Executive Order Encourages School Choice

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) titled Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families. The Executive Order focuses on methods for expanding the availability of school choice. It says in part:

When our public education system fails such a large segment of society, it hinders our national competitiveness and devastates families and communities.  For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs, allowing families — rather than the government — to choose the best educational setting for their children.  These States have highlighted the most promising avenue for education reform:  educational choice for families and competition for residentially assigned, government-run public schools....

... It is the policy of my Administration to support parents in choosing and directing the upbringing and education of their children....

...  [T]he Secretary of Education shall issue guidance regarding how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives....

... [T]he Secretary of Defense shall review any available mechanisms under which military-connected families may use funds from the Department of Defense to attend schools of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms....

[T]he Secretary of the Interior shall review any available mechanisms under which families of students eligible to attend BIE [Bureau of Indian Education] schools may use their Federal funding for educational options of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms....

Maine Supreme Court Invalidates Retroactive Removal of Limitation Period for Child Sex Abuse Claims

In Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, (ME Sup. Ct., Jan. 28, 2025), Maine's Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-2 decision, held that Maine's Constitution bars legislative revival of a cause of action after it has been extinguished by a pre-existing statute of limitations. In the case, the Maine legislature removed any limitation period for sexual acts toward minors.  Numerous plaintiffs sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland for damages for sexual abuse by the Bishop's clergy that took place while plaintiffs were children. The claims were barred by the previous statute of limitations before the removal of limitation periods was enacted. The majority said in part:

... [A]s early as our founding and many times thereafter, we have interpreted our constitutional text to reject retrospective legislation impairing vested rights....

There can be no doubt that we as a society have gained a new understanding of the effect of trauma and the delays that it can cause in the ability of a victim to pursue a cause of action.  Such evolved knowledge provides support for the elimination of any statute of limitations for torts involving sexual assaults.  But the issue here is not the propriety of the elimination of a statute of limitations but rather the revival of a claim after the relevant existing statute of limitations has expired....

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Lawrence, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The question here is not whether a duly enacted statute of limitations is constitutional.  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution bars the Legislature from reviving a claim after rebalancing competing policies in light of an evolved understanding of the dynamics of childhood sexual abuse that may have prevented victims from asserting their claims earlier.

Portland Press Herald reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge and Scott Mange for the lead.]

President Issues New Executive Order on Combatting Antisemitism

President Trump yesterday issued a new Executive Order (full text) titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. The Order reaffirms Executive Order 13899 issued by Trump during his prior term as President. That Order called for the use of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to combat antisemitism, and provided that federal agencies should use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism in their enforcement activities. The new Executive Order issued yesterday provides in part:

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.

Sec. 3.  Additional Measures to Combat Campus Anti-Semitism.  (a)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the head of each executive department or agency (agency) shall submit a report to the President ... identifying all civil and criminal authorities or actions within the jurisdiction of that agency, beyond those already implemented under Executive Order 13899, that might be used to curb or combat anti-Semitism, and containing an inventory and analysis of all pending administrative complaints ... against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism....

(c)  The Attorney General is encouraged to employ appropriate civil-rights enforcement authorities, such as 18 U.S.C. 241, to combat anti-Semitism.

The White House yesterday, ahead of releasing the text of the Executive Order, distributed a Fact Sheet (full text) titled: "President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism." The Fact Sheet says in part that:

Immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.

The Order demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws.

Trump Removes 2 EEOC Commissioners; New Acting Chair Says Agency Is Rolling Back Biden's "Gender Identity Agenda"

Federal News Network on Tuesday reported that President Donald Trump has removed two Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. One of those removed was Charlotte Burrows, formerly the Chair of the Commission until President Trump designated a new Acting Chair last week. The other Commissioner removed was Jocelyn Samuels who served as Vice Chair of the Commission until removed by President Trump from that position last week. These removals appear to leave the Commission without a quorum necessary to act.

Meanwhile, in a press release issued Tuesday, the EEOC's new Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said that the agency is "rolling back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda," and announced the removal of various references to transgender and non-binary gender markers in forms and publications. She pointed out however that she is unable unilaterally to remove provisions in strategic plans and enforcement guidance documents that relate to protection of transgender individuals because those documents were adopted by votes of the full Commission. The press release added, in part:

... Acting Chair Lucas has been vocal in her opposition to portions of EEOC’s harassment guidance that took the enforcement position that harassing conduct under Title VII includes “denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with [an] individual’s gender identity;” and that harassing conduct includes “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s known gender identity.”

Although Acting Chair Lucas currently cannot rescind portions of the agency’s harassment guidance that are inconsistent with Executive Order 14166, Acting Chair Lucas remains opposed to those portions of the guidance.

“Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,” Lucas said. “Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable. It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths—or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.”

Lifeguard Who Has Religious Objections to Pride Month Has Claim for Undermining of His Religious Accommodation

In Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, Jan. 25, 2025), a California federal district court allowed a Fire Department captain assigned to the Lifeguard Division to move ahead on certain of his Free Exercise, Title VII and state anti-discrimination law claims after the Department revoked his previous religious exemption from the County's directive to fly the Progress Pride Flag during LGBTQ+ Pride Month. The suspension of his accommodation was triggered by his removing Pride flags that had been put up in an area to which he was assigned. The court said in part:

Little is an "Evangelical Christian with traditional and orthodox beliefs on marriage, family, and sexual behavior and identity."...

[T]he Fire Department granted Little's accommodation request and agreed that, for the remainder of June, Little would be assigned to facilities that were incapable of flying the Progress Pride Flag due to insufficient flag clasps.... 

Little alleges that his request for a religious accommodation was protected activity, and that Defendants retaliated against Little for seeking that accommodation by suspending him from his role on the Background Investigation Unit....

... [T]he pleading here gives rise to a sufficient "suspicion" of religious animosity to warrant "pause" before dismissing Little's neutrality claim as implausible.... The FAC alleges that Chiefs Boiteux and Lester knew that Little had been granted a religious accommodation and conspired to undermine that accommodation by bringing additional flag poles to the Area 17 sites so that they would be required to fly Progress Pride Flags in time for ,,,Little's scheduled shift there....

However, the court rejected other claims by plaintiff, including his free speech claim, saying in part: 

Because Little has not shown that the speech at issue is anything other than government speech, he has failed to state a viable compelled-speech claim under the First Amendment....

DC Circuit Revives Contempt Proceedings in RFRA Suit Against Fire Department

In Calvert v. Potter, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the district court a suit by a group of D.C. firefighters who claim that the D.C. Fire Department violated an injunction issued in 2007 vindicating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The injunction required the Department to allow firefighters who wore beards for religious reasons to work in field operations. However, 13 years later the situation became more complex, as the D.C. Circuit explained:

As COVID-19 spread in March 2020, the Department implemented a new facial hair policy and mandated the use of masks during patient contact. The Department transferred the four bearded firefighters it still employed to administrative roles “due to concerns about their ability to properly wear N95 respirators with facial hair.”...

The district court denied the motion for civil contempt.... The court declined to hold the Department in contempt because it “acted in a reasonably cautious way, under unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances, to keep plaintiffs and the public it served as safe as it could.”...

The Court of Appeals rejected the district court's conclusion: 

Good-faith compliance may be relevant to mitigation at the remedies stage, but the court lacks discretion to excuse civil contempt based on the contemnor’s good faith. ... 

The firefighters had a private right to enforcement of the original injunction, which protected their religious freedom and permanently forbade the Department from enforcing the 2005 facial hair policy against them. The district court had no general discretion to excuse civil contempt.... 

Instead, the court was required to determine whether the Department violated the firefighters’ rights under the 2007 injunction.... Even if the Department’s behavior was reasonable in light of the pandemic, good faith and lack of willfulness is not a defense to civil contempt....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

Quaker Organizations Sue Over New Immigration Enforcement Policy

Yesterday three organizations of Quaker congregations along with two individual congregations filed suit in a Maryland federal district court challenging the Department of Homeland Security's recent change in policy that allows immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations in houses of worship and at religious life-cycle ceremonies.  The complaint (full text) in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, filed 1/27/2025), alleges that the policy change violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1st Amendment's protection of expressive association and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint alleges in part:

89. A diversity of worshippers is an essential component of the Quaker value of “experience[ing] God in a broader, more encompassing way,” as “one’s life experience affects how one hears the spirit and what conclusions one might draw.”... Deterring immigrants from worshipping in-person with a Quaker meeting would therefore directly interfere with Plaintiffs’ religious exercise by lessening their “ability to hear God and what God is trying to tell [them].” ...

90. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Quaker beliefs make it essential that they “encourage others for whom [that] path is meaningful to join.”... But DHS’s new policy, by opening meeting houses to immigration-enforcement activities, inhibits Plaintiffs from doing just that.... Knowingly putting a person in harm’s way or subjecting them to the possibility of a violent encounter with an armed law-enforcement officer would violate Quaker beliefs in peace and nonviolence....

