Religion Clause

Tuesday, September 09, 2025

Religious Liberty Commission Hearing Features Remarks by President Trump

Yesterday, the Religious Liberty Commission that was created in May by an Executive Order of Donald Trump held its second hearing (Video of full hearing). The hearing was held at The Museum of the Bible. President Trump was a featured speaker (video of Trump's remarks) (transcript of Trump's remarks). His wide-ranging speech began with the President saying, in part:

... America was founded on faith, as we know and I've been saying it for a long time. And when faith gets weaker, our country seems to get weaker. When faith gets stronger, as it is right now, we're having a very good period of time after some rough years, good things happen for our country. It's amazing the way it seems to work that way. And under the Trump administration, we're defending our rights and restoring our identity as a nation under God. We are one nation under God, and we always will be....

... I'm pleased to announce this morning that the Department of Education will soon issue new guidance protecting the right to prayer in our public schools and its total protection....

During his remarks, the President invited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner to speak about developments. Turner said in part:

How many know we have a godly, faithful cabinet? And a cabinet that prioritizes prayer. On July 3rd, Mr. President, of this year, you kicked off the year-long celebration of America's 250th birthday in Iowa. You invited America's faith communities to come together to pray for our country. Well, Mr. President, America's faith communities are responding with overwhelming enthusiasm.... Today, more than 70 major faith organizations and churches have joined together to participate in what we're calling America Prays....

... What if 1 million people prayed for our country every single week between now and next July 4th? ... What if believers all across this great nation got together with 10 people, friends, family members, colleagues, work associates, ten people each week to pray for our country and for our fellow citizens.... Think about the transformation that you and I could witness in communities all across the land. Sons returning to their fathers. Daughters returning to their mothers. Families coming back together. Health being restored. Financial needs being met. Mountains being moved.... We're a nation that has always believed in the power of prayer....

... Lord, not just Democrat, not just Republican, but all American people will come together under the banner of Yahweh of God Almighty. And Lord God, we praise you. And we thank you. And we love you. In Jesus name, Amen. [Audience members respond "Amen"]

The White House posted a press release summarizing the main points of Trump's speech. USA Today reports on the hearing. The White House yesterday also issued a press release titled "President Trump’s Top 100 Victories for People of Faith."

Monday, September 08, 2025

11th Circuit: Government Can Insist on Secular Presenters in Intervention Program for Domestic Abusers

In Nussbaumer v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, (11th Cir., Sept. 4, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise challenges to Florida's requirements for becoming certified as a provider in the state's batterers' intervention program. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is required to complete the intervention program offered by a certified provider. Nussbaumer is a Florida minister and licensed clinical Christian psychologist. He was denied certification because state rules require that the program's curriculum not include any faith-based ideology associated with a particular curriculum and not identify poor impulse control as a cause of domestic violence or suggest anger management techniques to prevent domestic violence. The court held that plaintiff's free speech rights were not violated because the curriculum and its presentation are government speech. Similarly, it held that his free exercise rights were not infringed, saying in part:

“the government’s own speech cannot support a claim that the government has interfered with a private individual’s free exercise rights.”... “The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens.”

Friday, September 05, 2025

6th Circuit: Transgender Bathroom Rule Did Not Violate Objecting Parents' or Students' Free Exercise Rights

In Jane and John Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Aug. 26, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims that a school's policy on use of communal bathrooms by transgender students violated the free exercise rights of Muslim and Christian students and their parents. The court dismissed as moot plaintiffs' request for a declaratory and injunctive relief because while the case was pending, the school changed its policy pursuant to a new Ohio law that mandated bathroom access based on biological sex. However, plaintiffs' claim for damages from past violations was not moot. Nevertheless, the court found no 1st Amendment violation, focusing on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that “the government is generally free to place incidental burdens on religious exercise so long as it does so pursuant to a neutral policy that is generally applicable.” ... But the Court situated Mahmoud in line with Wisconsin v. Yoder, ... as an exception to the general rule because “[a] government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” ...

This exception does not apply here. The bathroom policy does not impose a burden “of the [] same character as the burden in Yoder.”... Unlike the challenged state law in Yoder, which compelled Amish families to send their children to public or private schools, and the curricular requirement in Mahmoud, which required elementary school students to attend classes where certain LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks that “unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender” were taught, the bathroom policy was not an educational requirement or curricular feature, and the policy did not require students to use the communal restrooms.... [Single occupancy bathrooms were available to students.]

