Refusal To Sell Generic Cake for Same-Sex Wedding Reception Violates California Anti-Discrimination Law

In Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA App., Feb. 11, 2025), a California state appellate court in a 74-page opinion held that a bakery violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA) when it refused to sell a predesigned white cake to a customer because the cake would be used at the customer's same-sex wedding reception. The bakery had a policy of refusing customer requests that violate fundamental Christian principles. The court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses and concluded that the bakery's referral of the customer to another bakery did not eliminate the violation. The court said in part:

Here, the policy’s application hinges not on the act of marriage, but on the same sex status of the couple to be married.  Thus, the policy’s purposeful exclusion of same sex couples is facial discrimination because of sexual orientation....

... [T]he fact that Miller’s adoption of the discriminatory policy was driven by her sincerely held religious beliefs rather than malice or ill will is irrelevant to the issue of intentional discrimination....

Discriminatorily denying service and then telling would-be customers they may take their business down the street (or farther) to a separate, unassociated establishment where they may be served by way of referral in no way ensures full and equal access to the product or service at the same price and under the same conditions.... [A] referral to a separate and independent business subjects the customer to “‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments’” that public accommodation laws like the UCRA are generally designed to address.....

Focusing on the bakery's free speech and free exercise defenses, the court said in part: 

The act of providing a product to a wedding reception with the intent to send a message does not transform that product into pure speech if the product itself is not the self-expression of the vendor.  If this were the case, a host of nonexpressive products or services provided for a same-sex wedding reception could be deemed to convey a message merely because they were provided for the event—e.g., flatware, chairs and linens, etc.  Moreover, many standard products provided to a wedding reception are equally as visible as the cake and used by the couple in a symbolic manner....  The mere fact these products are prepared for and provided to a same-sex wedding in a routine economic transaction does not transform them into the self-expression of the vendor....

There is also little likelihood a viewer would understand the cake’s sale and provision to a same-sex wedding conveyed any message about marriage generally or an endorsement and celebration of same-sex marriage in particular....

Here, the UCRA does not draw any distinctions between secular and religious activities, and there is no evidence the UCRA was enacted as a means to discriminate against religion.  Moreover, defendants’ argument the statutory provisions relating to the preservation of housing for senior citizens ... are contradictory secular exemptions under the UCRA, rendering it not generally applicable, is unpersuasive.

Designation of Catholic Church as Historic Structure Is Enjoined

In Zubik v. City of Pittsburgh, (WD PA, Feb. 11, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court enjoined the city of Pittsburgh from designating a closed Catholic church building that is in substantial disrepair as a historic structure. When a building is nominated for historic designation, its owners are prohibited from making any exterior alterations to the building. The court held that the nomination of the building by a city resident violated the city's Historic Designation Ordinance that requires the nomination of a religious structure "only be made by the owner(s) of record of the religious structure."

The court also concluded that the city's actions substantially burdened use of the church property for religious exercise in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The court said in part:

The City effectively supplanted the Diocese’s control over the external religious ornamentation and symbols affixed to the Church Building.  By doing so, the City hindered, restricted, or encumbered the Diocese’s religious use of its stained-glass windows and other sacred fixtures of the Church Building.  Contrary to the City’s argument, these encumbrances impose more than a “minimal effect of limiting how the Diocese could alter the street facing façade” of the Church Building....

...[O]n this record there is no compelling government interest in the City’s exercise of control over the Church Building, nor is the City’s pursuit of historic designation of the Church Building the least restrictive means of achieving its stated interests.

Indiana Supreme Court Broadly Interprets Churches' Partial Tort Immunity

In Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch, (IN Sup. Ct., Feb. 11, 2025), the Indiana Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to a state statute that partially shields non-profit religious organizations from tort liability. As summarized by the court:

For an invitee—one who enters the premises with the church’s actual or implied permission—  the church’s twin duties are to warn of hidden dangers of which it has actual knowledge and not to harm the entrant intentionally. Unless the church breaches one of these limited duties, it is not liable for injuries sustained on its premises.

At issue in the case was how broadly to define church "premises." Plaintiff in the case was a church member who was injured while helping construct a storage shed on the five-acre plot of land on which the small church is also located. He sued claiming that the church was negligent in not providing safe equipment and failing to properly supervise him. The court said in part:

Despite the broad meaning of “premises”, Kirsch insists that the term cannot include a church’s entire parcel of land and refers only to the parcel’s specific subpart that is “used primarily for worship services”....

