Court Invalidates New Title IX Rules That Protected Transgender Students

In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, Jan. 9, 2025), a Kentucky federal district court issued a vacatur order invalidating rules under Title IX adopted by the Department of Education last April. Plaintiffs challenged provisions that extended sex discrimination bans to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court said in part:

Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted....

... [T]he Final Rule’s definitions of sex discrimination and sex-based harassment, combined with the de minimis harm standard, require Title IX recipients, including teachers, to use names and pronouns associated with a student’s asserted gender identity....

The plaintiffs reasonably fear that teachers’ (and others’) speech concerning gender issues or their failure to use gender-identity-based pronouns would constitute harassment under the Final Rule.  Put simply, the First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner....

The Final Rule also is vague and overbroad. ....

... [A] vacatur order “takes the unlawful agency action ‘off the books’”—“an entirely appropriate response when a plaintiff successfully establishes that the agency’s conduct violates the law.”...  Vacatur operates on the rule itself and prevents the rule’s “application to all who would otherwise be subject to its operation.” ... See Kentucky, 728 F. Supp. 3d at 522 (quoting East Bay 

Although the Court has discretion to craft a different remedy, there is no reason to do so here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply To Pastor's Defamation Suit

In Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention, (TN App., Jan. 8. 2025), a Tennessee state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply to a defamation suit brought by a Baptist pastor against the Southern Baptist Convention and various of its officials and staff. At issue are oral conversations and a letter from an SBC staff member suggesting that allegations of sexual misconduct had been made against Preston Garner, a pastor at Everett Hills Baptist Church. The court said in part:

The conduct at issue is the Appellants’ purported publication of written and oral statements that Mr. Garner was “an individual with an alleged history of abuse” and that the allegation was credible, while failing to also state that “the allegation[ was] made through an anonymous online portal” and that the Appellants “had not made any inquiry into the veracity of the anonymous report, or that no evidence supported the anonymous report.”  ... [T]he Appellants in this case have not raised any argument that their conduct resulted from the application or interpretation of any religious canon.  Moreover, any argument by the Appellants that the Letter was sent as part of a pastoral disciplinary process is undercut by the concession of the SBC and the Credentials Committee that “[t]he Credentials Committee does not ‘investigate what occurred or judge the culpability of an accused individual,’ but rather only reviews ‘how the SBC church responded to sexual abuse allegations and make[s] recommendations as to whether those actions or inactions are consistent with the SBC’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse.’”

... [C]onsidering the Garners’ claims will not require the trial court to resolve any religious disputes or to rely on religious doctrine. 

The court also concluded that the Tennessee Public Participation Act applies to the lawsuit, but that plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof needed to avoid early dismissal of the case.

The Religious Affiliations of Members of 119th Congress Are Reported

The Pew Research Center has published a study of the religious affiliation of members of the 119th Congress which began last week. In an article titled Faith on the Hill, Pew reports that 86.7% of the voting members of the Senate and House combined are Christian.  55.5% are Protestant and 28.2% are Catholic. The largest Protestant denomination represented is Baptist.  Other Christian denominations represented are Latter Day Saints (1.7%), Orthodox Christians (1.1%) and Messianic Jewish (0.2%).  6% of the new Congress is Jewish. Other religious groups represented by 4 or fewer members (less than 1%) each are Muslim (4), Hindu (4), Buddhist (3), Unitarian Universalist (3) and Humanist (1).  3 members report that they are unaffiliated. Affiliation of 21 members (3.9%) is unknown.

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

1st Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Religious Schools' Challenge to Anti-Discrimination Provisions

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine cannot exclude parochial schools from participating in its program that pays tuition for certain out-of-district students. While that litigation was pending, the Maine legislature amended state law to provide that schools receiving state funds cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. This had the effect of excluding Catholic and certain other Christian schools.  On Monday, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in two cases challenging that anti-discrimination law on free exercise grounds:

One case was St. Dominic Academy v Makin (audio of full oral argument). In the case, a Maine federal district refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Maine's educational and employment antidiscrimination laws in a suit brought by a Catholic diocese, a Catholic school and a Catholic family. (See prior posting.) Becket issued a press release giving additional background.

