Religion Clause

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

EEOC Highlights Its Actions to Protect Employees' Religious Freedom

The EEOC yesterday issued a lengthy press release titled 200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work. The Release says in part:

To date, the EEOC has recovered over $55 million for workers impacted by these [vaccine] mandates—most recently, this week’s $1 million settlement with Mercyhealth. During the Biden Administration, almost all of the agency’s important work enforcing Title VII in the wake of COVID-19 vaccine mandates happened both silently and too slowly. No longer. Under the Trump Administration, the EEOC is taking bold and aggressive steps to remedy the widespread civil rights harms during the pandemic—the first public fruits of which are reflected below....

It also highlighted initiatives involving religious accommodation for employees, antisemitism in colleges, protection of federal employees' religious rights and the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.

9th Circuit: Oregon Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for Grantees Is Mostly Valid

In Youth 71Five Ministries v. Willliams, (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2025), a Christian youth program sued after the Oregon Department of Education's Youth Development Division withdrew the conditional award of a grant. Plaintiff requires that its board members, employees, and volunteers agree to a Christian Statement of Faith and be involved in a local church. The Division contended that this violates its religious non-discrimination policy. Plaintiff contended that the withdrawal violated its free exercise, religious-autonomy, and expressive-association rights.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in part:

... [T]he Rule does not deny funding based on a practice exclusive to religious organizations. Government agencies, secular corporations, and religious ministries alike might engage in religion-based employment discrimination....

Based on the evidence properly before the district court, it was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the Division likely treats comparable secular and religious activity the same....

... 71Five argues that merely tailoring services to a target demographic is comparable to 71Five’s categorical exclusion of non-Christians. We disagree....

The Division adopted the Rule to, among other reasons, better reflect its “commitment to equitable access, equal opportunity, and inclusion.” That is a legitimate interest.... The Rule rationally furthers that interest by ensuring that Division-funded initiatives are equally open to employees, volunteers, and participants regardless of race, sex, religion, or any other protected characteristic. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that 71Five is not likely to succeed on the merits of its free-exercise claim....

71Five claims that the Rule abridges its expressive association by requiring it to accept employees and volunteers “who disagree” with its message “or would express a contrary view.” ... We hold that 71Five has established that it is likely to succeed, at least in part. As to Division-funded initiatives, the Rule is likely permissible as a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulation of expressive association in a limited public forum—the Grant Program. But to the extent that it restricts 71Five’s selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through initiatives that receive no Division funding, the Rule likely imposes an unconstitutional condition....

71Five’s complaint does not allege a violation of any clearly established right under the First Amendment, so the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court did not err in dismissing 71Five’s damages claims with prejudice.

Judge Rawlinson concurred only in the judgment and did not join the majority's opinion, saying in part:

I concur in the judgment because, and only because, of our truncated review of a district court's decision granting or denying injunctive relief, and our obligatory deference to a district court's discretionary decision to decline consideration of arguments and evidence presented in a Reply Brief. ...

I decline to join the majority opinion's analysis because it relies heavily on the premise (mistaken, in my view), that Youth Five's website evidenced discrimination, while websites from the secular organizations applying for grants did not evidence discrimination....

[Thanks to Steven Sholk for the lead.]

Monday, August 18, 2025

9th Circuit Rejects Christian Day Care's Challenge to Licensing Requirement

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), Foothills, a Christian day care center, challenged a California licensing provision requiring that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious services or activities of their parents' choice. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the regulation on free exercise grounds because the state has repeatedly taken the position that the regulation does not prohibit operating a day care center with a mandatory religious curriculum, where parents are made aware of this in advance of enrollment.

However, the court held that Foothills does have standing to challenge the general licensing requirement on the ground that some secular child day care centers are exempt from licensing. But the court rejected that claim on the merits, saying in part:

Foothills contends that the Act’s exemption of “recreation programs conducted for children by” the YMCA “or similar organizations,”... But this provision only exempts recreation programs from the licensure requirement; it explicitly does not exempt “child day care programs conducted by” the same organizations and so creates no mechanism for granting individualized exemptions for such facilities....

Foothills points to the exception for any “child daycare program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day.”... This exemption applies to, among other things, Sunday schools. But a program that oversees children for only four hours a week does not present a threat to children’s health and safety comparable to that of a facility that can operate up to 24 hours a day....

Foothills alleges that the Act’s exemption of certain sectarian organizations—such as the YMCA and Boy Scouts of America—from licensing gives preferential treatment to certain religions in violation of the Establishment Clause....

