Court Enjoins Implementation of Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in the Military

In Talbott v. United States, (D DC, March 18, 2025), the United States federal district court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction barring the military from implementing Executive Orders and military memoranda that exclude transgender persons from serving in the military. The injunction requires the military to maintain the pre-Trump status quo on military service by transgender individuals. Explaining its decision, the court's 79-page opinion said in part:

The Court agrees that “courts [are] ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have” and that “the military authorities [not courts] have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out our Nation’s military policy.”... Often, courts accept “the reasoned, professional analysis of Congress and the Executive on matters strictly within the realm of military expertise.”...   

Defendants carry deference too far, however.  By “defer” they basically mean the Court must side with the military’s position, end-stop.  And they contend the Court must defer even if the judgment, as here, does not make sense....

The Court ... applies Bostock’s reasoning to analyze the Military Ban.  In doing so, it does not “import[] the Title VII test for liability,” ... into the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.  Rather, it borrows Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning to conclude that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination for purposes of the equal protection inquiry....

... [B]ecause the Military Ban targets transgender persons for disparate treatment, it creates an explicit sex-based classification that requires application of intermediate scrutiny. ...

The court also concluded that the Military Ban is subject to intermediate scrutiny because transgender persons should be considered a quasi-suspect class. The court went on:

Defendants have articulated important government objectives in military readiness, unit cohesion, and saving costs.  But the Fifth Amendment requires more than pointing to such “broadly formulated interests.”...  Defendants must show that the discriminatory Military Ban is in some way substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.  And they must do so without relying on “overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” ... They do not come close.  Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban fails intermediate scrutiny review.....

The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.  Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.  Thus, even if the Court analyzed the Military Ban under rational basis review, it would fail....

The Court could stop here in its analysis and comfortably conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban is motivated by animus and is not tailored to meet its stated goals.  But, as they say, there is more, for the Military Ban does not stand alone.  President Trump has signed an executive order recognizing the existence of only two sexes; blocked schools from using federal funds to promote the idea that gender can be fluid; directed the State Department to stop issuing documents that allow a third “X” gender marker; changed references to “LGBTQI+” on government websites to “LGB,” erasing not just transgender persons, but intersex people as well; revoked the ability of transgender federal employees to receive gender-affirming care; and directed that all incarcerated transgender persons be denied medical treatments and be housed by birth sex, where they are nine times more susceptible to violence....

NPR reports on the decision.

Court Upholds California's Repeal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Vaccination Mandate

 In Royce v. Pan, (SD CA, March 17, 2025), a California federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to California's removal of the "personal belief" exemption from the state's compulsory school vaccination requirements. The court rejected arguments that the repeal of the exemption evidenced hostility to religion and that the law is not generally applicable because it exempts comparable secular activity.  The court said in part:

First, SB 277 did not specifically repeal a religious exemption.  Rather, it repealed a general personal belief exemption that was secular and neutral on its face.  Repeal of a secular exemption does not demonstrate hostility towards any religion or religious practice.  Second, even if SB 277 could be characterized as repealing a religious exemption, repealing a prior religious exemption is not hostile towards religion per se....

Plaintiffs argue that SB 277 is substantially underinclusive and treats secular activity more favorably than religious exercise by eliminating exemptions for religious reasons but permitting secular exemptions that undermine the State’s interest in a similar way.....  In particular, Plaintiffs highlight medical exemptions, exemptions for home schooled children and children enrolled in independent student programs, exemptions for students who qualify for IEPs, exemptions for students over 18 years of age, and conditional enrollment for migrant, homeless, foster, and military children.....

The court concluded that none of these exemptions are comparable to a religious exemption and that rational basis review applies because the law is neutral and generally applicable.