Because the policy was neutral and generally applicable, it is subject to rational basis review, which it survives....

On appeal, the parent plaintiffs specifically argue that the School District infringed on their right to direct the upbringing of their children by (1) modifying the School District’s bathroom operations, (2) increasing their children’s risk of physical danger, and (3) choosing not to answer questions about implementing the bathroom policy. We are unpersuaded by their arguments, and thus, we affirm the grant of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim....

Judge Larsen filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but saying that the majority had read the Mahmoud case too narrowly. He said in part:

... [T]he ultimate question Mahmoud poses is whether a school policy “substantially interfere[s] with the religious development of the child or pose[s] a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”... All sorts of non-curricular school rules—which aren’t clearly “educational”—can interfere with parents’ religious upbringing of their children. Imagine, for example, a school that provides free school lunch to all students, regardless of income, to remove the stigma associated with accepting free or reduced-price meals. If the school neither provided Kosher meals nor permitted parents to pack brown-bag lunches, that might well impose a Yoder-like burden on Jewish parents and students, even though the policy would neither be obviously “educational” nor involve the curriculum. If the school cannot require Jewish students to read books “designed to” undermine their commitment to keeping Kosher, why would the school be able to more directly compel them to eat a grilled ham and cheese?...

... In this case, Bethel’s policy allowed religious students to “opt out” by using single-stall restrooms instead of the communal ones to which they objected. That important fact distinguishes this case from both Yoder and Mahmoud....

Buckeye Flame reports on the decision.

Thursday, September 04, 2025

Texas AG Urges Introducing the Lord's Prayer in Classrooms

As previously reported, in May 2025 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 11. The bill took effect on September 1. The new law creates an elaborate structure that school districts may adopt to provide for a daily period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text in each school, with parental consent for students to participate. On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release recommending that schools adopt a policy that calls for recitation of the Lord's Prayer. The press release said in part:

“In Texas classrooms, we want the Word of God opened, the Ten Commandments displayed, and prayers lifted up,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Twisted, radical liberals want to erase Truth, dismantle the solid foundation that America’s success and strength were built upon, and erode the moral fabric of our society. Our nation was founded on the rock of Biblical Truth, and I will not stand by while the far-left attempts to push our country into the sinking sand.”...

... [Senate Bill 11] directs the Office of the Attorney General to defend any school district or charter school that adopts such a policy. In addition, the Attorney General is empowered to recommend best practices for implementation.

For Texas students considering how to best utilize this time, Attorney General Paxton encourages children to begin with the Lord’s Prayer, as taught by Jesus Christ.

The press release then sets out the text of the Lord's Prayer as it appears in the King James Version of Matthew 6:9-13. Texas Tribune reports on Paxton's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Christian Families Challenge Foster Care Rules on Support of Transgender Children

Two families, asserting Christian religious beliefs, filed suit yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds a policy of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families that requires foster parents to agree that they will "[s]upport, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression." The complaint (full text) in Jones v. Mahaniah, (D MA, filed 9/3/2025), alleges in part:

3. Both families will provide a loving and respectful home for any child, including transgender, gay, or lesbian foster children. But that is insufficient for Massachusetts....

4. ... [T]he State requires the Joneses and the Schrocks to promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs.

5. Second, DCF infringes on Plaintiffs’ free-exercise rights through a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable,,,, A foster parent must promise in advance to use opposite-sex pronouns and encourage a hypothetical child’s gender transition, even if they never have and never will host a child who struggles to accept their natural body....

120. Because DCF compels applicants to speak and express the DCF’s preferred views on human sexuality while prohibiting speech expressing other views it regulates speech based on content and viewpoint, it engages in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination....

134. 110 C.M.R. 7.104(1)(d) is not neutral nor generally applicable because it imposes special disabilities based on religious beliefs, categorically excludes people from foster-care licenses based on religious beliefs, prefers certain religious and secular beliefs over the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, and provides for categorical and individualized exemptions without extending an exemption to religious persons like Plaintiffs.