If Foothills sought to operate a recreation program, it would not be subject to the Act. And if the YMCA or the Boy Scouts sought to operate a child day care facility, they would. This exemption draws no lines based on religion....

The court also held that the required disclosure to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice does not infringe Foothills' free speech rights, distinguishing the Supreme Court case of Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra , saying in part:

Because the Act merely requires Foothills to inform parents of their children’s rights and does not “convey a message fundamentally at odds with its mission,” the required disclosure is not controversial....

Friday, August 15, 2025

8th Circuit: Rejection of Prison Course on Manhood From Christian Biblical Lens Violated Volunteer's 1st Amendment Rights

In Schmitt v. Robertus, (8th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Minnesota prison officials likely violated the 1st Amendment in refusing to allow plaintiff, a volunteer, to teach a program titled The Quest for Authentic Manhood at the Minnesota Correctional Facility. The program defines manhood through a Christian biblical lens. Officials rejected the program as violating the prison's diversity, equity and inclusivity values, saying in part:

Throughout all sessions reviewed, men were only identified as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women. It is evident that throughout this curriculum, manhood can only be achieved through heterosexual relationships.

Additionally, throughout many of the sessions, women are also identified as the problem for creating “soft males[,”] described as indecisive and weak....

The 8th Circuit focused on the test in prison cases announced by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley. Under that test prison regulations must have a valid rational connection to a legitimate governmental interest. The 8th Circuit said in part:

The first Turner factor, however, requires more than a legitimate penological interest. “[T]he governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”... “This means that the proffered mechanism by which the regulation promotes the legitimate government interest must be ‘unrelated to the suppression of expression.’” ...

Here, although the MDOC set forth a legitimate government interest, its termination of Quest was not “in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression.”...

Judge Kelly dissented, saying in part:

As I see it, it is common sense that a prison, like a school, can curate the programming it provides. ...

It thus seems natural to me to conclude that MDOC’s rehabilitative programming constitutes government speech, casting doubt on Schmitt’s free-speech and free-exercise claims....

5th Circuit Allows San Antonio Park Development To Move Ahead Over Religious Objections of Lipan-Apache

In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., Aug. 13, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a trial court's refusal to enjoin San Antonio's development plan for a city park. Plaintiffs are members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church. Certain of their religious ceremonies can take place only at a particular river bend in the park and require the presence of cormorants in the trees there. The development plans involve removing and relocation of trees and modifying bird habitats to deter birds from nesting in highly urbanized areas of the park. Plaintiffs claim that removal of trees and the bird deterrence program violate their religious freedom protected by the 1st Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution. In a prior opinion, the 5th Circuit certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Constitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In response, the Texas Supreme Court said that the constitutional provision does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands.

In this week's decision, the majority, refusing to grant an injunction pending further appeal, held that the project did not violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

... [T]he City’s development plan only indirectly impacts Appellants’ religious conduct and expression. Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. The record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year....

Appellants did not meet their burden to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the plan constitutes a substantial burden of their religious exercise. Even if they did, that would not change the outcome of this appeal because the City’s plan advances a compelling interest through the least restrictive means—and thus survives strict scrutiny.

The majority also held that the city's program did not violate the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The parties’ dispute under the Free Exercise Clause centers on which standard of constitutional review applies to the instant case, rational basis or strict scrutiny. Appellants argue that the City’s plans for tree removal and rookery management measures are not neutral and generally applicable and, therefore, must be analyzed under the more exacting strict scrutiny standard. The City contends that its planned Park improvements are neutral and generally applicable and that the more deferential rational basis standard of review applies. Assuming strict scrutiny applies, we conclude that the challenged government action in this case withstands Appellants’ Free Exercise challenge, as illustrated infra in the TRFRA claim analysis.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, saying in part:

Despite my respect for the majority’s analysis, I continue to think that Appellants’ religious exercise is substantially burdened and that the City of San Antonio ... failed to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs in the least restrictive manner. I would therefore hold that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“TRFRA”) requires the City to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs across two “items of relief” requested in the complaint: the City’s tree-removal (“Item 2”) and anti-nesting (“Item 3”) measures....

Appellants’ testimony shows that services at the riverbend would be “meaningless” without the trees or the cormorants, and that disruption to either will “unravel” the land’s spiritual ecology—a sine qua non for Church members’ religious exercise. Just as importantly, Appellants’ testimony confirms that these services cannot “be performed anywhere else.”...