Most Challenges to Law Protecting Access to Abortion Clinics Are Rejected; One Section Violates 1st and 14th Amendments

In Hulinsky v. County of Westchester, (SD NY, March 14,2025), two women who have engaged in sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics challenged a Westchester County, New York, law that was designed to assure safe access to reproductive health care facilities. The court described the challenged legislation:

Sections 425.31(a) prohibits forms of “physically obstructing or blocking” that amount to interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility. Sections 425.31(e) and (f) prohibit interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility “[b]y force or threat of force, or by physically obstructing or blocking[.]” Section 425.31(c) prohibits “knowingly follow[ing] and harass[ing] another person within twenty-five (25) feet of” a “reproductive health care facility.” Section 425.31(h) prohibits “knowingly interfer[ing] with the operation of a reproductive health care facility.”

A New York federal district court found that Sec. 425.31(h) "burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests." It also concluded that the section "is vague because it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited." However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise challenge to the section as well as their free speech and free exercise challenges to other parts of the law. 

Justice Department in Policy Change Files Amicus Brief Supporting Religious Charter School

 As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond and the related case of St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School v. Drummond. 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. Last week (March 12), the U.S. Acting Solicitor General filed an amicus brief (full text) urging reversal of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The brief says in part:

... [T]he Free Exercise Clause applies and prohibits Oklahoma from excluding St. Isidore based on its religious observance. 

The United States previously advanced a different view of a charter school’s relationship with a State in Charter Day School, Inc. v. Peltier, 143 S. Ct. 2657 (2023), after this Court called for the views of the Solicitor General regarding whether a charter school’s adoption and enforcement of a student dress code was state action that could potentially violate the Constitution.  The United States contended (Br. 9-14) that the charter school was engaged in state action because it performed an educational function that was traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.  

After the recent change in Administration, the United States has concluded that charter schools do not perform functions exclusively reserved to the State.  More broadly, the state-action inquiry on which the United States focused in Peltier has obvious application to cases asking whether a school violates the Constitution in taking a specific action.  Where, as here, the question is whether a school lacks constitutional protections due to its governmental character, the key consideration is whether the school is itself a governmental entity, created and controlled by the State.  A charter school like St. Isidore does not meet those criteria.

RLUIPA and Free Exercise Claims Rejected in Suit by Native American Who Held Religious Objections to Blood Alcohol Test

In Shash v. City of Pueblo, (D CO, March 14, 2025), plaintiff who was a leader in the southern Colorado Native American Community Church of Aztlan brought a variety of claims against the city, state police and other state agencies growing out of his arrest and DUI charges brought against him after an auto accident. Among the claims were alleged violations of plaintiff's free exercise rights under RLUIPA and the federal and state constitutions. According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that Trooper Chavez denied Mr. Shash the opportunity to take a breath test and effectively placed Mr. Shash in a position where he had to submit to a blood test or be charged with DUI....  Plaintiffs argue that this constitutes a substantial burden on Mr. Shash’s First Amendment right to free exercise of his religious beliefs, which prohibit blood draws outside a ceremonial context. 

The court dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, saying in part:

RLUIPA provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution.”...

Because Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Shash was never taken to jail, ... the Parties dispute whether Mr. Shash was ever “confined to an institution” for RLUIPA  purposes....  [W]hile Mr. Shash raises arguments relevant to a finding that he was in “pretrial detention,”..., he omits any discussion of whether his time in the Trooper Defendants’ custody was spent in a “facility.”  The Court thus agrees with Defendants that Mr. Shash was never “residing in or confined to” a qualifying institution.

The court dismissed plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim on qualified immunity grounds, saying in part:

While Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Shash made an “inquiry” regarding his right to decline a blood test that was “based on his right to religious exercise,” there is no allegation that Mr. Shash disclosed his religious beliefs to any Defendant, nor that Trooper Chavez was ever aware of Mr. Shash’s religious beliefs.... In other words, Plaintiffs fail to allege that Trooper Chavez purposefully imposed a substantial burden on Mr. Shash’s free-exercise rights....  Because Plaintiffs have not identified a clearly established First Amendment right implicated by Trooper Chavez’s conduct, Trooper Chavez is entitled to qualified immunity.