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

Wednesday, September 03, 2025

Members of Healthcare Sharing Ministry Have Standing to Challenge Insurance Regulator

In Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, (D NM, Aug. 25, 2025), a New Mexico federal district court held that two members of a healthcare sharing ministry that was barred from operating in New Mexico by insurance regulatory authorities have standing to challenge on free exercise grounds the regulator's order that ended the ministry's operation in the state. The ministry itself was originally also a party to the lawsuit, but it was dismissed because it was challenging the action in state court.

In refusing to dismiss at this stage for lack of standing, the court said in part:

... OSI acknowledges that Plaintiffs believe “they have a biblical obligation to help their fellow man when in need which is accomplished by sharing each other’s medical expenses.”... Further, Plaintiffs present evidence—unrebutted by OSI— showing that OSI’s final order directing Gospel Light’s to cease operations tangibly interfered with their religious beliefs and practices. While Smith and Renteria admitted that they continue to pay into Gospel Light’s sharing ministry, they also testified that OSI’s final order prevented them from participating in other aspects of the program, including the ability to share in organized prayer networks which connected them to other Gospel Light members.... Importantly, Renteria stated that OSI’s actions caused her to switch her family to a different healthcare sharing ministry....

... OSI’s final order impacted Plaintiffs’ ability to fully participate in Gospel Light’s sharing ministry. That participation is a distinct part of Plaintiffs’ religious belief structure....

Plaintiffs’ statements raise a plausible inference that they share a concrete and particularized injury: the inability to utilize Gospel Light’s health sharing ministry to its full extent due to OSI’s final order. Because the scope of those injuries remains in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage....

Tuesday, September 02, 2025

9th Circuit Upholds Fire Department's Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, (9th Cir., Sept. 2, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by eight firefighters that the Snohomish fire department violated Title VII and Washington state law by refusing to accommodate their requests for religious exemptions from the state's Covid vaccine mandate for all healthcare providers. The court said in part:

SRFR has pointed to several substantial costs of accommodating Plaintiff’s requested vaccine exemption— the health and safety of its own firefighters and the public, the large number of firefighters seeking accommodations, the risk to its operations and the cost of widespread absences, the potential loss of a lucrative contract with DOC, and the risk of additional liability. SRFR also provided unrebutted medical evidence that showed the inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed accommodation. All of this amounts to a showing that SRFR could not reasonably have accommodated Plaintiffs without undue hardship in October 2021....

We cannot judge SRFR by the responses taken by other fire departments.... Nor can we judge SRFR with the clarity of hindsight or the benefit of post-pandemic debates over what measured responses frontline employers should have taken. We must consider the costs faced by SRFR in October 2021, not today.... [A]t the time the Governor issued the Proclamation, “COVID-19 cases were spiking.... The pandemic forced the State of Washington to make decisions quickly and with limited information. In so doing, SRFR relied on the scientific evidence and COVID data then available and acted in the best interests of the community....

Monday, September 01, 2025

State Office Violated Title VII by Refusing to Allow Jehovah's Witness to Attach Addendum to Required Employment Oath

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (ED CA, Aug. 29, 2025), a California federal district court, in a case on remand from the 9th Circuit (see prior posting), granted summary judgment to plaintiff on her Title VII failure to accommodate claim. Plaintiff, a Jehovah's Witness, insisted on attaching an Addendum to the oath she was required to take as an employee of the State Controller's Office. She contended that the required Oath violated her religious beliefs in four ways, one of which was the Oath’s language that she "will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California." She contended that this conflicted with her religious belief that "her allegiance is first and foremost to God."

The court said in part:

The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute that Plaintiff’s religious beliefs conflict with the “true faith and allegiance” provision. Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Schmalz opined that “the requirement to ‘bear true faith and allegiance’ presents a conflict with a typical Jehovah’s Witness’ most basic loyalty to Jehovah God — a fundamental precept guiding Watchtower belief and practice.”

Plaintiff's proposed Addendum read:

I, [Plaintiff], vow to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and that of the State of California while working in my role as an employee of the [SCO]. I will be honest and fair in my dealings and neither dishonor the Office by word nor deed. By signing this oath, I understand that I shall not be required to bear arms, engage in violence, nor participate in political or military affairs. Additionally, I understand that I am not giving up my right to freely exercise my religion, nor am I denouncing my religion by accepting this position.

The court concluded:

... [T]he undisputed evidence shows that Defendants would not have experienced an undue hardship if Plaintiff had been allowed to attach the Proposed Addendum and sign the Oath, as she requested.