Had the legislature intended “premises” in section 2 to mean only the building where worship services occur or only a subpart of the church’s parcel of land, it could have limited the term’s meaning as it did in adjoining section 34-31-7-3. Section 3 applies to nonprofit religious organizations that offer childcare services for a fee...

“Premises” in section 2, rather, is consistent with general-language dictionaries that define “premises” to include an entire parcel of land....

Section 34-31-7-2 is not without limit.... The “use” requirement is that “the premises as a whole [be] used primarily for worship services”.

[Thanks to Josh Tatum for the lead.]

Britain's Court of Appeals: Teacher Wrongfully Terminated for Personal Facebook Postings Reflecting Christian Beliefs on Sexuality

In Higgs v. Farmor's School, (EWCA, Feb. 12, 2025), Britain's Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of a teacher because of posts on her personal Facebook page reflecting her Christian-based objections to schools teaching children about same-sex marriage and gender fluidity constituted unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion or belief in violation of the Equality Act 2010. The court said in part:

The school sought to justify her dismissal on the basis that the posts in question were intemperately expressed and included insulting references to the promoters of gender fluidity and “the LGBT crowd” which were liable to damage the school’s reputation in the community: the posts had been reported by one parent and might be seen by others.  However, neither the language of the posts nor the risk of reputational damage were capable of justifying the Claimant’s dismissal in circumstances where she had not said anything of the kind at work or displayed any discriminatory attitudes in her treatment of pupils.

Lord Justice Falk filed a brief concurring opinion.

27 Religious Denominational Groups Sue DHS Over Rescission of Sensitive Locations Policy

Yesterday, 27 Christian and Jewish denominational bodies and organizations filed suit in a D.C. federal district court challenging the rescission by the Department of Homeland Security of its "Sensitive Locations Policy." The policy severely limited the situations under which immigration enforcement actions could take place at churches, synagogues, mosques and other institutions of worship, as well as at various other locations. The complaint (full text) in Friends General Conference v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D DC, filed 2/11/2025), says in part:

1. [Plaintiffs] bring this suit unified on a fundamental belief: Every human being, regardless of birthplace, is a child of God worthy of dignity, care, and love. Welcoming the stranger, or immigrant, is thus a central precept of their faith practices....

7. ... Consistent with their call to welcome and serve all people, many have undocumented congregants and many offer social service ministries— such as food and clothing pantries, English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes, legal assistance, and job training services—at their churches and synagogues that serve undocumented people.  An immigration enforcement action during worship services, ministry work, or other congregational activities would be devastating to their religious practice. It would shatter the consecrated space of sanctuary, thwart communal worship, and undermine the social service outreach that is central to religious expression and spiritual practice for Plaintiffs’ congregations and members.

8. The rescission of the sensitive locations policy is already substantially burdening the religious exercise of Plaintiffs’ congregations and members.  Congregations are experiencing decreases in worship attendance and social services participation due to fear of immigration enforcement action.  For the vulnerable congregants who continue to attend worship services, congregations must choose between either exposing them to arrest or undertaking security measures that are in direct tension with their religious duties of welcome and hospitality. Likewise, the choice that congregations currently face between discontinuing social service ministries or putting undocumented participants at risk of arrest is no choice at all: Either way, congregations are forced to violate their religious duty to serve and protect their immigrant neighbors.

The suit alleges that the rescission of the policy violates plaintiffs' free exercise rights under RFRA as well as their 1st Amendment rights to expressive association.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

Missouri and Christian Counselors Sue Localities Over Conversion Therapy Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Missouri federal district court against Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri by the state of Missouri and Christian licensed counselors challenging ordinances passed by those jurisdictions which broadly ban licensed counselors from engaging in counseling directed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, (WD MO, filed 2/7/2025), alleges in part:

Kansas City and Jackson County recently passed ordinances that ban purely consensual conversations—pure speech—about gender identity and sexual orientation. These ordinances not only require counselors to parrot these governments’ preferred views on sexual ethics; they also ban different views. That violates the First Amendment. 