The court refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state free exercise claim because it poses a novel question of the degree of scienter required for a violation of the state's free exercise protections in a suit against state officials. Colorado has not adopted a qualified immunity defense.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Sascha O. Becker, Amma Panin, Steven Pfaff & Jared Rubin, Religion and Economic Development: Past, Present, and Future, (CESifo Working Paper No. 11724 (2025)).
• Steven Douglas Smith, The Once and Future Freedom of the Church: Three Stories, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 25-008 (2025).
• Nausica Palazzo, The Religion of Illiberals and the Anti-Gender Backlash, (Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 18 (2):107-137 (2024)).
• Elizabeth Sepper, James David Nelson & Charlotte Garden, Expressive Association at Work, (124 Michigan Law Review__ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Dylan Morrissey, How Bruen and Dobbs Resolved Opposing Historical Traditions Through Hidden Equal Protection Analysis, (Forthcoming, Columbia Law Review Forum, Vol. 125, May 2025).
• Teresa Stanton Collett, Partial Personhood for the Unborn, (January 28, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 39, Issue 2 (May 2024).
• Vrinda Narain, What's Love Got to Do with It? Anti-Love Jihad Laws and the Othering of Muslims in India, 30 UCLA Journal of Gender & Law 167-202 (2023).
• Maggie Crain, Fear and Loathing in Animus: Moral Panic, the Contextualizing Tool for Challenging Gender-Affirming Care Bans, 39 Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender, & Society 21-54 (2024).

Syria Gets New Interim Constitution That Protects Freedom of Belief

AP reports that on March 13, Syria's interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, signed an Interim Constitutional Declaration (full text), which will be in effect until a new permanent constitution for the country is drafted and adopted and national elections are held under it. The Interim Constitutional Declaration provides in part:

Article 3 – Islam, freedom of belief, personal status

1. The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam, and Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation.

2 - Freedom of belief is protected. The State respects all divine religions and guarantees the freedom to perform all their rituals, provided that this does not disturb public order.

3. The personal status of religious sects is protected and respected in accordance with the law....

 Article 10 – Equality  

Citizens are equal before the law in rights and duties, without discrimination based on race, religion, gender or lineage....

 Article 13 – Expression, privacy, movement  

1. The State guarantees freedom of opinion, expression, information, publication and the press....

Oklahoma Indicts Megachurch Pastor on Charges of Lewd Acts With a Minor

The Oklahoma Attorney General has announced that on Wednesday a Multi-County Grand indicted the founder of a Texas Megachurch on five counts of lewd or indecent acts with a young girl. (Full text of indictment). The AG's press release (full text) announcing the indictment said in part:

Robert Preston Morris, 63, resigned last summer as senior pastor of Gateway Church. The Southlake, Texas-based megachurch is among the largest in the United States.

In December 1982, Morris was a traveling evangelist visiting in Hominy with the family of the alleged victim, who was 12 at the time. The indictment alleges Morris’ sexual misconduct began that Christmas and continued over the next four years....

The statute of limitations is not applicable in this case because Morris was not a resident or inhabitant of Oklahoma at any time.

NBC News reports on the indictment.

Petition Seeks to Stop Latest Effort to Get Bibles in Oklahoma School Classrooms

 As previously reported, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued an order staying any work by the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services on any new request by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) for the purchase of Bibles for distribution to public school classrooms. However, the Department of Education has announced a new "Bibles Back in School" Campaign in which it has partnered with singer Lee Greenwood in asking members of the public to purchase copies of the "God Bless the USA" Bible and donate them to OSDE for it to distribute to classrooms. The website through which purchase may be made says in part:

The God Bless The USA Bible makes a strong visual connection of the KJV translation (red letter edition) along with our nation’s Founding Father Documents – The US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and The Pledge of Allegiance – providing a profound visible teaching asset for all. This special Bible will help our next generation of leadership to carry on the future of America as we’ve known it.