The court dismissed several of plaintiff's other claims.

Friday, August 29, 2025

Pharmacists Sue for Religious Accommodation to Avoid Dispensing Gender-Affirming Drugs

Two Walgreens pharmacists filed suit last week in a Minnesota federal district court challenging the drug chain's refusal to accommodate their religious objections to dispensing drugs that facilitate gender transitions. Walgreens took the position that plaintiffs' long-standing arrangement to refer such prescriptions to other pharmacists to fill was now illegal under Minnesota law as administered by the state Board of Pharmacy.

The complaint (full text) (exhibits to complaint) in Scott v. Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, (D MN, filed 8/22/2025), alleges in part:

3. Walgreens was wrong about the law. Minnesota administrative rules require pharmacists to dispense or compound only those drugs that “may reasonably be expected to be compounded or dispensed in pharmacies by pharmacists.” Reasonable people understand that not every pharmacist or pharmacy sells every drug, for various reasons including supply shortages, insurance reimbursement rates, lack of demand in the community—or a pharmacist’s conscientious objections.

4. Plaintiffs asked the State Board of Pharmacy to clarify that this is the correct interpretation of the Board’s rules. The Board refused, leaving Plaintiffs and other pharmacists like them in legal limbo and subject to adverse actions from employers like Walgreens.

5. To any extent that Minnesota law does purport to require Plaintiffs to violate their religious convictions by dispensing or compounding certain drugs, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the free exercise protections of Minnesota’s Constitution. Forcing individual pharmacists to violate their religious beliefs by dispensing drugs that are readily available from many other pharmacists is not narrowly tailored to advance any compelling government interest. Moreover, Minnesota permits many non-religious exceptions to any “must dispense” requirement, including for economic reasons and based on a pharmacist’s professional judgment about the risks and efficacy of a prescription. Refusing to allow religious accommodations therefore is neither neutral nor generally applicable.

KSTP News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Review Sought by California Baker

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Miller v. Civil Rights Division, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 8/26/2025). In the case, a California state appellate court held that a bakery, Cathy's Creations, and its owner violated the anti-discrimination provisions of California law when they refused to sell a predesigned cake to a customer because the cake would be used at a same-sex wedding reception. The California court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses. (See prior posting.) The California Supreme Court denied review. Washington Times reports on the petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

Thursday, August 28, 2025

Leaders of Purported Church Indicted for Violating Forced Labor Ban

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that a federal grand jury in Michigan has handed down a 10-count, 21-page, indictment (full text) charging the leader and the executive director of the Kingdom of God Global Church (KOGGC) with violations of statutes outlawing forced labor, as well as with money laundering. The indictment charges that defendant David Taylor has established call centers around the country to raise funds purportedly to support the operations of KOGGC. He recruits individuals to work as unpaid phone solicitors. They have raised millions of dollars which have been used by Taylor to support his extravagant lifestyle. He also recruits individuals to work as his unpaid "armor bearers". They function as his personal servants. Executive director Michelle Brannon enforces Taylor's rules. Victims were required to cut off family or friends that questioned the arrangements. According to the indictment:

13. If a call center worker or armor bearer does not fulfill TAYLOR's goals, or disobeys an order, that person is punished.

14. Punishment includes humiliation, sleep deprivation, forced "repentance," additional work, food restrictions, physical assaults, and threats of divine judgment in the form of sickness, accidents, death, and eternal damnation.

15. TAYLOR regularly claims that if an individual fails to obey his orders and commands, they are defying God and will suffer in Hell.

HHS Pressures West Virginia To Implement Religious Exemptions from Compulsory School Vaccination Law

As reported by Med Page Today, the Department of Health and Human Services is pressuring the state of West Virginia to recognize religious exemptions from the state's compulsory public school vaccination requirements. In January of this year, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued an Executive Order (full text) instructing state officials to create a procedure for parents to obtain religious or conscience exemptions, taking the position that this is required by West Virginia's Equal Protection for Religion Act. The compulsory immunization law only provides for medical exemptions, and legislative attempts to amend it have failed. Last week, the federal Health and Human Services Department took steps to support the Governor's position. In a letter dated Aug. 21, 2025 (full text) directed to West Virginia Health Departments participating in the federal Vaccines for Children Program (VCP), the HHS Office of Civil Rights said in part:

Providers participating in the VCP must comply “with applicable State law, including any such law relating to any religious or other exemption.” By specifically mandating that a State’s plan for administering Medicaid must respect State laws regarding religious exemptions, Congress recognized the importance of Americans’ religious convictions regarding vaccines and laws protecting such....

