Supreme Court Grants Review of Wisconsin's Denial of Unemployment Comp Exemption for Catholic Charities

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Commission, (Docket No. 24-154, certiorari granted 12/13/2024). (Order List). In the case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 held that Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities are not entitled to an exemption from the state's unemployment compensation law. (See prior posting.) Catholic Charities' petition for certiorari asks the Supreme Court to decide if Wisconsin violated the 1st Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities activities are primarily charitable and secular so that the statutory religious organization exemption is not available to it. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the pleadings and briefs filed in the case.

India's Supreme Court Orders Stay While It Considers Constitutionality of Place of Worship Act

The Hindu reports on a controversial Order issued yesterday by India's Supreme Court. The Order bars lower courts from accepting new lawsuits or entering orders in pending suits in which Hindu plaintiffs are attempting to reclaim temples destroyed by the Mughal Empire in the 16th century. Eighteen suits involving ten Muslim religious shrines are pending in lower courts. In 1991, India's Parliament passed the Place of Worship Act which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship into a place of worship for a different religion and provides that "the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day." The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of the Place of Worship Act. It Order is designed to prevent a race in which lower courts attempt to issue orders ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling on the 1991 law. According to The Hindu:

Recently, Chief Justice Khanna’s Bench had to intervene after violence broke out and lives were lost in Sambhal following a local court order to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid site. The civil judge had passed an order on the basis of a suit that the mosque was built on a temple demolished by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526.

Britain Appoints New Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief

In a press release issued Wednesday, the United Kingdom's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office along with its Minister for Human Rights announced that David Smith, MP, has been appointed as the new UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB). The press release said in part:

As Envoy, David will champion FoRB for all overseas, promoting tolerance and mutual respect through and alongside the UK’s global diplomatic network and engagements in multilateral fora. David will represent the UK in international discussions on FoRB, working closely with other special envoys, experts and civil society partners. This work supports the UK’s wider human rights efforts, underpinning our belief that human rights are universal.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Christian Haven for Sex Trafficking Victims Sues to Receive Federal Funding

Gracehaven, a Christian organization that cares for young survivors of sex trafficking, filed suit this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging the county's refusal to contract with it to receive federal Title IV-E funding for foster care services.  The complaint (full text) in Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, filed 12/9/2024), says in part:

12.  Because Gracehaven is a Christian ministry that requires all employees to share and live out its religious beliefs, it told Montgomery County that it was not waiving or surrendering its right to employ only those who share its faith by signing the contract, and that it would sign the contract “as is.”  

13. The County responded that it would no longer “move forward with the renewal” of the contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry’s religiously based employment practices.  ...

15. But Defendants’ position conflicts with federal law, which expressly allows religious organizations to prefer members of their own faith as employees. 

18. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established—indeed, has held three times in the past seven years—that the government “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The complaint also alleges that the county's action violates its freedom of expressive association and its religious freedom rights under the Ohio Constitution. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Sue California School District for Access

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that a California school district has prevented Good News Clubs from meeting in district elementary schools. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship NORCAL, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, filed 12/11/2024), alleges in part:

1. For over two years, Defendant OUSD and its officials have unconstitutionally and impermissibly prohibited CEF from hosting its Good News Clubs in public elementary school facilities owned by OUSD. The Good News Club provides free moral and character training to students from a Christian viewpoint and strategically meets at public schools after school hours for the convenience of parents. CEF’s Good News Club has enriched the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of students across OUSD for over a decade. 

2. ... CEF was forced to temporarily end its Good News Club meetings in 2020 due to COVID-19 but sought to resume its meetings starting in January 2023. Despite having a long and storied history of providing after-school enrichment programs to students in OUSD, numerous schools within OUSD inexplicably denied the Good News Club access to use OUSD facilities while allowing numerous secular organizations and activities to resume meeting after school hours.  