91. Quakers have held a religious commitment against violence for hundreds of years.... For many Quakers, “[t]he presence of a weapon in a Quaker meeting would be absolutely unacceptable.”... The presence of armed immigration officers at meeting houses—which the new policy allows—would thus significantly hamper Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their faith.... Importantly, even the threat of armed government agents at meeting houses—which has existed since the moment DHS announced its new policy—does the same.

Axios reports on the lawsuit.

Trump Takes Actions to Limit Federal Funding of Abortions

On January 24, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) titled Enforcing the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment bars federal funding of elective abortions. The Executive Order revokes two Executive Orders issued by President Biden: Executive Order 14076:  Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services and Executive Order 14079:  Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services. (See prior posting.) President Trump also signed a Presidential Memorandum (full text) reinstating a 2017 Memorandum which enforced the Mexico City Policy -- a policy that has been enforced by Republican Administrations since 1985 and suspended by Democratic Administrations since then. The Policy is described by Wikipedia as follows:

The policy requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds" that they would "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". The policy has exceptions for abortions performed in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.

The Memorandum also directs the State Department to ensure that federal funds do not go to organizations or programs that support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

The Trump White House issued a Fact Sheet titled President Donald J. Trump Enforces Overwhelmingly Popular Demand to Stop Taxpayer Funding of Abortion describing the President's actions.

Today Is International Holocaust Remembrance Day

As designated by the United Nations, today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day. January 27 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration and extermination camps by Soviet troops in 1945. U.N. Secretary General António Guterres issued a Message (full text) today marking the anniversary, saying in part:

Eighty years since the Holocaust’s end, antisemitism is still with us – fuelled by the same lies and loathing that made the Nazi genocide possible. And it is rising. Discrimination is rife...

Hate is being whipped-up the world over… Indisputable historical facts are being distorted, diminished, and denied… And efforts are being made to recast and rehabilitate Nazis and their collaborators. We must stand up to these outrages.

In these days of division – and more than a year since the appalling 7th October terror attacks by Hamas – we must hold fast to our common humanity. We must condemn antisemitism – just as we must condemn all forms of racism, prejudice and religious bigotry. And we must renew our resolve to defend the dignity and human rights of all. Those causes go to the very core of the United Nations. We will never forget – and we will never waver in that fight.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Cristina Tomuleț, Free Will in the Context of Sexual Offences. Why Is It Different?, (November 21, 2024).
• Kate Redburn, The Equal Right to Exclude: Religious Speech and the Road to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (December 18, 2023).
• Sam Mbago, Peaceful Coexistence: The Undeniable Liberty of Conscience ,(November 14, 2024).
• Hidayatul Ihsan, et. al., Factors Affecting the Motivation of Prospective Waqifs to Endow Insurance in Indonesia, (International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, volume 07, issue 11, 2024).
• Hidayatul Ihsan, et. al., A Digital Transformation in Waqf Management: Leveraging Microsoft Access for Financial Accountability, (International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, volume 07, issue 11, 2024).
• Jane Calderwood Norton, Weighing Benefits and Detriments in the Law of Charity, (March 16, 2021).
• Jane Calderwood Norton & Matthew Harding, Charities and politics: where did we go wrong?, (Legal Studies, volume 44, issue 4, 2024).
• Jeffrey A. Van Detta, Heresies, Heretics, and Hermeneutics: The Battle of Textualism Against Pragmatism-And Itself-On the Roberts Court, (Belmont University College of Law Research Paper No. 2024-15).
• Steven Douglas Smith, Jurisdictional Diversity, Tradition, and the Religion Clauses, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 25-003 (2025).

From SSRN (Abortion rights):

• Kelsey Perault, A Woman's Right To Change Her Mind: The Abortion Pill Reversal Debate, (Belmont University College of Law Research Paper No. 2024-19).
• Lawrence Rosenthal, Closing the Remedial Gap After Whole Woman's Health, (December 03, 2024).
• Jonathan F. Will, Embryonic Children, Double Effect, and the Regulation of Reproductive Technologies, (January 13, 2025).
• Zanita E. Fenton, (Re)Birth of a Nation: Reconstruction's Unfinished Business, (October 24, 2024).

From SSRN (Religious doctrines):

• Hershey H. Friedman, From Battlefield to Torah: The Military Prowess of Biblical Heroes, (December 20, 2024).
• Hershey H. Friedman, When Heaven Speaks: The Bath Kol as a Bridge to the Divine, (November 30, 2024).
• Ratna Kapur, TWAIL and Religion, (forthcoming in Research Handbook on Third World Approaches to International Law, Anghie, A.T, Chimni, B.S., Fakhri, M. Nesiah, V., Mickelson, K. , Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2025).
• Jeffrey A. Pojanowski, St. John Henry Newman's Development of Doctrine and Law: Some Preliminary Notes and Questions, (2024 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: Per Curiam 36).