To the extent the majority suggests that Appellants can obtain spiritual fulfilment by exercising their religious beliefs in a manner contrary to their testimony, such reasoning is forbidden.

School Officials Lack Standing To Sue Advocacy Group For Interfering With Their Duties

In Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (ED OK, Aug. 13, 2025), Oklahoma education officials, in an interesting twist, sued to enjoin the advocacy organization Freedom From Religion Foundation from interfering with Plaintiffs’ statutory authority to govern Oklahoma’s public schools. FFRF had sent letters complaining about Bible reading and prayer in classrooms in one district and appointment of a football team chaplain in another. The court held that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, saying in part:

... [T]he Complaint does not explain how these letters have interfered with day-to-day operations in any real way.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint also vaguely alludes that Plaintiffs’ injury is the “chilling effect” caused by Defendant’s letters....

... [T]he Complaint does not allege that it has stopped executing its duties or ceased administration of Oklahoma’s public schools because of Defendant’s letters.2 Nor does the Complaint allege that the schools have ceased any policies or practices because of Defendant’s letters.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show an injury in fact.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Thursday, August 14, 2025

8th Circuit: Jury Should Decide If Anti-Abortion Facebook Posting Impacted Delivery of Public Services

In Melton v. City of Forrest City, Arkansas, (8th Cir., Aug. 13, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court should have sent factual questions to a jury instead of granting summary judgment in a retaliation suit by a fireman who was dismissed because of the firestorm caused by a controversial posting on his personal Facebook page. The fire chief had received complaints about the posting from city council members and members of the public. The court said in part:

Steven Melton is a pro-life, evangelical Christian. In June 2020, he reposted a black-and-white image on Facebook that depicted a silhouette of a baby in the womb with a rope around its neck. His intent was to convey that he was “anti-abortion.”...

Others did not view the image the same way. Two weeks after he posted it, a retired fire-department supervisor complained to Melton that he thought it looked like a noose around the neck of a black child. It upset him because the caption of the image, “I can’t breathe!,” was associated with the protests surrounding George Floyd’s death. Melton agreed to delete it immediately....

The problem is that there was no showing that Melton’s post had an impact on the fire department itself. No current firefighter complained or confronted him about it. Nor did any co-worker or supervisor refuse to work with him. Granting summary judgment based on such “vague and conclusory” concerns, without more, runs the risk of constitutionalizing a heckler’s veto.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Contraceptive Mandate Religious and Moral Accommodation Rules Held Invalid

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Trump, (ED PA, Aug. 13, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court invalidated two rules promulgated in 2018 that allow employers with religious objections and most employers with moral objections to opt out of furnishing contraceptive coverage for their employees in their health insurance plans. Little Sisters of the Poor intervened as a defendant in the case. The court held that promulgation of the rule was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court said in part:

In promulgating the Religious Rule, the Agencies’ justified the Rule by invoking potential conflicts between the Contraceptive Mandate and RFRA....

The Religious Rule goes far “beyond what the Departments’ justification” (i.e., resolving potential conflicts between RFRA and the Contraceptive Mandate) “supported—raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a ‘rational connection’ to the problem described.”...

Neither is the Moral Rule sustainable. The States’ point that, in promulgating the Moral Rule, the Agencies “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,”.... Accordingly, the Moral Rule must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious....

Quite apart from the reasons set forth above, both the Religious and the Moral Rules must be vacated because the Agencies did not provide a “satisfactory explanation for [their] action,”... in that they failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their change in course regarding contraception’s safety and efficacy, and, they failed to adequately address reasonable alternatives to the Rules they crafted....

The APA provides that the “reviewing court shall . . . (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—(A) arbitrary [and] capricious.”... “Ordinarily, reviewing courts have applied that provision by vacating invalid agency action and remanding the matter to the agency for further review.”...

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision.

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

DOJ Finds GW University Violated Title VI In Failing To Respond To Antisemitism

In a letter dated Aug. 12 (full text), the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice notified George Washington University that DOJ has found the University in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of the University's lack of response to discrimination and antisemitic harassment of Jewish and Israeli students by other students. The letter reads in part:

The Department finds that GWU students and faculty were subjected to a hostile educational environment that was objectively offensive, severe, and pervasive. The antisemitic, hate-based misconduct by GWU students directed at Jewish GWU students, faculty, and employees was, in a word, shocking. The behavior was demonstrably abhorrent, immoral, and, most importantly, illegal....