3. CEF seeks a judgment declaring Defendants’ discriminatory use policies unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied, under the Free Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CEF also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ... together with damages....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Interpretation of "Religious Service Protections" Constitutional Amendment

Last Wednesday, The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Perez v. City of San Antonio. The court is being asked to respond to a certified question from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in which members of the Lipan Apache Native American Church claim that improvements to a park that include tree removal and rookery management destroy their ability to use a sacred site in the park for certain religious ceremonies. The certified question involves interpretation of a provision in the Texas state Constitution that was adopted in response to restrictions imposed during the Covid pandemic.  The constitutional provision prohibits the state and localities from placing limits on religious services, without specifying whether the ban applies even in cases of a compelling governmental interest in doing so. (See prior posting.) The certified question reads:

Does the “Religious Service Protections” provision of the Constitution of the State of Texas—as expressed in Article 1, Section 6-a—impose a categorical bar on any limitation of any religious service, regardless of the sort of limitation and the government’s interest in that limitation?

The Texas Supreme Court has links to pleadings and briefs (including amicus briefs) filed in the case. Oral argument for appellants was presented by a faculty member from the University of Texas College of Law, Law and Religion Clinic. Religion News Service reports on the oral arguments.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Whether EMTALA Pre-empts State Abortion Ban

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in United States v. State of Idaho, (9th Cir., 12/10/2024). The case poses the question of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing emergency treatment to patients preempts state abortion bans when such treatment would involve pregnancy termination. Links to the numerous amicus briefs and court orders in the case are available at the Health Care Litigation Tracker. (See prior related posting.)

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Dispute Over Standing to Challenge School Gender Identity Support Policy

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied 12/9/2024). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parents' organization lacked standing to challenge a school district's policy on Gender Identity Support for students. The Supreme Court denied certiorari over the dissents of Justices Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas.  In a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito and joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito said in part:

This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ “fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of ” their children ... when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process. We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies....

I am concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions....

Advocate reports on the Court's action.

Catholic Bishops, Pope Francis Call on President Biden to Commute Sentences of All Federal Death Row Prisoners to Life in Prison

According to Catholic News Agency:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Monday launched a campaign urging Catholics to contact outgoing President Joe Biden and ask him to commute the death sentences of the 40 men currently on federal death row to life in prison.

The USCCB Action Center posted online a statement calling on individuals to urge the President to commute the sentences.  The webpage contains a suggested letter to the President and provides a form for sending and posting the request online.

Meanwhile, on Sunday in the Vatican, Pope Francis joined in the call for commutation. In his Sunday Angelus, he said in part:

Today, it comes to my heart to ask you all to pray for the prisoners who are on death row in the United States. I believe there are thirteen or fifteen of them. Let us pray that their sentence be commuted, changed. Let us think of these brothers and sisters of ours and ask the Lord for the grace to save them from death.

Neither the Bishops' statement nor that of the Pope makes mention of President Biden's Roman Catholic faith.

Today Is Human Rights Day

Today is Human Rights Day marking the 76th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly. Article 18 of the Declaration provides:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Yesterday President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring today to be Human Rights Day, and the week beginning today as Human Rights Week. The Proclamation declares in part:

Today, our country continues to stand with our partners and allies to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world — from combatting threats to silence and intimidate human rights defenders like journalists to championing democracy, fair elections, and the universal human rights to freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, religion, and expression.  When crises erupt, we protect civilians from mass atrocities, promote accountability for those responsible for human rights violations and abuses, seek to free political prisoners, and create space for civilian dialogue.