On January 14, 2025, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued Executive Order 7-25.... The Governor’s interpretation of EPRA was recently affirmed by Judge Froble of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County...

West Virginia is a participant in the VCP6 and receives $1.37 billion from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services each year as the federal Medicaid contribution. Therefore, West Virginia is obligated to ensure that its VCP providers comply with applicable state laws like EPRA, which requires recognition of religious exemptions from West Virginia’s Compulsory Vaccination Law.

On Aug. 25, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. posted a message on X urging the state legislature to support the Governor's position, and saying in part:

... At @HHSgov, we will enforce conscience protections and defend every family’s right to make informed health decisions.

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraud Claims Against LDS Church

In Gaddy v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (10th Cir., Aug. 26, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a RICO suit against the Latter-Day Saints Church. Plaintiffs, who for many years had made tithing payments to the Church, contended that the Church had made misrepresentations about the Church's history and origins. The court said in part:

On their fraudulent misrepresentations RICO theory, Plaintiffs make several attacks on the factual accuracy of what the Church teaches its members. Plaintiffs claim that key historical events for the religion occurred differently than how the Church describes them canonically. Allegedly, by preaching false statements about its own history, the Church engaged in a “pattern of racketeering.” ... Had Plaintiffs known of these alleged misrepresentations, they say, they would not have committed to the Church....

We conclude that the church autonomy doctrine applies to Plaintiffs’ allegations about the Church’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions about its history, because the dispute about the accuracy of the Church’s representations is ecclesiastical, not “purely secular.” ... Plaintiffs’ allegations require a court to dive into deeply religious waters to assess whether foundational events for a religion occurred the way the religion teaches....

Plaintiffs’ second RICO theory [is] ... fraudulent misuse of tithing funds.... We conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference of causation between any of the challenged misrepresentations or omissions by the Church about how it would use tithing payments and the alleged harm Plaintiffs suffered.... As a result, we need not decide whether the church autonomy doctrine precludes the adjudication of this theory....

Judge Phillips filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately because I would also decide that the church autonomy doctrine does not apply to Plaintiffs’ second civil RICO theory—that the Church fraudulently used tithing payments for commercial purposes.... [I]t “does not apply to purely secular decisions, even when made by churches.”

Deseret News reports on the decision.

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

LA Sued Over Its handling of Permit Application for Christian Revival Event

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by leaders of May Day USA, a nationwide Christian revival event, contending that the manner in which Los Angeles officials handed their application for a permit to hold a revival on Hollywood Boulevard violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The 54-page complaint (full text) in Donnelly v. City of Los Angeles, California, (CD CA, filed 8/21/2025), alleges in part:

15. LAPD wielded the unconstitutionally unbridled discretion afforded it under the City’s permitting scheme to subject MayDay to lengthy and pretextual administrative hurdles....

16. Among the LAPD’s many demands was a requirement that MayDay conduct a petition of Hollywood Boulevard’s business owners and vendors to ensure at least 51% approved of MayDay’s expressive activity and speech....

19. The City’s permitting scheme thus enshrined an unconstitutional heckler’s veto upon MayDay and its expressive activities....

21. The City refused to provide MayDay with any concrete answer on its permit application until the last minute, prohibiting MayDay from finalizing their planned event, advertising it, or otherwise adequately preparing to engage in the event....

23. Three days prior to its requested event, the City denied the permit actually requested by MayDay ...and “granted” the application to host the event at a location ... it never requested and out of the site of the hecklers who Defendants believed would veto MayDay’s speech. In essence, the City tried to put MayDay unconstitutionally out of sight, and out of mind....

25. Simply put, the City said MayDay could speak, but only if it did it quietly, quickly, and where no one who might object would be forced to hear it. Defendants denied MayDay’s permit application on the basis of the views it planned to espouse and out of concern that Hollywood Boulevard was not an appropriate place for their religious speech, exercise, and expression.