Jewish students, parents and alumni contacted GWU numerous times to express their alarm and concern about the actions of protesters and to express their legitimate and reasonable fears for their safety. Just between April 25 and May I, 2024, GWU received no less than eight complaints alleging that demonstrators were discriminating against students because they were Jewish or Israeli. The Department has also received other complaints from Jewish GWU students and their parents about antisemitic misconduct and abuse.

Based on its investigation, the Department has concluded that GWU took no meaningful action and instead was deliberately indifferent to the hostile educational environment on its campus in violation of Title VI....

The Department intends to proceed with enforcement of this important federal civil rights law unless resolution of this matter is reached in the near future. The Department therefore offers GWU the opportunity to enter into a voluntary resolution agreement to ensure immediate remediation of these issues and related reforms to prevent the recurrence of discrimination, harassment, and abuse....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing its findings.

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

FBI Releases 2024 Hate Crime Data

On August 5, the FBI released 2024 U.S. Hate Crime Statistics (full text of report). The Report discloses the 24.6% of the hate crime incidents last year resulted from religious bias. According to the Report, of the 3,235 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, 69.1% were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias; 9.3% were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias; 4.7% were victims of anti-Sikh bias; 2.6% were victims of anti-Other Christian bias; 1.9% were victims of anti-Catholic bias.

Denial of State Reimbursement for Religious Home School Material Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Trakel v. Critchfield, (D ID, Aug. 6, 202), an Idaho federal district court rejected parents' claim that they are entitled to reimbursement for religiously influenced supplemental materials that they purchased for their children who are enrolled in the state's home learning program, the Idaho Home Learning Academy. The court said in part:

IHLA is an accredited public charter school that provides Idaho students with a customizable online education. The school offers its own online curriculum options but also reimburses families for the costs of certain self-selected supplemental and enrichment materials. Some of these items are “preapproved,” while others require IHLA to first determine that the items are educationally appropriate, reasonable, and an efficient use of tax dollars....

The school denied the reimbursement request, citing State Department of Education policies and Article IX, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution, known as the Blaine Amendment, which prohibits the use of public money for religious purposes....

The Trakels argue this denial violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. Specifically, they view IHLA’s reimbursement policy as a public benefit, which is unconstitutionally limited to secular curriculums....

... [T]he Trakels seek to compel IHLA to provide a religious education. IHLA’s reimbursement policy is not a public benefit that allows parents to make fully independent decisions regarding their children’s education. Although families have an unusual degree of input and flexibility, IHLA is ultimately a public school that sets its own curriculum. To qualify for reimbursement, supplemental materials must receive approval and meet a variety of standards set by the school.... To put it simply, reimbursed materials become part of the IHLA curriculum. The question, then, is whether the Trakels have a free exercise or free speech right for their children to receive a public religious education. The answer is clearly no.

Monday, August 11, 2025

Court Again Upholds Idaho Law on School Restroom Use by Transgender Students

In Sexuality and Gender Alliance v. Critchfield, (D ID, Aug. 7, 2025), an Idaho federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of an Idaho statute that requires transgender students in Idaho public schools to use restrooms, changing rooms, and showers that correspond to their biological sex. The 9th Circuit had previously upheld the denial of a broad preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statute. In this suit, plaintiffs ask for a narrow injunction applicable only to restrooms at Boise High School. Plaintiffs argue that Boise High School has allowed transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity for years, and allowing enforcement now would upset the status quo. The court said in part:

Separating restrooms by biological sex has been common for centuries.... And for good reason—there are biological differences between men and women.... Those biological differences are deserving of privacy and S.B. 1100’s segregation of restrooms based on sex is related to that interest. It is not the Court’s role to determine whether S.B. 1100 is a perfect policy; the Court must only address whether it is “substantially related” to the State of Idaho’s interest in protecting student’s privacy. Because S.B. 1100 is substantially related to the State’s legitimate interest in privacy, the Court finds SAGA is unlikely to succeed on its Equal Protection claim....