2nd Circuit: Lawyers Have Standing to Challenge Bar Rule That Limits Comments on Transgender and Religious Subject Matter

In Cerame v. Slack, (2d Cir., Dec. 9, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Connecticut lawyers have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state Rule of Professional Conduct which prohibits lawyers from engaging in harassing or discriminatory conduct against members of various protected classes in the practice of law. It bars harassment or discrimination on the basis of  race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. Commentary to the Rule defines discrimination as including harmful verbal conduct directed at an individual that manifests bias or prejudice. The attorneys allege that they often speak out on legal blogs, in articles and legal seminars in ways that could be construed as personally derogatory.  According to the court:

Moynahan and Cerame ... allege... that “[t]here are numerous examples of speech” fully protected by the First Amendment that members of the Connecticut bar will be reluctant to engage in, given the fear of a misconduct complaint...."  These include using “the pronoun associated with a transgender individual’s biological sex when addressing that individual”; using the term “‘gender preference’ rather than ‘gender orientation’”;  ... and publishing cartoons that “satiri[ze] or mock[]” “a religious deity”..... 

Appellees argue that the commentary to Rule 8.4, providing that an attorney “does not violate paragraph (7) when the conduct in question is protected under the first amendment to the United States constitution,”  ...“unambiguously shows that the Rule does not proscribe protected speech”....

Although the First Amendment carve-out may make it more likely that the SGC will conclude that some speech that would otherwise fall within the text of Rule 8.4(7) is not in fact proscribed, the carve-out is not enough, on its own, to render Appellants’ fear of a misconduct complaint and its professional repercussions “imaginary or wholly speculative” for Article III purposes...

At this stage in the proceedings, Appellants have alleged plausibly that they intend to engage in speech proscribed, at least arguably, by a recently enacted, focused regulation.  This gives rise to a credible threat of enforcement.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Teacher Sues After Being Suspended for Having Books With LGBTQ+ Characters in Her Classroom

 A third-grade teacher in the southern Ohio village of New Richmond filed suit last week in an Ohio federal district court seeking damages for the 3-day suspension imposed on her for having four books in her classroom's book collection that have LGBTQ+ characters in them.  The school claimed that the books violated the District's Policy 2240 on Controversial Issues in the Classroom. The complaint (full text) in Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, filed 12/2/2024), alleges in part:

12. Plaintiff Karen Cahall maintained these books in her classroom amongst over one hundred other books spanning a wide variety of subject matters in furtherance of her sincerely held moral and religious beliefs that that all children, including children who are LGBTQ+ or the children of parents who are LGBTQ+, deserve to be respected, accepted, and loved for who they are....

50. During the course of her employment with defendant New Richmond, other teachers, staff and administrators have publicly displayed insignias and symbols of their religious beliefs in the presence of students, including but not limited to Christian crosses worn as jewelry, that are more visible to students than the books identified herein, without any consequence....

70. New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 is unconstitutionally vague ... because it fails to provide fair notice to plaintiff Karen Cahall and other teachers ... of what they can and cannot maintain in their classrooms....

81. By using New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 to suspend plaintiff Karen Cahall ... based upon a perceived community objection to plaintiff Karen Cahall’s sincerely held moral and religious beliefs, defendant Tracey Miller unlawfully and with discriminatory intent determined that plaintiff Karen Cahall’s religious viewpoints and beliefs were unacceptable, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.....

87. By using New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 to suspend plaintiff Karen Cahall ..., defendant Tracey Miller unlawfully and with discriminatory intent determined that plaintiff Karen Cahall’s moral and religious viewpoints and beliefs were unacceptable in comparison to the moral and religious viewpoints of others. in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Cincinatti Enquirer reported on the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Conor Casey, Natural Law, Practical Reasoning, and Legal Interpretation in 'Natural Law and Modern Society', (Forthcoming, Jurisprudence, 2025).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Regulating LGBTQ Speech in the Classroom, (24-19 Knight First Amend. Inst. (Oct. 25, 2024)).