From SmartCILP:

•  Emily Kazyak, Kelsy Burke, Maia Behrendt & Marissa Oliver, Religious Exemption, LGBT Rights, and the Social Construction of Harm and Freedom, 49 Law & Social Inquiry 980-1003 (2024).
• Anthony E. Varona, Michele Alexandre, Michael J. Kaufman & Madeleine M. Landrieu, Panel: Religious Freedom and Diversity Missions: Insights from Jesuit Law Deans, 47 Seattle University Law Review 1427-1442 (2024).

Pardons and Policy Changes Limit Use of FACE Act Against Abortion Protesters

On Thursday, President Trump granted full and unconditional pardons to 23 defendants who were convicted of violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. (Full text of Pardon document.) The pardons which were issued a day before the annual January 24 March for Life in Washington D.C. cover defendants in five separate cases: United States v. Handy (blockade of a Washington, D.C. abortion clinic); United States v. Gallagher (barricading of a clinic in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee); United States v. Zastrow, (blockading of abortion clinics in Sterling Heights and Saginaw, Michigan); United States v. Williams (Blocking entrance to Manhattan Planned Parenthood Clinic); United States v. Moscinski (blocking access to Hempstead, N.Y. Planned Parenthood Clinic). AP reports on the pardons.

The Trump Administration also took steps to limit future prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.  AP reports that a memo sent by the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, Chad Mizelle, to the head of the Civil Rights Division orders dismissal of three pending cases growing out of 2021 clinic blockades in Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The memo also says that future prosecutions or civil actions under FACE Act will only be permitted in extraordinary circumstances or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors. Mizelle called prosecutions against anti-abortion protesters a weaponization of law enforcement because few prosecutions were brought against attacks on crisis pregnancy centers and other pro-life organizations.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Oklahoma Publicly-Funded Catholic Charter School Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond, (Docket No. 24-394, certiorari granted 1/24/2025) (Certiorari petition.)  It also granted review in St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School v. Drummond, (Docket No. 24-396, certiorari granted 1/24/2025), which was a separate petition filed by and Intervenor in the same case. (Order List.) The petitions were consolidated for oral argument. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The petitions for review contend that exclusion of religious schools from the state's charter school program violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause despite Establishment Clause concerns, and that religious instruction by a state-funded charter school does not constitute state action. Links to filings in the cases and other materials can be found at the SCOTUSblog case pages here and here. Politico and NBC News report on the Court's action.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments on Louisiana Requirement for Classroom Posting of Ten Commandments

Yesterday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Roake v. Brumley. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Louisiana federal district court held that Louisiana House Bill 71 that requires a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom in the state is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional in all applications. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports extensively on the oral arguments.

DOJ Civil Rights Division Freezes New Initiatives

The Washington Post yesterday reported that the Justice Department's new Chief of Staff has sent a memo to Kathleen Wolf, the new supervisor of the Civil Rights Division, freezing temporarily any new actions by attorneys in the Division.  The length of the freeze is unclear. The memo says that Civil Rights Division attorneys should not file any new complaints, motions to intervene, agreed-upon remands, amicus briefs, or statements of interest during the freeze. It explains that the freeze was imposed in order to be “consistent with the Department’s goal of ensuring that the Federal Government speaks with one voice in its view of the law and to ensure that the President’s appointees or designees have the opportunity to decide whether to initiate any new cases.”  Movement in pending cases already filed will be determined by the judge assigned to each case. Among the cases handled by the Civil Rights Division are those alleging religious discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws.

7th Circuit Hears Arguments on Accommodating Teacher Who Objects to Using Students' Preferred Names and Pronouns

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Indiana federal district court dismissed an orchestra teacher's Title VII claim that the school had failed to reasonably accommodate his religious objections to referring to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. The district court agreed with the school's rejection of using only students' last names as an accommodation. (See prior posting.) ADF, the teacher's counsel, issued a press release ahead of yesterday's arguments.

Kansas Court Says Statute Sets Low Threshold for Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In St. Luke's Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, (KS App., Jan. 17, 2025), a Kansas state appeals court held that under a Kansas statute, an employee's request for a religious exemption from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate does not require as much proof as the trial court in the case demanded.  The appeals court said in part:

The statute does not require the employee to articulate a basis for their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor does it require the employee to provide written evidence of those religious beliefs, as the district court held Glean was required to do. It only requires the employee to explain in a written statement that complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, which Glean did. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(a). And, in fact, the statute specifies:  "An employer shall grant an exemption requested in accordance with this section based on sincerely held religious beliefs without inquiring into the sincerity of the request." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(b)....