340. The Counseling Ordinances facially and as-applied restrict speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting the Counselors and other licensed professionals who are Missouri citizens from proclaiming only certain content and viewpoints; by applying to speech based solely on its content; by authorizing counseling that supports only one viewpoint of gender identity and sexual orientation....  

353. The Public Accommodation Ordinance forces the Counselors to speak messages they object to by requiring them to offer and provide same-sex marital and relationship counseling because the Counselors offer and provide counseling about marriages and relationships between one man and one woman.... and to refer to clients and prospective clients by using those persons’ self-selected pronouns....

376. The City’s Public Accommodation Ordinance substantially burdens the Counselors’ sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them either to operate their counseling practices in ways that violate their religious beliefs or to close their practices....

Plaintiffs also challenge the ordinances on vagueness grounds. 

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

Evangelist Can Move Ahead with Free Speech Claim Against Officer Who Arrested Him at Pride Festival

In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, Feb. 6, 2025), a Tennessee federal district court held that plaintiff, a Christian evangelist, had successfully stated a claim for violation of his 1st Amendment free speech rights. Plaintiff was asked by a police officer to leave a Pride Festival after he began to share his Christian testimony with two women at a church booth.  When he refused to leave, he was arrested. He sued, contending that the police officer discriminated against him by impermissibly regulating his speech conducted in a public forum. The police office asserted a defense of qualified immunity. The court said in part:

Here, Cocchini has alleged facts plausibly demonstrating that the Park remained a public forum throughout Franklin Pride....

There are two competing stories for Cocchini’s exclusion from the Park.  Officer Spry says he removed Cocchini from the public forum, causing him to cease his peaceful invited religious speech, apparently for violating Tennessee’s criminal trespass law....  However, the Complaint alleges that Officer Spry told Cocchini on the day of his arrest, and under oath, that he arrested Cocchini because a Franklin Pride TN security event coordinator wanted him removed.....  Taking the allegations in the Complaint as true, Cocchini sufficiently asserts that the justification for his exclusion from the Park, and arrest, was based on the content of his speech....

If the arrest was to “avoid offense to gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals,” as the Complaint alleges, such an interest (compelling or not) is not narrowly tailored by arresting individuals like Cocchini who express religious views....

... [I]if as Cocchini alleges, Officer Spry arrested him “because of the content of his speech,” then he “acted in violation of the First Amendment in ways that should have been clear to a reasonable officer.” ... This is a disputed issue of fact such that “development of the factual record is [] necessary to decide whether [Officer Spry’s] actions violated clearly established law.” ...

The court however dismissed plaintiff's equal protection claim which was based only on the alleged violation of his 1st Amendment rights.

Differential School Bussing for Parochial School Students Does Not Violate Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clauses

In Swiech v. Board of Education for the Sylvania City School District, (OH App., Feb. 7, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by the mother of elementary school children. Plaintiff claimed that the hub-and-spoke bussing arrangement for transporting of children to Catholic elementary schools violates her free exercise and equal protection rights. Public school students were furnished direct home-to-school bus transportation. The court said in part:

The first step in analyzing an equal protection claim is determining the appropriate standard of review....  

... [B]ecause this case does not involve a fundamental right or a suspect class, rational basis review applies.

... [I]t is rational and reasonable to classify public school students separately from nonpublic and community school students based on the differences in how many students attend each school, where the students are located in relation to their school, and when the schools start and end....

... Swiech’s argument that she receives lesser governmental benefits as a consequence of the exercise of religion lacks nuance.  Swiech’s children receive different transportation not because she is exercising her religion, but because she chooses to send them to a nonpublic or community school.  All students residing in the School District who attend a nonpublic or community school are similarly transported regardless of whether they attend a religious or non-religious school. ...

In any event, we agree with the School District that its bussing plan does not have a coercive affect against Swiech in the practice of her religion.  While the bussing plan may impact Swiech’s and her children’s sleep schedules, work schedules, and medication schedules, it does not interfere with their ability to practice their religion.  Indeed, the School District’s bussing plan ensures that Swiech’s children are able to attend their chosen religious school on time every day.