From SSRN (Abortion Rights):

• Catherine Dowd, Where There's a Will. There's a Way: Abortion Litigation in the States, (Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 484 (2024)).
• Dr. Tania Penovic, Exporting the American Playbook: The International Reach of the US Anti-Abortion Movement, (January 30, 2024).
• Stephen Gilles, Federal Free-Exercise Challenges to Restrictive Abortion Laws, (37 Regent University Law Review, Issue 2 (2025), forthcoming).
• Alyssa Curcio, Immunizing Roe: How Court Treatment of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Supports Reproductive Freedom, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, volume 43, issue 1, 2023).
• Deborah Machalow, Terminating Democracy: The Antiabortion Movement's Attempted Subversion of Direct Democracy Since Dobbs, (October 08, 2024).
• Michael L. Smith, Dignity and Abortion Rights Under State Constitutional Law, (75 Syracuse L. Rev. (Forthcoming 2025)).
• Guha Krishnamurthi, Abortion Regulation and Chilling from Extremists, (October 13, 2024).

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

• Rasham Armab Saikhu, Zakat Exemptions under Pakistani Law: An Analysis of Case Laws, (March 01, 2024).
• Hamed Hikmany & Abdul-Nasser Hikmany,  East African Reforms and the Future Stake of Muslims, (TIJER || November 2023, Volume 10, Issue 11).
• Haroun Rahimi & Faiza Muhammad Din, Female Madrasas & Islamic Agency of Afghan Women (November 04, 2024).
• Oonagh B. Breen, Niamh Carruthers, Niall O’Sullivan & Patricia Quinn, Philanthropy in Ireland, (UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11 (2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Christopher R. Green, Citizenship and Solicitude: How to Overrule Employment Division v. Smith and Washington v. Davis, 47 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 465-506 (2024).
• Bari Weiss, Barbara Olson Memorial Lecture. You Are the Last Line of Defense, 47 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 289-308 (2024).
• James deBoer, Dispelling the RFRA Shibboleth: Affirming Religious Freedom and Expressive Rights, 38 Wisconsin Journal of Law Gender, & Society 192-267 (2023).

Street Preacher Who Refused to Leave Restricted Area Around Kentucky Derby Loses Challenges to His Arrest

In Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky, (WD KY, Dec. 6, 2024), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to action by local law enforcement against a street preacher, Jacob Blankenship, who refused to leave a restricted area around Churchill Downs on Kentucky Derby Day. The Court said in part:

... [I]f the restriction of Blankenship’s speech was content-neutral, it makes no difference whether Blankenship was arrested in a traditional or limited public forum....

[B]ecause the restrictions of access to the permitted and ticketed areas served purposes unrelated to the content of speech, those restrictions were content-neutral. The purpose of establishing the permitted area—facilitating ingress and egress for Churchill Downs—can be justified without reference to the content of any speech.... Accordingly, Blankenship’s free speech claim calls for intermediate scrutiny....

...Those restrictions survive intermediate scrutiny. The ticketed area was narrowly tailored to serve Metro’s significant interests in traffic control and public safety. It also left open ample alternative channels for Blankenship to share his message with essentially the same audience.....

The purpose of Metro’s permitting scheme is not to infringe upon or restrict religious practices.... The ticketed area restricted Blankenship’s preaching no differently than it restricted non-religious conduct.... 

... Because the ticketed area’s restrictions only incidentally effected Blankenship’s preaching, on his free exercise claim, Metro and Young are entitled to judgment as matter of law....

Because Blankenship has not tethered his due process void-for-vagueness claim to any liberty or property interest, it fails as a matter of law.

Ministerial Exception Is Affirmative Defense, Not Jurisdictional Bar

In Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Division of Human Rights, (NY Ct App, Nov. 26, 2024), New York's highest appellate court reversed a lower appellate court's dismissal of a priest's hostile work environment claim because the Appellate Division had treated the ministerial exception doctrine as a jurisdictional bar rather than as an affirmative defense.  The state Division of Human Rights had dismissed both the claim of racial and national origin discrimination and the hostile work environment claim by a Black Nigerian Catholic priest who was employed as a parish administrator. On appeal ultimately to the New York Court of Appeals, the court remanded the hostile work environment claim to the Division of Human Rights, saying in part:

... [O]nce the Diocese raised the ministerial exception as one of several affirmative defenses, the question confronting DHR was not whether the exception limited its power to consider Ibhawa's claim, but whether any of the Diocese's affirmative defenses—including the two statutory defenses raised by the Diocese—established that the case could not proceed beyond its current stage....

