.”... Fundamental as basic freedoms, these rights spring from a common constitutional principle: that the government may not insist upon our adherence to state favored orthodoxies, whether of a religious or political variety....

We hold that Oregon’s application of § 413-200-0308(2)(k) to Bates, in denying her certification to be an adoptive parent, triggers strict scrutiny for both her free speech and free exercise claims. In Part A below, we explain why strict scrutiny applies to Bates’s free speech claim. In Part B, we do the same for Bates’s Free Exercise Clause claim. And in Part C, we explain why applying Oregon’s policy to Bates does not survive strict scrutiny. Bates has therefore shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that denying her certification under § 413-200-0308(2)(k) violates the First Amendment.

Judge Clifton dissented, saying in part in a 40-page opinion:

The only limitation imposed by the state in declining to approve her application to foster a child concerns her treatment of the child, not what she personally believes, how she speaks to the world, or how she practices her faith. Oregon should be permitted to put the best interests of the child for which it is responsible paramount in making the decision to place one of its children in the custody of a foster applicant. Parents would not be expected to entrust their children to caregivers who volunteer that they will not respect the child’s self-determined gender identity, if that is something the parents have decided is important. Oregon should not be powerless to protect children for whom it has parental responsibility and for whom it has decided respect should be given.

Thursday, July 24, 2025

Cutoff of Medicaid Funds to Planned Parenthood Clinics That Do Not Offer Abortions Is Unconstitutional

In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, July 21, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood members that do not offer abortion services, but whose Medicaid funding was cut off by recent Congressional legislation. The court concluded that this cutoff likely violated the expressive association and equal protection rights of these Planned Parenthood clinics. The court said in part:

To the extent that Section 71113 may be applied to Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the law impermissibly conditions the receipt of Medicaid funding on these Members foregoing their right to associate with Planned Parenthood Federation and other Members. Members who do not provide abortions cannot escape the law’s burden except by disassociating from Members that do. And because Section 71113 may be applied to Members who are affiliates of each other via the structure, governance, and membership requirements of Planned Parenthood Federation, disassociating with other Members requires disassociating from Planned Parenthood Federation itself.

While Defendants contend that Section 71113 does not regulate speech, the record demonstrates that Members’ affiliation via their membership in Planned Parenthood Federation is expressive. Planned Parenthood Federation advocates before Congress, provides education and information about sexual and reproductive health, and through Planned Parenthood Action Fund, communicates with the public regarding lawmakers’ voting records, supports campaigns for ballot initiatives, and supports candidates for federal, state, and local officials who will support reproductive freedom in furtherance of its mission....

Congress may set conditions “that define the limits” of a spending program by “specify[ing] the activities Congress wants to subsidize,” but Congress may not set “conditions that seek to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself.”...

... Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do.... Therefore, restricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion....

... Section 71113 ... declines Medicaid funding on the basis of affiliation, and thus draws a classification that burdens a fundamental First Amendment right. Where Defendants have not shown the law is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim....

Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts posted an update explaining the court's holding. Fox News reports on the decision.

Russian Supreme Court Bans Satanist Organization

As reported by Mediazona:

Russian Supreme Court Judge Oleg Nefedov has granted a request from the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice to designate the “international Satanist movement” as “extremist”. In November 2023, the same judge made a similar ruling against the non-existent “international LGBT movement”.

On the morning of July 23, Russia’s Supreme Court designated Satanism as “extremist” and banned its activities with immediate effect. The case was heard behind closed doors, with neither the public nor journalists present....

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, first mentioned the “International Satanist movement” in January 2025, when he called for a legislative ban on Satanism in Russia....

In early July, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice filed a suit with the Supreme Court to have the “international Satanist movement” declared extremist.

According to Politico:

Despite the official-sounding name, the “International Movement of Satanists” does not appear to exist, at least not under that moniker.

Russia's Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement (full text) yesterday:

Today, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation satisfied the claim of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Igor Krasnov to recognize the International Movement of Satanists as extremist and ban its activities in Russia.

As established, the movement is based on extremist ideology, hatred and enmity towards traditional religious confessions.