Yesterday, the petitioners in Walke v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 3/12/2025), filed a Supplemental Petition (full text) with the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to issue an injunction prohibiting OSDE from proceeding with the Campaign, arguing that OSDE lacks authority to distribute Bibles to school districts and that the Bibles Back to School Campaign violates provisions of the Oklahoma state Constitution (Art. 1 Sec. 2 and Art. 2 Sec 5)which prohibit public money from being used to support any system of religion. The Petition says in part:

To be sure, private parties are free to offer donations of items-- including Bibles-- to school districts, but state officials cross the constitutional line when they organize, promote, and participate in a campaign to distribute donated copies of a particular religious text to schools.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the Supplemental Petition.

9th Circuit: Profs Lack Standing to Challenge Addition of Caste Discrimination to University's Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (9th Cir., March 12, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hindu California State University college professors lack standing to challenge the addition of "caste" as a protected class under the university's anti-discrimination and harassment policy. Plaintiffs claim that this addition falsely attributes a caste system to Hinduism. The court said in part:

Appellants allege that the Policy’s inclusion of “caste” stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices, like celebrating holidays and discussing religious texts....

The complaint ... alleges that the Policy violates the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment by defining the Hindu religion as including a caste system, and in doing so, “ascrib[es] an oppressive and discriminatory caste system to the entire Hindu religion.”...  

Appellants failed to show that they intend to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment such that the Policy would be enforced against them....

... How can Appellants be injured by a policy prohibiting conduct that they have no intention to engage in?...

... Appellants have alleged no injury to their ability to exercise their religion.  Rather, their claims only indicate that they are offended by an alleged association of the caste system with Hinduism.  This is the exact “moral, ideological, or policy objection to a particular government action” that the injury in fact requirement is meant to “screen[] out.”...

... [T]he district court made a factual finding that the Policy had no hostility toward religion.  It based that finding on (1) the fact that the Policy does not mention Hinduism; (2) dictionary definitions show “caste” is “readily defined without reference to Hinduism” 

... If the Policy does not stigmatize Hinduism, Appellants have no spiritual injury.  And if there is no injury, there is no standing....  Appellants’ Establishment Clause claim fails for lack of Article III standing....

[Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Trump Nominates Brian Burch as Ambassador to the Vatican

Yesterday, President Donald Trump formally submitted to Congress the nomination of Brian Burch to be U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. Burch is President of CatholicVote. According to Catholic News Agency, last December Trump announced on Truth Social that he intended to nominate Burch for the position. CNA's report in December said in part:

CatholicVote is a political advocacy group that endorsed Trump in January and ran advertisements in support the president-elect during his campaign. According to CatholicVote, the organization spent over $10 million on the 2024 elections.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Stays for Now Bible Purchases for Public Schools

As previously reported, in October suit was filed by public school parents, teachers and by clergy challenging Oklahoma's requirement for all public schools to incorporate the Bible in their curricula. The suit was filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to assume original jurisdiction because of the importance and time-sensitiveness of the case. The suit was filed against the State Superintendent of Education, the State Board of Education, the State Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), and personnel of each agency. OMES processes purchasing requests by state agencies. At the request of the petitioners as well as by OMES, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Walke v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., March 10, 2025), issued an Order (full text) staying any work by OMES on any new request by the Department of Education for the purchase of Bibles as well as staying OMES's work on a pending Request for Proposals on Biblical Character Instruction. The Court however deferred until a later stage in the case petitioners' request for a stay on implementing in its entirety the state's Bible Education Mandate. Oklahoma Public Radio reports on the Court's order.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Leads to Dismissal of Church Property Dispute

In Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc., (VA App., March 11, 2025), a Virginia state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine barred civil courts from hearing a church property dispute where the church involved had previously invoked jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church Synod in the church's controversy with the Korean American Presbytery. The church went to a civil court only when it was unhappy with the Synod's ruling. At issue was whether the church's property was held in trust for either of the church's parent bodies-- the Atlantic Korean American Presbytery or the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.  The court said in part:

AKAP asserts that because the PCUSA Synod previously adjudicated part of this dispute after Shalom invoked the Synod’s authority to prevent AKAP from assuming control of its assets, Shalom’s decision to seek a decision from the PCUSA Synod deprived the circuit court (and by extension, this Court) of jurisdiction to hear the matter.  Since we find the Synod’s decision deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear this matter under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, we agree that the circuit court could not reach this matter because it lacked jurisdiction even to hear Shalom’s claim as pleaded. ...