Because DHR erred in treating the ministerial exception as a jurisdictional bar rather than an affirmative defense, its determination was affected by an error of law. In reaching that conclusion, we express no view on whether any of the Diocese's defenses are meritorious.

[Thanks to John Melcon for the lead.]

9th Circuit Narrows Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho's Abortion Trafficking Law

 In a 2-1 decision in Matsumoto v. Labrador, (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed an Idaho federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state's ban on assisting a minor in various ways to obtain an abortion without her parent's consent. The majority concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed only in their challenge to one part of the law.

 Idaho Code §18-623 provides:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The majority held that the statute is not void for vagueness, nor does it burden the right of expressive association. It concluded, however, that the statute's ban on "recruiting" is an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of protected speech. The court said in part:

 ... “[R]ecruiting” has broad contours that overlap extensively with the First Amendment. It sweeps in a large swath of expressive activities—from encouragement, counseling, and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive health care; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access. It is not difficult to conclude from these examples that the statute encompasses, and may realistically be applied to, a substantial amount of protected speech....

In our view, the “recruiting” prong of Section 18-623 is neither integral nor indispensable to the operation of the statute as the Idaho legislature intended and therefore may be severed from the rest of the law. Without the “recruiting” prong, the statute criminalizes “harboring or transporting” a minor to “procure an abortion” “with the intent to conceal [the abortion] from the parents or guardian” of the minor— an intelligible crime that reaches the problems the legislature sought to rectify.

Judge Bea dissented in part. He argued that plaintiffs lack standing and therefore the district court should dismiss the suit. Idaho Capital Sun reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today on Tennesse Ban of Gender Affirming Medical Treatment for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. The case involves a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal and surgical treatments of minors for gender dysphoria. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Equal Protection and Due Process challenges to the law. A central issue in today's arguments will be whether transgender classifications trigger heightened scrutiny. SCOTUSblog has an extensive discussion of the issues in the case. More than 80 amicus briefs have been filed in the case. Links to all of them and additional pleadings in the case are available at the SCOTUSblog case page for the case.

Oral arguments will be streamed live at this link beginning at 10:00 AM. Argument audio will be archived at this link. A written transcript of the oral arguments will be available later today at this link.

Suit Challenging Anti-Zionist Proposed Curriculum Is Dismissed

In Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, (CD CA, Nov. 30, 2024), a California federal district court dismissed both for jurisdictional reasons and on the merits a suit by plaintiffs who were Jewish Zionists against a group that developed a set of teaching materials that the group hoped Los Angeles Public Schools would adopt. The court said in part:

According to plaintiffs, the challenged curriculum "denounces capitalism, the nuclear family, and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states of the United States[,]"... and is designed "to expunge the idea of Zionism, and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square[.]"... Plaintiffs allege there is "rank discrimination embedded in the LESMC," ... because the challenged curriculum, among other things, "includes statements that the existence of the State of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing and land theft, apartheid and genocide" and that "Zionism is distinct from Judaism."... Because the challenged curriculum contains anti-Zionist material, plaintiffs allege that the curriculum is antisemitic.,,,

The court held that plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for judicial review and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. It went on to also reject plaintiffs' equal protection and free exercise challenges on additional grounds. It held first that the defendants other than the school district were not state actors for purposes of the 14th Amendment. It went on to hold:

... [I]t is clear that the [complaint] is a direct "attack on curricula" — and "absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content."... In short, plaintiffs' equal protection claims under both the California and United States constitutions must be dismissed....

In effect, the only hardship plaintiffs allege is that the existence of the challenged curriculum — and its possible adoption — offends them. But mere offense is insufficient to allege a burden on religious exercise....