Not only did she [employee Sheryl Glean] explain that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine is based on her religious views—as in she believes the vaccine may cause harm to her body—she clarified the religious basis for her concern (or why she believes getting the vaccine would be wrong) when she said since she became a Christian she believes the Bible tells her that her body is holy. See 1 Corinthians 6:19-20..... Glean further evidenced the religiosity of her beliefs when she stated that she had discussed her concerns about getting the vaccine with the pastor from her church. Glean's invocation of both the Bible and her pastor as sources of guidance in this matter evidence the religiosity of her beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Negligence Claim Against Army Chaplain Barred by Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Winder v. United States, (ND TX, Jan. 17, 2025), a Texas federal district court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a negligence lawsuit filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act growing out of advice given by an Army Chaplain.  The Chaplain was consulted by Latrisha Winder, an Army National Guard member, about her husband's suicide threat which her husband conveyed by phone to her from Texas while she was in Virginia. The Chaplain advised Winder to have local law enforcement conduct a welfare check. When Ms. Winder objected, the Chaplain threatened to call local law enforcement himself if she did not.  This led Ms. Winder to call law enforcement. The welfare check led to a confrontation and to the fatal shooting of Winder's husband by a sheriff's deputy conducting the check. The court said in part:

Contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, this action is not "simply a civil dispute in which a religious official happens to be involved." Based on the Complaint's allegations and its reference to Army regulations and training materials, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that this action "entails[] no inquiry into [the Chaplain's] religious doctrine."...

Plaintiffs argue the Chaplain threatened to breach his duty of confidentiality by telling Latrisha "he would call law enforcement if she did not call," which they contend "is wholly secular and a neutral principle that the Court can apply without inquiring into and applying [the Chaplain's] religious training, faith, and beliefs."...

The existence of this tension—whether the Chaplain's duty of confidentiality is religious or secular in nature—is precisely why free exercise principles mandate the Court abstain from adjudication here. Indeed, "[i]t is a core tenet of First Amendment jurisprudence that, in resolving civil claims, courts must be careful not to intrude upon internal matters of" religious doctrine.... It is not for the Court to adjudicate, or even question, the Chaplain's duty of confidentiality, given that Plaintiffs have admitted, and Army regulations make clear, there is a religious component to this inquiry.

9th Circuit: Hindu Out-of-Stater Lacks Standing to Challenge Ban on Caste Discrimination

In Bagal v. Sawant, (9th Cir., Jan. 21, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a practicing Hindu who lives in North Carolina lacks standing to challenge a Seattle, Washington Anti-Caste Discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

Appellant argues that the Ordinance violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment....

Appellant speculates that the Ordinance could be enforced against him on a future visit to Seattle for ordering a vegetarian meal or wearing a religious marker called a Mauli thread on his wrist.  But these activities are not prohibited by the Ordinance, and Appellant fails to demonstrate that engaging in them would subject him to a credible threat of prosecution....

Appellant argues that the Ordinance creates stigma toward the Hindu religion, which amounts to disapproval of Hinduism over other religions and causes Appellant to refrain from certain Hindu practices.... Appellant has offered no plausible connection between his decision to refrain from engaging in certain Hindu practices in North Carolina and a Seattle Ordinance that prohibits none of those activities....

Appellant has also not demonstrated that he has a geographical connection to the Ordinance sufficient for standing for an Establishment Clause claim. 

1st Circuit Accepts Employer's Undue Hardship Defense for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccination

In Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc., (1st Cir., Jan. 17, 2025), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a Title VII lawsuit brought by a TV news photographer who asserted religious objections to his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The employer refused to provide an accommodation, asserting that it would impose an undue hardship. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the ground that his objection was not religious but instead reflected "a personal medical judgment about the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination" expressed in religious language. On appeal, the 1st Circuit held that it did not have to reach the issue of whether plaintiff's objections were religious because defendant had adequately carried its undue hardship defense. The court said in part:

Rodrique contends that Hearst has not proffered admissible evidence showing that the vaccine actually protects against the transmission of COVID-19.  As Rodrique frames the issue, if the vaccine does not reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission -- as opposed to merely mitigating symptoms, for example -- then Hearst suffers no undue hardship by granting him an exemption.  And in Rodrique's view, only expert testimony can support this conclusion.,,,  

,,, [W]e disagree with Rodrique that Hearst did not provide legally sufficient evidence....  Because ... Hearst relied "on the objective, scientific information available to [it]," with particular attention to "the views of public health authorities," we hold that it acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees.

Business Insurance reports on the decision.