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

Texas AG Tells School Districts That Were Not Enjoined to Comply with Statute Ordering Posting of 10 Commandments In Classrooms

As previously reported, on August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release (full text) directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. He said in part:

From the beginning, the Ten Commandments have been irrevocably intertwined with America’s legal, moral, and historical heritage. Schools not enjoined by ongoing litigation must abide by S.B. 10 and display the Ten Commandments. The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country.

As reported by the Houston Chronicle, there is some confusion as to whether the Attorney General's instructions to comply include two major school districts-- Houston and Austin. On Aug. 19, the Austin District was dismissed as a defendant on the condition that it would be bound by any injunction issued in the case against the remaining defendants. (Full text of Order.) The Houston District, on its motion, was excused from participating in the hearing on the preliminary injunction. In a version of the Attorney General's press release posted on X and on Facebook, neither Austin nor Houston was listed among the districts that Paxton said were excused from complying with SB 10. However, in the version posted on the Attorney General's website, both Austin and Houston were listed as districts affected by the injunction and thus excused from compliance.

The Attorney General's instructions follow an Aug. 21 letter (full text) from the ACLU, Americans United and FFRF sent to superintendents in Texas districts that were not defendants in the lawsuit, saying in part:

Even though your district is not a party to the ongoing lawsuit, all school districts have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes state law, public-school officials may not comply with S.B. 10.

The organizations threaten possible litigation against districts that comply with S.B. 10.

Monday, August 25, 2025

Ban on Faith Statements by Colleges Participating in Program for High Schoolers Violates Free Exercise Clause

Loe v. Jett, (D MN, Aug. 22, 2025), is a challenge to a 2023 Amendment to Minnesota's Post Secondary Education Option (PSEO) statute. The statute allows high school students to enroll in nonsectarian college courses in colleges in the state. The state reimburses colleges for the credits earned by high schoolers. The challenged amendment disqualifies colleges that require faith statements from PSEO students, or which discriminate in admission of PSEO students on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation or religious beliefs or affiliations. The court held that the Faith Statement ban violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, saying in part:

[University of] Northwestern requires PSEO applicants to agree to a Declaration of Christian Community, by which applicants attest to “honor Christ,” “seek Christ‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that the Bible clearly condemns.”... Such an admissions requirement is facially proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban. Now, consider a hypothetical secular private college that participates in the PSEO program. If that secular school required that all PSEO applicants attest to “honor reason,” “seek reason‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that rationalism clearly condemns,” such an admissions requirement would seemingly not be proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban.

The only difference between the two statement requirements is that Northwestern’s is of a religious—and not a secular—nature. Such a distinction on the face of the Faith Statement Ban is not neutral to religion, and thus triggers strict scrutiny....

In sum, the Faith Statement Ban is unconstitutional on its face under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it burdens religious exercise, is not neutral and generally applicable, and is not narrowly tailored to achieve MDE’s compelling interest. Necessarily, this means that the Faith Statement Ban is also unconstitutional under the Freedom of Conscience Clause of Article One, Section Sixteen of the Minnesota Constitution. ...

The court also held that the Amendment's nondiscrimination provision is inseparable from the Statement Ban, so that it too must be struck down. It also rejected the Department of Education's counterclaims against the religious schools that were among the plaintiffs.

MPR News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Friday, August 22, 2025

Pastor's Suit for Reinstatement Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kyles v. Church of God in Christ, (TX App, Aug. 21, 2025), a Texas state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff, Rufus Kyles, should be reinstated as pastor of the Evangelist Temple Church of God in Christ in Houston, Texas. The court explained in part:

Kyles alleged wrongdoings by multiple bodies of the church during investigations into complaints against him and the resolution of those investigations. The CGC filed an answer, alleging that Kyles was charged in the church with sexual misconduct in 2014, that the church conducted an internal investigation and internal judicial processes in which Kyles participated, and that the internal judicial processes resulted in Kyles being removed from the offices of bishop and pastor....

Here, Kyles’s lawsuit would require the review of the ecclesiastical judicial process, analysis of the CGC’s internal church governance and procedure, and a determination regarding the appropriateness of the CGC’s disciplinary actions against Kyles. In other words, Kyles’s lawsuit cannot be resolved by only applying neutral principles of law; instead, it would require the application of principles of church governance, procedure, and discipline... To prevent courts from impermissibly influencing church governance, courts may not second-guess the decisions reached by a church judicatory body in the application of its own rule, custom, or law....