The second case was Crosspoint Church v Makin (audio of full oral argument). In the case, a Maine federal district court refused to enjoin application of the state's educational antidiscrimination laws against a private Christian school. (See prior posting.) First Liberty Institute issued a press release giving additional background.

4th Circuit: Covid Vaccine Religious Accommodation Suit Should Not Have Been Dismissed

 In Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services, (4th Cir., Jan. 7, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Title VII and state law claims by a former registered nurse who was denied a religious exemption or accommodation from her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Barnett has sufficiently alleged her beliefs are religious in nature.  Specifically, Barnett alleged, amongst other things:  (1) “it would be sinful for her to engage with a product such as the vaccination after having been instructed by God to abstain from it”; (2) her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations. . . were based on her ‘study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and living God’”; and (3) receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself....  At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to show that Barnett’s “belief is an essential part of a religious faith” that “must be given great weight[,]” ... and are plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Louis Farrakhan's Suit Against ADL

In Farrakhan v. Anti-Defamation League, (2nd Cir., Jan. 3, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought against the Anti-Defamation League by Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam that alleged free speech and defamation claims. Upholding the trial court's dismissal of the First Amendment claims for lack of standing, the court said in part:

To the extent plaintiffs assert claims against defendants because third parties—Morgan State University and Vimeo—denied or rescinded plaintiffs’ access to speech platforms, those alleged First Amendment injuries are not fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions....

Plaintiffs’ remaining First Amendment claims do not state any injuries in fact....

As to the defamation claims, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs challenge a number of defendants’ statements that label plaintiffs in various ways as “anti-Semitic.”  Under New York law, these statements are nonactionable opinions....

Plaintiffs also challenge statements made by defendants interpreting Farrakhan’s own statements.  The challenged statements were either accompanied by disclosures of Farrakhan’s actual statements or were based on Farrakhan’s statements that were widely reported by the media....

Finally, plaintiffs challenge certain of defendants’ factual statements.  On de novo review, we agree with the district court that the SAC fails to sufficiently allege the falsity of those statements.  

Jonathan Turley reports on the decision.

President Biden Sends Greetings on Orthodox Christmas

In a Statement released today (full text), President Biden and Jill Biden sent greetings to Orthodox Christians who are celebrating Christmas today. The Statement says in part:

Today, we pray for Orthodox Christians who are suffering around the world due to war, conflict, deprivation, and oppression. They, like all human beings, are created in the image of God, and deserve safety and security, dignity and respect. We will continue to advocate for these core principles, including religious freedom, and on this day, we keep these communities close to our hearts.

Suit Challenges Museum's Diversity Policy as Violative of Employee's Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an employee of the Genesee Country Museum who was fired from her managerial position because her religious beliefs were inconsistent with the Museum's Diversity, Equity, Acceptance and Inclusion Policy. The complaint (full text) in Berkemeir v. Genesee County Museum, (WD NY, filed 1/2/2025), alleges that plaintiff's dismissal violates her free exercise and free speech rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as other statutes. The complaint specifically focuses on requirements to address individuals by their preferred pronouns, but also sets out broader objections, stating in part:

80. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that she is to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness,” but to “expose them.”... 

81. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that silence in the face of evil is evil itself....

84. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief that for her to fail to speak out against things she knows are wrong results in the eternal condemnation of her soul....

228. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs that compelled her to view all people as created by God in His image and equally deserving of respect did not comport with Defendants’ newly minted program of requiring all employees to view white people as “born oppressors” and somehow undeserving of identical respect and treatment. 

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

Louisiana AG Issues Guidance to Schools on Posting the Ten Commandments in Classrooms

Last week, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill issued Guidance (full text) to public schools on implementing the state's new Ten Commandments Law that requires display of the Ten Commandments in each public-school classroom. The Guidance requires posting only if the displays themselves or funding for the displays are donated. The Guidance includes four separate thematic posters that pair the Ten Commandments with other pictures or texts.  The Attorney General says that these assure the constitutionality of the displays. Schools may choose any of the posters. The themes of the posters are The House of Representatives & the Lawgivers; The Supreme Court & the Lawgivers; Religion's Role in American Public Education; and The Supreme Court & the Religion Clauses of the Constitution. Reporting on the new Guidance, the Louisiana Illuminator points out that "The new law does not include any punishment for not posting the display in classrooms." A federal district court has enjoined five Parishes from implementing the new law. (See prior posting.) The state is appealing that decision to the Fifth Circuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Church of Satanology's Suit to Display Banner in Schools Moves Ahead