By filing the instant complaint in the circuit court, Shalom is collaterally attacking the decision of the PCUSA’s Synod, whose jurisdiction Shalom had previously submitted to before ever initiating the current civil litigation.  Moreover, when initiating its opposition to AKAP’s attempt to seize control over its assets and operations by an Administrative Commission, Shalom filed an ecclesiastical complaint before the Synod while asserting standing to do so as a member of PCUSA and, thus, per PCUSA’s Book of Order, stating it was also a member of AKAP.  When the Synod subsequently denied their ecclesiastical complaint, instead of appealing that decision to the PCUSA General Assembly, Shalom “terminated [its] connection” with AKAP, and filed a civil complaint in the circuit court that sought a declaration that Shalom was not a member of AKAP.  And this complaint did not assert that the Synod’s decision was fraught with fraud or collusion.  Hence, by filing this civil complaint, Shalom effectively collaterally attacked the Synod’s decision (instead of appealing it) and entirely reversed the position it took on its PCUSA membership status before the ecclesiastical tribunal....  For us to find it permissible for Shalom to undertake a litigation strategy of first filing an ecclesiastical complaint in the ecclesiastical bodies of the Presbyterian Church USA, and then, instead of appealing an adverse judgment within that forum—immediately filing a civil complaint in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County to attack the judgment of the Synod—would violate both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution.

The court's 43-page opinion includes a lengthy review of the development of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in Virginia.

Education Department Threatens Enforcement Actions Against 60 Universities for Antisemitic Activities on Campus

 In a press release yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education said in part:

Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to 60 institutions of higher education warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities. The letters are addressed to all U.S. universities that are presently under investigation for Title VI violations relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination.

Wyoming Enacts State RFRA

Last week, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed HB 0207, the Wyoming Religious Freedom Restoration Act (full text). The Act requires strict scrutiny of state action that substantially burden's a person's right to the exercise of religion. Wyoming is the 29th state to enact a similar statute. Catholic World Report covers these developments.

Suit Challenges NYPD's Forcible Removal of Hijabs as Crowd Control Tactic

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the practice of the New York Police Department of forcibly and publicly removing Muslim women's hijabs as a method of crowd control at demonstrations. The complaint (full text) in Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York, (SD NY, filed 3/9/2025) contends that the practice violates the free exercise and free speech protections of the U.S. and New York Constitutions, as well as the 4th Amendment and other provisions of New York law. CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Title VII Religioius Discrimination Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, (Docket No. 24-427, certiorari denied 3/10/2025). Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of cert. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act brought by the city's former Fire Chief.  Among the several reasons given to plaintiff by the city for his dismissal was his attendance at a Christian religious leadership event on city time and with use of a city vehicle, and his approval for three other Department employees to also attend. (See prior posting.) In his dissent, Justice Thomas said in part:

I would have taken this opportunity to revisit McDonnell Douglas and decide whether its burden-shifting framework remains a workable and useful evidentiary tool.

CNN reports on the denial of review.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Conversion Therapy Ban Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Chiles v. Salazar, (Docket No. 24-539, certiorari granted 3/10/2025).  In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari raises only the free speech issue. The SCOTUSblog case page for the case contains links to pleadings in the case. AP reports on the grant of review.

6th Circuit: Public Official Engaging in State Action Cannot Assert 1st Amendment Defense

In Emold v. Davis, (6th Cir., March 6, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $100,000 damage award to a same-sex couple who were refused a marriage license by Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

Government officials “have private lives and their own constitutional rights.” ...  But when a public official wields the “authority of the state,” she “engage[s] in state action,” which, by definition, cannot be protected by the First Amendment....

Davis alternatively argues that her Free Exercise rights were violated by a different state action:  Kentucky’s delay in granting her a religious accommodation.  But Plaintiffs had nothing to do with the timing of the accommodation, and Davis’s argument is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claim.  Either way, Davis has been found liable for state action—not private conduct—so she cannot raise a First Amendment defense...