In short, plaintiffs' claim that the challenged curriculum violates the Free Exercise Clause because it is intended "to suppress public expression of, and public support for, Zionist beliefs and to prevent Zionists from acting on their sincerely held religious belief[,]" ... must be dismissed, as plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise or practice.

The court also rejected claims under Title VI and the California Education Code. It then concluded:

... [I]t must also be noted that significant First Amendment concerns underlie plaintiffs' claims and requested relief.... In effect, plaintiffs seek to litigate the propriety and legality of a potential curriculum with which they disagree. Their claims thus conflict with the First Amendment in several respects, and are largely barred on that basis as well.

Various state law claims were also stricken under California's anti=SLAPP statute.

Noticias Newswire reports on the decision.

Recent Articles, Books, and Podcasts of Interest

From SSRN:

• John Witte, The Richard O'Sullivan: Memorial Lecture A New Great Awakening of Religious Freedom in America, (Law & Justice, 2023).
• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Coercion by the Orthodox Minority in Israel, (February 16, 2022).
• James Toomey, Introduction—Bioethics After Dobbs, (45 Pace Law Review 1 (2024)).

From elsewhere:

• Special Issue, Reevaluating the Norms of Law and Governance in Islamic Legal History, Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring 2024).
• Special Issue, Scholarly Debates: Moving Past Structural Death, Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2023).

Recent Podcasts:

• America Trends Podcast, Some Red States Putting Religion Back in Schools, (with Prof. Ira Lupu), (Nov. 25, 2024).

Recent Books:

• Daniela Berti & Anthony Good, Animal Sacrifice, Religion and Law in South Asia, (Routledge, Nov. 2024).
• Matteo Corsalini, Business, Religion and the Law-- Church and Business Autonomy in The Secular Economy, (Routledge, Aug. 2024),
• Jelle Creemers & Tatiana Kopaleishvili  Religious Freedom and COVID-19-- A European Perspective, (Routledge, Aug. 2024).
• Mareike Riedel, Law and Jewish Difference: Ambivalent Encounters, (Cambridge University Press, Nov. 2024).
• David Hollenbach, Human Rights in a Divided World, (Georgetown University Press, July 2024).

Missouri AG Issues Opinion on Which Abortion Restrictions Remain Enforceable After Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has issued Opinion Letter No. 22-2024, (Nov. 22, 2024) outlining the extent to which the state's restrictive abortion laws are still enforceable after voter adoption of a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. The Opinion Letter was requested by Missouri Governor-Elect Mike Kehoe. The Attorney General's Opinion Letter reads in part:

... Amendment 3 was adopted-- just barely-- by a margin of 3%. In a contest where the "yes:" side was able in effect to rewrite the ballot summary language, receive tens of millions of dollars in funding from out of state, and outspent the "no" side 6 to 1, this tight margin suggests the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote.

Nevertheless, until and unless voters have an opportunity to vote again ..., Amendment 3 will render some statutes unenforceable.... Missouri statutes entirely prohibit elective abortions-- i.e., abortions other than those performed because of a medical emergency.... Amendment 3 ... will generally prohibit ... officials from enforcing these provisions....

... [T]here will remain some circumstances where these five statutes are enforceable....

First, under the express terms of the amendment, the government may still protect innocent life after viability....

Second, the Attorney General will continue to enforce these statutes in circumstances where parents do not consent to an adolescent minor obtaining an abortion. Under the U.S. Constitution, parents have a "fundamental right ... to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."... This includes the "right to refuse unwanted medical treatment."... Amendment 3 cannot displace that federal constitutional right....

... [W]hen the Supreme Court reversed the Roe line of cases, ... the court restored longstanding parental rights.

Third... [t]he right of parents to forbid minors from obtaining abortions should not be misunderstood to somehow imply a right to force abortion on minors.

The same is true for adults coerced into abortion.... Amendment 3 does not give abortion clinics a right to perform abortions on women who have been coerced....

Missouri Independent reports on the Attorney General's Opinion Letter. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]