Trump Establishes White House Faith Office

Last Friday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) establishing the White House Faith Office. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet summarizing the President's Executive Order and related initiatives.  The Executive Order comes less than three weeks after President Trump as part of an earlier Executive Order (full text) titled Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions revoked President Biden's Executive Order (full text) that created a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. President Trump's new Executive Order reads in part:

The executive branch wants faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to compete on a level playing field for grants, contracts, programs, and other Federal funding opportunities.  The efforts of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship are essential to strengthening families and revitalizing communities, and the Federal Government welcomes opportunities to partner with such organizations through innovative, measurable, and outcome-driven initiatives.

The executive branch is committed to ensuring that all executive departments and agencies ... honor and enforce the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty and to ending any form of religious discrimination by the Federal Government.

The President also announced the following appointments to the White House Faith Office:  Pastor Paula White-Cain as a Special Government Employee and Senior Advisor to the Office; Jennifer S. Korn as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Faith Director of the Office; and Jackson Lane as Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Faith Engagement.

The Hill reports on the President's action. Wikipedia traces the history of similar offices in successive Administrations since that of George W. Bush. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Rules On Pre-Trial Motions by Defendant Charged with Obstruction by Force of Religious Free Exercise

In United States v. Jiang, (ED VA, Feb. 6, 2025), a Virginia federal district court ruled on several technical and procedural issues raised in pre-trial motions by a defendant indicted, among other charges, for attempted forcible obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs in violation of 18 USC §247. According to an AP report on an earlier aspect of the case:

Prosecutors say Jiang intended to shoot congregation members of the Park Valley Church in Haymarket in September 2023. He was arrested during Sunday services at the church, armed with a handgun and other weapons, after a former girlfriend called police and alerted them to disturbing social media posts he made.

According to authorities, Jiang had recently joined to the church but indicated that he was mad at God and at men for blocking him from having romantic relationships with women. He left behind a “final letter” in which he said he intended to only shoot and kill men and apologized in advance for any women who might be "collateral damage."

The court held that while §247 refers to obstructing "any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs," it is sufficient that the indictment identified defendant's victim as “the congregants of Park Valley Church,” rather than identifying each individual.

The court also rejected defendant's argument that since he did not remove a firearm from his waistband while at the church until law enforcement instructed him to do so, he could not be charged with the aggravated offense of attempting to kill church members

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kusal Amarasinghe, Eliminating Unnecessary Suffering in War: A Review on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law & Selected Theravada Buddhist Principles, (International Research Conference- 2024, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo).
• Ann E. Tweedy, The Right to Practice Polyamory, (Southwestern Law Review, forthcoming 2025).
• David S. Cohen & Greer Donley, From Medical Exceptions to Reproductive Freedom, (Michigan Law Review, Volume 124, forthcoming 2025).
• Ian Stephens, Concrete and Particularized Standards to Resolve the Difficulty of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (October 21, 2024).
• Lauren van Schilfgaarde, American Cultural Heritage's Embrace of Tribal Cultural Heritage, (33 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 275 (2024)).
• Hannibal Travis, Genocide by Deportation into Poverty: Western Diplomats on Ottoman Christian Killings and Expulsions, 1914-1924, (Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper (forthcoming)).
• Laura D. Hermer, Abortion and Embodiment, (The American Journal of Bioethics, 2025).
• Lauren van Schilfgaarde, Native Reproductive Self-Determination,76 UCLA L Rev __ (2025)).
• Vincent Phillip Muñoz, What Is an Establishment of Religion? and What Does Disestablishment Require?,  (December 13, 2024).
• Risa L. Goluboff & Richard Schragger, Grants Pass and the Vagrancy Revolution Revisited, (The Supreme Court Review: Volume 2024).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Ihsan Yilmaz, The Diyanet's Role in Shaping National and Transnational Identities: Religion, Politics, and the AKP's Pragmatic Islamism, (September 02, 2024).
• Romi Setiawan, Nurul Hak & Adi Setiawan, Synergising Normative and Cultural Frameworks in Reforming Core Principles for Effective Zakat Supervision in Indonesia, (September 19, 2024).
• Ekaterina Ryzhkova, The Institute of Public Finance in the Legal Tradition of the Arab East, (November 06, 2024).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Australian Journal of Law & Religion, (Vol. 5, 2024).
• Willan Chester Jordan, Book Review: Uncertain Refuge: Sanctuary in the Literature of Medieval England, by Elizabeth Allen, [Abstract], 41 Law & History Review 841-842 (2023).
• Joseph Chu, Past Wounds, Present Scars: A Historical-Legal Analysis of Religion, Regulation and Rights in Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution, 33 Minnesota Journal of International Law 113-154 (2024).