In Stevens v. School Board of Broward County, Florida, (SD FL, Jan. 2, 2025), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause claims brought by a minister of The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree whose request to display a religious banner at a high school and a middle school were denied. Schools had permitted other churches to display banners, but refused plaintiff's request to display a banner reading "Satan Loves the First Amendment". The court said in part:

... Reverend Stevens has adequately alleged that he “has engaged in the exercise of religion.”... The school board’s arguments as to the lack of evidence regarding the Church’s tenets are better addressed on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, not on a motion to dismiss. And by preventing Reverend Stevens from displaying these banners, the school board has allegedly “substantially burdened this religious exercise.”...

The Court concludes that Reverend Stevens has stated a claim for viewpoint discrimination.  

The school board has arguably created a limited public forum at its schools by allowing some advertisements to be displayed on school grounds. ...

To the extent that Reverend Stevens’s First Amendment claim is brought as an Establishment Clause claim, rather than a Free Exercise Clause claim, the school board has not established that it should be dismissed....

Ban on Firing Employee Because of Reproductive Health Decision May Violate Religious Employer's Expressive Association Rights

In CompassCare v. Hochul, (2nd Cir., Jan. 2, 2025), anti-abortion pregnancy centers and a Baptist Church challenge a New York statute which prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based on any reproductive health care decision made by the employee or a dependent. Reviewing plaintiffs' expressive association claim, the court said in part:

[A]n entity like CompassCare, or another mission-based organization that advocates for a particular cause or set of beliefs, could plausibly allege that the compelled retention of a specific employee would impair its ability to express its message....

To sustain their challenge to the Act, each Plaintiff must adequately allege (and eventually prove) that the Act threatens “the very mission of its organization.”

However, the court rejected the claim that this provision violates free speech and free exercise rights.

The court also concluded that the law's notice provision which requires employee handbooks to include information on employees' rights under the New York labor law is subject only to rational basis review. The court said in part:

Requiring Plaintiffs to include among these wide-ranging provisions a notice informing employees of their available rights and remedies under a valid statute is not akin to requiring a crisis pregnancy center to distribute a notice about state-sponsored reproductive health services “at the same time [the centers] try to dissuade women from choosing that option.”... 

We conclude that the required notification does not interfere with Plaintiffs’ greater message and mission.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Church's Claims Against Parent Body Can Largely Be Decided on Neutral Principles of Secular Law

 In Fifth Avenue United Methodist Church of Wilmington v. North Carolina Conference, Southeastern Jurisdiction, of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (NC App., Dec. 31, 2024), a North Carolina appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, held that the trial court had improperly dismissed a number of claims by a church whose parent body closed its down and seized its property while the church was seeking to disaffiliate from the parent body. The majority said in part:

... Fifth Avenue contends that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider its property and trust claims because there remains a genuine, secular question of whether it was in a connectional relationship with the UMC concerning the Property.  Fifth Avenue maintains as such because none of the deeds pertaining to the Property refer to the trust clauses contained in the BOD [Book of Discipline], “save one green space parcel conveyed in 1986.”  After carefully considering our precedents resolving similar disputes, we agree....

Fifth Avenue next argues that even if the Property is subject to a trust under the BOD, the trial court erred in dismissing its claim arising from its right to disaffiliate and retain the Property free of the trust clause under paragraph 2553.  Fifth Avenue contends that its breach of contract claim survives dismissal at this stage because it does not require a determination of ecclesiastical issues and can be settled by neutral principles of contract law.  Fifth Avenue maintains that Defendants failed to follow the disaffiliation procedures set out in paragraph 2553 by not allowing a church conference vote within 120 days...  [W]e agree and hold that the trial court committed error by dismissing Fifth Avenue’s breach of contract claim because determining whether Defendants “acted within the scope of their authority” and “observed the organization’s own organic forms and rules is founded in neutral principles of secular law.” ...