Its participants publicly call for extremism, as well as for the destruction, damage and desecration of Orthodox churches, chapels, worship crosses, etc.

The followers of the movement adhere to the general principles of Satanism, use the same symbols and attributes, and perform occult rites. The conceptual basis is made up of publications recognized as extremist materials.

The movement is closely associated with manifestations of radical nationalism and neo-Nazism.

Along with ritual murders, participants also commit other crimes, including against minors.

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Challenge To California's Investigation of Caste Discrimination Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, July 18, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed on various procedural grounds a suit contending that the California Civil Rights Department is violating the constitutional rights of Hindu Americans by "conflat[ing] a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion" in an investigation of Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual plaintiffs in the case include employees of Cisco.

The court first concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine requires it to dismiss the case because it would pose "a serious risk of direct interference with state court proceedings...." The court went on to find a lack of standing to pursue plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

In the present case, the Individual Plaintiffs do not allege that they were direct targets of the Department's enforcement action but instead allege that they learned of it through, among other things, conversation or reading about the State Action.... Plaintiffs contend in conclusory fashion that the Department's conduct has chilled their participation in "the political community," but do not identify what political community they refer to in this regard.... Instead, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Department's conduct has led to conversations at discrete, unidentified social events.... In this way, plaintiffs' allegations merely state an abstract stigmatic injury, rather than an injury caused by direct contact with the Department's actions and are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert their claim under the Establishment Clause....

The court also found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, saying in part:

Plaintiffs cannot persuasively maintain that there "exists some conflict between one of [their] religious convictions and a challenged governmental action[]" precisely because they contend that caste discrimination is not one of their religious convictions....

Because plaintiffs have not alleged that they plan to engage in religious conduct which could arguably be the target of an enforcement action brought by the Department, the court concludes that they have not shown standing to bring a pre-enforcement action pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause....

The SAC now includes allegations from the Individual Plaintiffs regarding how they feel stigmatized, however, it includes no allegations that the Department has pursued any discriminatory action against the Individual Plaintiffs....

The court similarly found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. It also concluded that the Hindu American Foundation lacks organizational or associational standing, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory appears to be that the Foundation was forced to respond to the Department’s actions insofar as it spent any resources responding to those actions rather than on other initiatives. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such a theory of standing.

The Mooknayak reports on the decision.

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Cert. Filed In Challenge to Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Kane v. City of New York. (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 7/21/2025). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of petitioners' applications for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff. (See prior posting.) The certiorari petition seeking Supreme Court review of the decision describes the question presented in part as follows:

After the pandemic, Respondents issued a vaccine mandate for public-education employees. It exempted “Christian Scientists” and others affiliated with “recognized” religions that “publicly” opposed vaccination. But it refused accommodation for anyone with “personal” religious beliefs or anyone whose faith leader—like Pope Francis— had publicly endorsed the vaccine.

... In sum, the Second Circuit approved a discretionary religious-accommodation scheme that disfavors personal religion.

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

Tennessee Law Barring Recruitment of Minor to Obtain an Abortion Is Unconstitutional

In Welty v. Dunaway, (MD TN, July 18, 2025), a Tennessee federal district court enjoined enforcement of a Tennessee statute that prohibits "recruiting" an unemancipated minor to obtain an out-of-state abortion that is legal where performed. The court said in part:

... [P]laintiffs have established that §39-15-201(a) unconstitutionally regulates speech based on content and is facially overbroad.

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

Supreme Court Review Sought on Parents' Rights to Know of School's Social Transitioning of Their Child

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (Sup.Ct., cert. filed 7/18/2025). In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held (full text of opinion) that petitioners' parental right protected by the 14th Amendment were not infringed by a school Protocol requiring staff to use a student's requested name and gender pronouns in school without notifying parents of the request unless the student consents. The petition for review of the 1st Circuit opinion says in part:

Petitioners do not have a religious objection to their school district’s indoctrination and transition of their children without their knowledge. Theirs is a moral belief, backed by well-supported scientific opinion, that a so-called gender transition harms their children. But their constitutional rights to direct the upbringing of their children remain just as fundamental. The Court should grant the petition and make clear that parents’ fundamental rights do not depend on whether they are religious.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.