U.S. Reverses Position in Transgender Case Already Argued Before Supreme Court

Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. The case involves a challenge to a Tennessee statute prohibiting chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The case began as a suit by a private party, but the United States then intervened and filed its own complaint challenging the constitutionality of the statute. After a decision by the 6th Circuit reversing a preliminary injunction against enforcement, both the United States and the private plaintiff filed petitions for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review only in the United States' case. Now with a change of Administrations, the United States has changed its position and no longer challenges the Tennessee statute.  The United States on February 7 filed a letter (full text) with the Supreme Court, reading in part:

The Department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic.  Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1—let alone sought this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ decision reversing the preliminary injunction against SB1.

Nevertheless, the United States believes that the confluence of several factors counsels against seeking to dismiss its case in this Court.  The Court’s prompt resolution of the question presented will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts.  Since granting certiorari last June, the Court has received full briefing and heard oral argument, including from the private plaintiffs, who have participated in this Court as respondents supporting the United States at the merits stage and who remain adverse to the state respondents in a dispute that has not become moot.  Accordingly, the Court may resolve the question presented without either granting the private plaintiffs’ pending petition for a writ of certiorari, see L.W. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-466 (filed Nov. 1, 2023), or requesting further, likely duplicative briefing from the same parties about the same court of appeals judgment in the underlying suit between the private plaintiffs and the state respondents.

AP reports on the government's action.

President Trump Creates Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias (full text). The Order establishes within the Justice Department a temporary Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Chrisian Bias chaired by the Attorney General and made up of 16 other Cabinet level and high-ranking Administration officials. The Executive Order sets out at length the reasons for creating the Task Force, saying in part:

... [T]he United States Constitution enshrines the fundamental right to religious liberty in the First Amendment....

Yet the previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.  The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities....

At the same time, Catholic churches, charities, and pro-life centers sought justice for violence, theft, and arson perpetrated against them, which the Biden Department of Justice largely ignored. ...

... [A] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) memorandum asserted that “radical-traditionalist” Catholics were domestic-terrorism threats and suggested infiltrating Catholic churches as “threat mitigation.”  This later-retracted FBI memorandum cited as support evidence propaganda from highly partisan sources.

  The Biden Department of Education sought to repeal religious-liberty protections for faith-based organizations on college campuses.  The Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sought to force Christians to affirm radical transgender ideology against their faith.  And the Biden Department of Health and Human Services sought to drive Christians who do not conform to certain beliefs on sexual orientation and gender identity out of the foster-care system....

 My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government....

Also yesterday, President Trump spoke for 24-minutes (full text of Remarks) at the National Prayer Breakfast held in the U.S. Capitol

Title VI Does Not Cover Protected Speech, But Antisemitic Actions at Cooper Union Went Beyond Speech

In Gartenberg v. The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, (SD NY, Feb. 5, 2025), a New York federal district court held that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act must be applied consistent with the 1st Amendment, even as to private schools. In the case, a group of Jewish students asserted a claim for deliberate indifference to national-origin harassment under Title VI growing out of on-campus incidents after the Gaza-Israel conflict began. The court said in part:

First, speech “on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community,” will generally fail to “constitute unlawful harassment.” ...

[C]onstruing Title VI not to reach instances of pure speech on matters of public concern, or an institution’s failure to censor or punish the same, does not mean that such expression is irrelevant to determining whether actionable harassment occurred.  To make out a hostile environment claim, a plaintiff must plead (and then prove) not only that they suffered objectively severe or pervasive harassment, but that the harassment was motivated, at least in part, by a protected characteristic....

Cooper Union’s first line of defense is that none of the speech or conduct identified in Gartenberg’s Complaint was motivated by animus towards Jews, but was instead mere “criticism[] of Israel and/or its policies” and a “show[] of solidarity for the Palestinian cause.”... Gartenberg, by contrast, maintains that Zionism and support for Israel are “an integral part of the national origin and identity of many Jews,” and that Jews’ “belief in Israel as their ancestral national homeland is fundamental to their Jewish identity.” ...