Fifth Avenue next submits that the trial court committed error by dismissing its claims for fraud and constructive fraud because they do not require the court to examine or determine ecclesiastical issues.  More precisely, Fifth Avenue contends that whether Defendants colluded to take the Property “under the guise of legitimate action can be determined without delving into the validity of the reasons” provided for closure.  After scrutinizing the record and applicable law, we agree....

 Judge Arrowood filed an opinion dissenting from much of the majority's holdings, saying in part:

I believe the trial court is permitted to assess whether Fifth Avenue is contractually entitled to disaffiliate following closure, as this can be decided under neutral principles of law.  However, I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority opinion.  I believe the First Amendment church doctrine warrants dismissal of Fifth Avenue’s claims apart from the breach of contract claim and would affirm the trial court’s judgment in those respects.

4th Circuit: Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply in Challenge to No Religious Exemption in Vaccination Law

In West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom v. Christiansen, (4th Cir., Dec. 31, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a West Virginia federal district court erred in applying the Pullman abstention doctrine in a suit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia's vaccine mandate for school children. Plaintiffs contended that the absence of a religious exemption in the mandate violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The majority said in part:

Pullman abstention is typically reserved for a situation where the state law being presented is unclear and could be interpreted in a way that avoids the federal constitutional issue....  And Pullman abstention is not applicable if the state law is not subject to an interpretation that would render unnecessary the adjudication of a federal constitutional question....

 ... [T]he only state law presented for decision here is the Vaccination Mandate.  On the other hand, the only state law identified as being unclear is the recently adopted [Equal Protection for Religion Act].  And the Plaintiffs are not challenging the Vaccination Mandate under EPRA.  Rather, the Plaintiffs pursue their Free Exercise claim solely under the Free Exercise Clause.... 

... “[A]bstention cannot be ordered simply to give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim.”

Judge Berner filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In several cases ..., this court and the Supreme Court have found abstention proper because the challenged law’s relationship with a different state law or constitutional provision was unsettled....

Because the relationship between the Vaccination Mandate and the EPRA is unsettled, this case satisfies the first Pullman requirement. 

This case also meets the second Pullman precondition.... There is no requirement that the resolution of the state law issue necessarily moot the federal constitutional issue. Instead, it is enough that questions of state law “may dispose of the case and avoid the need for deciding the constitutional question.”

Happy New Year 2025!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2025! 

I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy. Recently the total number of posts since Religion Clause began publication in 2005 broke the 25,000 mark .

It has been a busy year for those of us who follow legal developments impacting free exercise rights and church-state separation.  As political, cultural and health care issues have increasingly taken on religious significance for many individuals, deciding which developments qualify as ones of religious concern has become a more difficult project. I have generally treated all legislative and judicial developments relating to reproductive rights as ones that I should cover.  It has been more difficult to decide which developments regarding transgender rights are ones that implicate religious views.

Another coverage challenge has been created by the explosion in the number of court decisions on denial of religious exemptions from Covid vaccine mandates during the height of the pandemic.  Many of these decisions are repetitive in their legal analysis. I have generally moved to covering only appellate court decisions in this area or the rare trial court decision that has a unique twist to it. (This is the same standard that I have applied for a number of years in covering prisoner free exercise cases.)

Religion Clause has always been a niche blog which has particularly attracted lawyers, social scientists, advocacy organization personnel, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, legislative and executive branch staff, students and others working professionally or avocationally interested in church-state relations and religious liberty issues.  I invite your feedback on the continued effectiveness of the current format.

The Religion Clause website is the most effective way of accessing posts, ad-free.  However, Religion Clause posts are also available through e-mail subscriptions, through X (formerly known as Twitter) and through Facebook, though the format, accompanying advertising, and availability of posts through these channels are handled by third parties over whom I have no control. Hopefully the technical issues that earlier this year interfered with access through Facebook and X are now resolved.

As always, I have attempted to retain Religion Clause's objectivity and its policy of linking to extensive primary source material. I hope that the blog continues to have a reputation for reliability at a time when the objectivity of social media is increasingly called into question.