The Ninth Circuit... concluded: “SAGA failed to meet its burden to show that the State had clear notice at the time it accepted federal funding that Title IX prohibits segregated access to the facilities covered by S.B. 1100 on the basis of transgender status.”... This conclusion applies with equal force to SAGA’s as-applied challenge. Accordingly, the Court finds SAGA is unlikely to succeed on its Title IX claim.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Friday, August 08, 2025

Executive Order Targets Religious and Political Discrimination by Banks

Yesterday President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) titled Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All. The Executive Order requires banking agencies to take steps to prevent, and to remedy past, "politicized or unlawful debanking." The Order provides in part:

The term “politicized or unlawful debanking” refers to an act by a bank ... or other financial services provider to ... adversely restrict access to, or adversely modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking products or financial services ... on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s political or religious beliefs, or on the basis of [their] ... lawful business activities that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons.

10th Circuit Upholds Oklahoma's Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

In Poe v. Drummond, (10th Cir., Aug. 6, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's refusal to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of an Oklahoma law that prohibits furnishing of surgical procedures, puberty blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria in minors. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti, the court rejected equal protection and parental rights challenges. The court said in part:

We conclude that Oklahoma’s enactment of SB 613 rationally relates to Oklahoma’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors in light of the debate among medical experts about the risks and benefits associated with treating a minor’s gender dysphoria with gender transitioning procedures. We thus affirm the district court’s ruling as to Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim....

In sum, SB 613 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminates based on age and medical purpose and satisfies rational basis review. We also need not subject SB 613 to heightened scrutiny based on impermissible legislative purpose because no evidence exists that Oklahoma legislature enacted it as a pretext to invidiously discriminate against transgender minors....

We next determine whether the liberty interest—parents’ right to access gender transition procedures for their children—is so deeply rooted in our Nation’s history to establish a fundamental right. After conducting “a careful analysis of the history of the right at issue,”... we conclude there is no deeply rooted tradition in parents’ right to access gender transition procedures for their children.

News On 6 reports on the decision.

Thursday, August 07, 2025

5th Circuit: Anti-Vax Belief in Bodily Autonomy Can Support Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim

In Wright v. Honeywell International, Inc., (5th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination suit brought by a dock operator who in 2022 refused to comply with Honeywell's Covid vaccine mandate. Honeywell refused to grant plaintiff a religious exemption on the ground that he did not identify a sincerely held religious belief as the basis for his refusal. The court said in part:

Wright sought a religious exemption from the vaccination policy, citing on his exemption request form his belief that “our creator gave us this gift to choose and decide for ourselves,” and also that it is “in our constitution no man should be forced to do something he . . . is not comfortable with.” Wright is a Baptist Christian. He explained that his religion does not “prevent[]” him from receiving the vaccine, “but cert[ai]n passages le[ad him] to feel very strongly about” his decision. Wright also attested on his exemption request form that he “didn[’]t like the respon[s]e [his] body had” to a tetanus vaccine in 2015. And he stated that this was the first time that he had sought a religious exemption from a mandatory vaccine.

Wright also submitted Honeywell’s required third-party attestation of his religious beliefs, completed by his daughter. Citing scripture, his daughter explained, “It is in our belief that humans should only use things that are created of the earth by God. We believe the vaccine is a claim of the mark of the beast[;] it is man made and goes against our religion.”...

“Bona fide religious beliefs include ‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.’”...

Wright’s evidence demonstrates a “moral or ethical” belief in bodily autonomy and freedom to choose what to put in his body.... The fact that he gave additional reasons for his vaccine refusal does not show that his belief is “merely a preferred practice.”... Instead, it simply shows that his vaccine refusal is grounded on both religious and non-religious reasons. Furthermore, the inquiry on this prong is not “whether [Wright’s specific] belief is a true religious tenet” of the Baptist faith, but rather whether the belief is, “in his own scheme of things, religious.”

7th Circuit: Jury Must Decide Whether Religious Accommodation Would Create Undue Hardship

In a Title VII case that has been in litigation for six years, in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., (7th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the Brownsburg school district and sent the case back to the trial court for a jury to determine disputed facts. At issue is a music teacher's religious objections to following school policy that requires him to refer to transgender students by the names and pronouns that the students and their parents have asked that the school use. Initially the school accommodated the teacher by permitting him to address transgender students using only their last names. However, this led to student dissatisfaction and the accommodation was rescinded. The primary disputed facts are whether the accommodation created an "undue hardship" under the standard defined by the Supreme Court in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, and whether the teacher's religious objections were sincere. The majority said in part:

... [T]he record contains material factual disputes about whether the accommodation disrupted Brownsburg’s learning environment, precluding summary judgment to the school....