... [T]his case can be resolved without opining on whether conduct or speech hostile to Zionism, itself a term subject to a considerable variety of interpretations, is necessarily antisemitic....

... That the demonstrators at Cooper Union generally avoided the use of overtly antisemitic language and symbols is ... not dispositive. Here, Gartenberg’s Complaint is replete with words and phrases that she alleges are thinly veiled “code words” designed to “activate conscious or subconscious [antisemitic] concepts and frames.”...  On October 25, 2023, for instance, pro-Palestinian students at Cooper Union chanted slogans like “[l]ong live the intifada,” “[r]esistance is justified,” and “[i]t is right to rebel.” ...  Although the parties offer competing interpretations of these slogans, when uttered just two weeks after the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust in a manner that reasonably appears to celebrate and glorify that same violence, the Court agrees that such phrases support at least a plausible inference of animus towards Jews....

Regardless of whether this expression is better characterized as righteous protest in support of a noble cause, as the vulgar celebration of terrorism and antisemitism, or as something in between, it is not a proper basis on which to impose civil liability on Cooper Union....

Gartenberg’s allegations, however, go beyond identifying instances of pure political speech.  Although the October 25 demonstration began as a peaceful, public protest concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gartenberg alleges that after a couple hours a mob of protestors forced their way past campus security guards and into the Foundation Building....  

Once inside, the protestors obstructed the hallway and disrupted classes while apparently attempting to locate President Sparks.,,, Unable to find her, the protesters then “descended on the hallway surrounding the library” while continuing to chant their slogans...

It is plausible that this incident was physically threatening or humiliating to the Jewish students huddled inside the library.  The demonstrators “attempted to enter the library, banging on and rattling the locked library doors and shouting ‘let us in!’”...

The Court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI.  These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be.  In sum, the physically threatening or humiliating conduct that the Complaint alleges Jewish students in the library experienced “is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause,....

JNS reports on the court's decision.

Australia Strengthens Hate Crime Laws In Face of Rising Antisemitism

Yesterday, Australia's Parliament gave final passage to Amendments to Australia's Hate Crimes Law. (Full text of law.) (Full text of Explanatory Memorandum.) The law is intended to strengthen Australia's efforts to combat hate crimes, particularly in the face of rising incidents of antisemitism in the country. As summarized by BBC:

The new laws were passed following a wave of high-profile antisemitic attacks which have become a major topic of debate in the country.

The amendments have been described by the government as the "toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes".

But critics say that the governing Labor Party is caving to opposition demands and going against its own policy of opposing mandatory jail sentences.

Under the amendments, displaying hate symbols or performing a Nazi salute is now punishable with at least one year in prison.

Other penalties include a minimum of three years for financing terrorism and six years for committing or planning terrorist acts.

U.S. Withdraws from UN Human Rights Council

On Tuesday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council and ordering a review of the United States membership in UNESCO. The United States currently holds a seat on the Human Rights Council. The Executive Order provides in part:

The United States helped found the United Nations (UN) after World War II to prevent future global conflicts and promote international peace and security.  But some of the UN’s agencies and bodies have drifted from this mission and instead act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism.....

Three UN organizations that deserve renewed scrutiny are the UNHRC; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)....

The United States will not participate in the UNHRC and will not seek election to that body.  The Secretary shall terminate the office of United States Representative to the UNHRC and any positions primarily dedicated to supporting the United States Representative to the UNHRC.

... The United States will also conduct a review of its membership in UNESCO....  In particular, the review will include an analysis of any anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization.

VP Vance Speaks to International Religious Freedom Summit

Vice President JD Vance yesterday delivered a 1 hour and 49-minute address to the 2025 International Religious Freedom Summit at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C.  (Video of full remarks.) He said in part:

I'm here this morning in part to reflect not only on the words of our Founders, but especially on those of their intellectual forebears, the Church fathers of classical Christianity to which we owe the very notion of religious liberty. And I know we have people of every faith here, but it is, I think, a conceit of modern society that religious liberty is a liberal concept. But we know that religious freedom flows from concepts central to the Christian faith, in particular the free will of human beings and the essential dignity of all peoples. We find its foundational tenets in the Gospels themselves with Christ's famous instructions to render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's....