I also urge you to look at the blog's Sidebar which has dozens of links to useful sites. Scroll down and you will also find resources to subscribe for e-mails giving you access to the latest posts, and access to the X (Twitter) account.

Thank you to all who are loyal readers of Religion Clause-- both those who have followed it for many years and those who have only recently discovered it. I hope you will continue to follow Religion Clause in 2025. Please recommend the blog to colleagues, students and friends who may find it useful and interesting.

I want to extend a special thanks to those of you who have sent me leads to developments of interest.  I have tried to acknowledge them in the posts that they generate. To all my readers, feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions.

Best wishes for a New Year that is more peaceful and tolerant than the past year,

Howard Friedman                 

President Jimmy Carter's Views on Religion

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United Staes, passed away on Sunday at the age of 100. The White House issued a Proclamation from President Biden formally announcing Carter's death. Religion played an extremely important role in Carter's life. In October 1976, just a month before the election in which he narrowly defeated Gerald Ford, Carter gave a lengthy interview (full text) with leaders of "National Religious Broadcasters" and "World Religious News" that set out his personal views on religion as well as on separation of church and state. Here are a few excerpts:

Q. Mr. Carter, ... can you tell us what Jesus Christ means to you, and to what extent you have dedicated your life to Him?

Governor Carter. The most important thing in my life is Jesus Christ....

I had my deepest and most personal turning to Christ about 10 years ago. 1966 or 1967, when I realized that in spite of the achievement within my church circle, as chairman of the board of deacons, superintendent of the Sunday School, and so forth, that there was an absence of a deep, constant personal relationship with Christ I went to some other states to witness among those who had no church affiliation. During the trips, I felt very personally present to the Holy Spirit and began to be able to testify for the first time with complete sincerity about what Christ meant to me. I found it easy to pray without a special extra effort; it became part of my consciousness, and I felt a sense of peace and security that I had never felt before....

Q. How does your Christian commitment affect political decisions you have made and will make in the future?

Governor Carter. As a Baptist I believe very strongly in the principle of separation of church and state....

As far as my decisions as a political leader, they are affected very heavily by my Christian beliefs. I spent more time on my knees as governor of Georgia than I had spent all the rest of my life put together because I felt the responsibility of many other people's lives. I cling to the principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Honesty, integrity, compassion, love, hope, charity, humility are integral parts of any person's life, no matter what his position in life may be. But when someone is elected and trusted by others to help determine one's own life quality, it puts an additional responsibility on the pastor or the schoolteacher or someone who has a public life. So, the Christian or the religious commitment is one that's especially useful tome....

... Not too long ago, I taught a Sunday school lesson about how Paul and Peter reacted to the laws or government of that day. Their admonition was to obey the law and to obey the chosen rulers.

If there was a violation of God's laws by the civil law, to obey God's law is to be willing to accept the punishment administered by the civil law and to try to work to make sure the civil law was compatible with God's law.

Q. In the past, much has been discussed concerning prayer and Bible reading in public schools. In the event you become the President of the United States, what proposals or plans would you have concerning this particular area?

Governor Carter. I don't favor the state, through the public schools, requiring a certain kind of prayer or worship. I believe that ought to be a decision made by the individual student. There ought not to be any prohibition against any self-initiated worship. But the requirement of conformity of worship is something that is contrary to my own beliefs....

9th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Bars Claim by Mashgiach for Wages and Promotion

In Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, (9th Cir., Dec. 30, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception requires dismissal of a suit alleging wage and hour violations as well as fraud and misrepresentation brought by a mashgiach (kosher food inspector) against the kosher certification agency that employed him. Plaintiff alleged that he never received a promotion and raise that were promised to him and certain compensation for overtime. The court concluded that defendant, the Orthodox Union, is a religious organization and that plaintiff Markel is a "minister." saying in part:

... [I]f OU is a religious organization and Markel is its minister, the exception applies to Markel’s claims, which are all employment related.  We address each in turn....

Because only observant Orthodox Jews can serve as a mashgiach for the OU, and because they are necessary to carrying out OU’s religious mission of “ensuring the wide availability of kosher food,” a mashgiach is a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception....