... [T]he complaints ... all deal with the effects on the two students from Kluge’s use of the last-name-only practice. Nowhere do these documents support an inference that the students had a problem with Kluge’s religion or “the mere fact [of] an accommodation.”... Instead, the complaints are leveled against the impacts on students and teachers, regardless of whether the accommodation was for religious or secular reasons.

... [T]here is still a genuine material factual dispute about whether those complaints rose to an undue hardship on the school’s educational mission....

... [A] genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Kluge’s sincerity. Even though a claimant’s sincerity does not hinge on whether he is “scrupulous in his [religious] observance,” it would still be premature to take this issue away from the jury on this question. ...

Judge Rovner filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Until today, when confronted with a Title VII employment discrimination claim, we have deferred to an employer’s good-faith assessment of how an employee performed in the workplace..... Today the court invites a jury to do what we have always said a federal court will not do, which is to sit as a super-personnel department and second-guess the employer’s good-faith reasoning. In making employment decisions, ... employers will now have to consider not only how successfully an employee is performing his job as modified by a religious accommodation, but how a jury might second-guess its assessment in litigation years down the line. This is an untenable restraint on employers’ decision making.

Today’s decision also burdens employers in a second important respect. Brownsburg successfully argued below that Kluge’s accommodation proved inconsistent with its mission, which is to provide a supportive learning environment for all of its students. Although the majority accepts this mission for present purposes, it also suggests that evidence of an employer’s mission must be limited to policies that are formally documented and adopted prior to any litigation. I think many employers will be surprised to learn that their ability to define their own missions is restricted to formal policies prepared long before an employment dispute arrives in court....

See prior related posting. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Wednesday, August 06, 2025

9th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Customer Service Representative's Title VII Suit

In McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., (9th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought by a World Vision customer service representative ("CSR") whose job offer was revoked when the organization learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. World Vision is a Christian ministry which shares the gospel through outreach to poor and underserved children and families. The court said in part:

We hold that the ministerial exception applies to a CSR not merely because they interface with the public, pray with their colleagues, or abide by World Vision’s requirements to embody Christian values. Rather, CSRs qualify for the exception because (1) they are World Vision’s “voice,” responsible for “effectively communicat[ing] World Vision’s involvement in ministries and projects around the world”; (2) their engagement with donors is a form of ministry itself; and (3) they “give people an opportunity to join [World Vision] in the mission of God.” Each of these religious responsibilities is “vital” to World Vision’s particular religious mission.

[Corrected]

Prosecution of Religious Leader for Psilocybin Use Is Enjoined

In Jensen v. Utah County, (D UT, Aug. 4, 2025), a Utah federal district court enjoined Utah County from continuing its prosecution of plaintiff Bridger Lee Jensen for violating the Utah Controlled Substances Act's prohibition on psilocybin. Jensen is the founder of Singularism, an entheogenic religion. The court said in part:

... [A]t this procedural juncture ... it would be wisest to assume—without deciding—that the Utah constitution’s free exercise clause provides protections equal to those of the Federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. Doing so adheres to “the general rule that courts should avoid reaching constitutional issues if the case can be decided on other grounds.”...

... [T]he Utah Controlled Substances Act’s restrictions on psilocybin possession and use, though neutral, are not generally applicable due to the secular exemption for behavioral-health treatment by certain healthcare systems and accordingly trigger strict scrutiny if a plaintiff can show that the restrictions burden its religious exercise. And Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges facts sufficient for the court to conclude that Plaintiffs have alleged a burden on their free exercise....

Only after this court determined that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their state RFRA claim did Defendants institute criminal proceedings against Mr. Jensen and invoke Younger abstention. From this sequence of events, the court finds that Defendants commenced the state criminal action (the basis for their abstention argument now) in order to relitigate the RFRA issue on which they appear to be poised to lose in this court—in other words, to get a second bite at the apple. The court will not allow the shield of the Younger doctrine to be used as a gamesmanship sword.

Even if Defendants had not waived their Younger abstention defense by voluntarily invoking federal jurisdiction, the court finds that the bad-faith and irreparable-injury exceptions apply....

Based on the record in this case, the court notes once again its finding that the prosecution was brought in bad faith as part of a larger effort to harass Plaintiffs for their entheogenic religious practices and in hopes of giving the government a second opportunity to litigate the free-exercise issues presented squarely in this case. The prosecution has already caused Singularism to lose many of its practitioners and affiliates, and forcing Plaintiffs to wait until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings to secure their free-exercise rights would be the equivalent of issuing a death warrant for their nascent religion....