Our Administration believes we must stand for religious freedom not just as a legal principle, as important as that is, but as a lived reality both within our own borders and especially outside of it. In recent years too often has our Nation's international engagement on religious liberty issues been corrupted and distorted to the point of absurdity. Think about this. How did America get to the point where we're sending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars abroad to NGO's that are dedicated to spreading atheism all over the globe.

Catholic News Agency and Religion News Service reported on his remarks.

University Did Not Violate Constitution by Permitting Anti-Zionist Encampment

In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, (ED CA, Feb. 4, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis participated in the denial of plaintiff's constitutional rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to continue even though it violated University rules on camping and obtaining permits. Plaintiff who is Jewish and identifies as a Zionist was blocked by the encampment from walking through the campus. He was told that Zionists are not welcome and was struck by an umbrella. Rejecting plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of establishing even a causal connection between defendants’ actions and plaintiff’s exclusion from the encampment, let alone that defendants acted with discriminatory intent.... Nor does plaintiff allege any facts suggesting that the university treated Jewish individuals differently than the encampment participants; there is no indication that Jewish individuals sought to establish an encampment, or that if they had, the university would have rebuffed them or prevented them from engaging in comparable treatment of pro-Palestinian protestors....

Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants “deprived [him] of the right to express his Jewish identity freely” by “allowing the encampment to thwart religious dialog[ue]” in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....  It is not possible to draw a plausible inference that defendants’ actions (or inactions) had the effect of favoring or disfavoring any religion or burdening plaintiff’s religious exercise....

The court also concluded that defendants had qualified immunity. Plaintiff's claim under Title VI was dismissed for lack of standing because he was not connected with any University program that received federal funding. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's Americans With Disabilities Act claim. While plaintiff had a mobility issue, the fact "that a single path preferred by plaintiff was not accessible does not plead a violation of Title II of the ADA."

Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Retroactive Elimination of Limitation Period for Child Sex Abuse Claims

In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe, (MD Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2025), the Maryland Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision upheld the retroactive elimination of the limitation period for bringing child sexual abuse suits.  The majority said in part:

In 2017, the General Assembly enacted legislation that, among other things, established a new time restriction applicable to filing child sexual abuse claims.  The new provision stated that “[i]n no event” may a civil action for child sexual abuse be filed against a defendant not alleged to have been the perpetrator of the abuse “more than 20 years after the date on which the victim reaches the age of majority.”...  

In 2023, the General Assembly enacted the Child Victims Act of 2023.  That law eliminated all time restrictions applicable to child sexual abuse claims, including the new provision that had been added in 2017....

We hold that the relevant provision of the 2017 law created a statute of limitations and that the running of a statute of limitations does not establish a vested right to be free from liability from the underlying cause of action.  We further hold that it was within the power of the General Assembly to retroactively abrogate that statute of limitations.  The Child Victims Act of 2023 is therefore constitutional as applied to the defendants in the three cases before us. 

Justice Biran, joined by Justices Eaves and McDonald, filed a dissenting opinion which said in part:

The text of the 2017 Act is unambiguous. In that legislation, the General Assembly created a statute of repose with respect to claims against non-perpetrator defendants. Thus, any claims against non-perpetrator defendants that were untimely on the effective date of the 2017 Act, or that became untimely before the effective date of the 2023 Act, could not be revived without violating the vested rights of the affected defendants. To the extent the General Assembly retroactively repealed the 2017 Act’s statute of repose by enacting the 2023 Act, it violated Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Article 3, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution.

Justice McDonald also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Biran and Eaves. 

Teacher Sues After Suspension for Hanging Crucifix in Her Classroom Workspace

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a public-school teacher who was placed on administrative leave after she refused to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The complaint (full text) in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, filed 1/30/2025) alleges in part:

Federal and state law prohibit government officials from using the Establishment Clause as an excuse to abridge the free speech and religious free exercise rights of their employees.... Other teachers, meanwhile, display in their classroom workspaces Wonder Woman action figures, images of Baby Yoda and Santa Claus, and other personal expressive items.  Yet only Ms. Castro has been suspended and threatened with termination.  The disparity of treatment here against religious expression makes this an easy case...: if Defendants permit teachers to display personal expressive items like family photos and inspirational quotes in their classrooms, they may not punish Ms. Castro for doing the same by hanging a crucifix in the personal workspace aside her desk.

National Review reports on the lawsuit.