... Markel invites us to create a rule that if a religious purpose did not animate the relevant employment decisions, then the ministerial exception should not apply, and the case should be allowed to proceed to discovery.... 

Markel’s argument raises two separate, but related issues.  First, can issues involving a religious institution ever be bifurcated into being either “religious” or “non-religious?”  And second, does a religious institution need to identify a “religious” justification for its employment related decisions to invoke the ministerial exception?  The answer to both questions is no....

... Since the same constitutional harm looms regardless of whether an employee-plaintiff’s employment-related claims are against the religious organization or its leaders, we hold that the ministerial exception protects both....

Judge Sanchez filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Reuters reports on the decision.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Moratorium Delaying Building of Mosque

In Zikar Holdings, LLC v. Ruhland, (D MN, Dec. 26, 2024), a Minnesota federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the city of Lino Lakes from enforcing a one-year moratorium on development of an area of the city where plaintiffs had proposed to build a housing development that included a mosque. Plaintiffs contended that the moratorium was motivated by discriminatory intent in violation of the free exercise clause, RLUIPA and the Fair Housing Act. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that the Moratorium might have delayed Plaintiffs’ ability to build a place of worship and potential future residences near it in the northwest corner of Lino Lakes.  The language of the Moratorium, however, places no permanent restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to build anything and, perhaps more importantly, it places no restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to seek development of a mosque elsewhere in the City or to worship elsewhere in the City.  Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that they are likely to prove the Moratorium was a “substantial burden” on their ability to practice Islam....

On this evidence, the Court believes a reasonable juror could infer that the Moratorium was pretextual.  However, the evidence presented at this stage, prior to discovery, is not so strong that it satisfies the heightened Rounds standard.  The motives and beliefs of the council members, as well as the basis for the timing of the Moratorium decision remain unknown at this stage, and absent additional circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that supporting the Moratorium reflected the importance of complying with the 2040 Plan and prudent infrastructure and resource planning.  Thus, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral, weighing neither in favor of nor against granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Is Israel a Liberal Democracy?, (The Cairo Review of Global Affairs (December 2024)).
• Syed Khalid Mohiuddin & Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, The Development of the Maqasid Al Shariah Index to Assess the Sharia Compatibility Performance of Islamic Industry Including Other Industry and Financial Industry & Banks, (September 18, 2024).
• Taisu Zhang, "Natural Hierarchies", (Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Volume 36 (forthcoming 2025)).

From SmartCILP:

• Theresa Glennon, Book Review. Acknowledgement: Restoring Human Rights and Dignity. Redress: Ireland's Institutions and Transitional Justice, edited by Katherine O'Donnell, Maeve O'Rourke, James M. Smith, 42 Boston University International Law Journal 1-26 (2024).
• Julie F. Kay, Prioritizing Children's Educational Interests When One Parent Leaves an Ultra-Orthodox Community, 57 Family Law Quarterly 231-264 (2023-2024).

White House Releases National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate

Earlier this month (Dec. 12), the White House released a U.S. National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate (full text). The 67-page document says in part:

Islamophobia is hatred, discrimination, or bias directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim. It can have a profound negative impact on people of all ages and backgrounds, threatening their personal safety and their ability to fully exercise their constitutional rights. This Strategy also seeks to counter hate targeting Arab Americans because they are Arab. It is important not to conflate Muslims with Arabs and Sikhs, who also often experience unique forms of hate, bias, and discrimination because of who they are, not because they are perceived to be Muslims.  

This Strategy sets forth actions to counter hate, discrimination, and bias affecting these communities, remaining mindful of their unique experiences. We have listened to community and civil society leaders, as well as subject matter experts from various backgrounds throughout the development of this Strategy, and they have shared both their common and distinctive concerns.  

For far too long, it has been common to conflate Arabs and Muslims. As we note in this Strategy, the majority of Arab Americans are not Muslim, and the vast majority of Muslim Americans are not Arab. Arab Americans practice a number of religions, including Christianity and Islam, and they are ethnically and racially diverse. Throughout this Strategy, we identify unique challenges facing Arab Americans and emphasize the importance of avoiding conflation with other communities, even as we put forward a number of common strategies to address many forms of hatred.

AP reported on the release of the National Strategy.