 As Davis sees it, a public official can wield the authority of the state to violate the constitutional rights of citizens if the official believes she is “follow[ing] her conscience.” ...  That cannot be correct.  “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights” is to place certain freedoms “beyond the reach of . . . [government] officials.”  ...  Thus, when an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the Constitution must win out.  The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates....

Davis also argues that Kentucky’s RFRA shields her from liability.  But that statute does not apply here....

Judge Readler filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.  Louisville Courier Journal reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Melvin Otey, Toward a Broader Theocentric Environmentalism, (December 01, 2024).
• Robert C. Blitt, From Zero to Holy War: The International Community's Ongoing Silence in the Face of the Russian Orthodox Church's Escalating Support for War Against Ukraine, (February 03, 2025).
• Kerrel Murray, Discriminatory Effect(s), (78 Fla. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Helen Alvare, 46th Annual Donald A. Giannella Memorial Lecture: Religious Liberty and Nondiscrimination Law, (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 881–920 (2024)).
• Zalman Rothschild, The Right to Exit Religion, (Georgetown Law Journal, forthcoming).
• James Gerard Dwyer, Mired in Meyer's Mischief A Century After Fabrication of Constitutional Parents' Rights, (26 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 107 (2025)).
• S. Ernie Walton, Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor S. Ernie Walton in Support of Petitioners in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, (March 03, 2025).
• David Eliot Bernstein, The Supreme Court’s Mysterious 1920s Due Process Education Trilogy, (The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, Vol. 26, pp. 41–54 (2025)).
• Kumar Bal Govind Singh, Hate Speech, (January 12, 2025).

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

• Stephen James Bogle, Spiritual Duties and Legal Debts in Seventeenth Century Scotland: A Preliminary Study, (January 25, 2025).
• Hesham Abdelgawad, The Impact of Islamic Law on Cryptocurrency Regulation in Egypt, (MJTILP, Vol 20, Issue 3, 2024).
• Roni M. Rosenberg, Moral and Practical Considerations in the Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in England, (January 09, 2025).

From SSRN (Hindu law and rituals):

• Sanjay Koul this week posted 17 recent papers on Hindu law, beliefs and rituals: Liberation and Divine Union: A Study of Moksha in Hindu; The Foundations of Hindu Thought: An Examination of Key Scriptures Across Philosophy, Ethics, and Devotion; Fire Ritual in Sanatana Dharma; Meditation in Sanatana Dharma: An Exploration of Ancient Practices and Philosophical Insights; Exploring Kashmir Shaivism: Philosophy, Practices, and Contemporary Relevance; The Gurukul System Evolution, Impact, and Resurgence of India's Ancient Holistic Education Model; Sacred Texts and Spiritual Pathways: A Comprehensive Analysis of Shaiva, Vaishnava, and Shakta Agamas in Hindu Tradition; The Creation of the Universe and Core Principles of Sanatana Dharma: A Comprehensive Exploration of Hindu Philosophical Foundations; The Rig Veda: A Gateway to Understanding Ancient Indian Spirituality; The Atharvaveda: The Veda of Knowledge and Magic; Exploring the Puranas The Cultural and Spiritual Tapestry of Hinduism; The Upanishads: Foundations of Indian Thought and Their Global Philosophical Impact; The Yajurveda: The Veda of Ritual and Sacrifice; The Samaveda: A Melodic Expression of Ancient Indian Spirituality; The Vedas: Foundations of Ancient Knowledge and Philosophy in Hinduism; Namaste and Namaskar: The Spiritual and Cultural Essence of India's Sacred Greetings

From SmartCILP:

• Vincent J. Samar, Conceptual Schemes/Frameworks and Their Relation to Law: A New Argument for Separation of Church and State, 30 Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice 379-424 (2024).
• Weldon P. Sloan & Joseph M. Capobianco, Faith, Federal Courts, and Free Speech: Do Federal Courts Protect Religious Speech More than Non-Religious Speech?, 22 First Amendment Law Review 147-188 (2024).