Justice Department Issues Opinion to EEOC On Impact of Recent Developments for Federal Employees

Earlier this month, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an advisory opinion Religious Liberty Protections for Federal Employees in Light of Recent Legal Developments, 49 Op. O.L.C. __ (Sept. 18, 2025). The opinion was requested by the Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who wanted to know the extent to which 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace and a 2017 Memorandum Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty remain operative. OLC responded that recent developments require two exceptions to continuing to enforce those prior directives:

First ... the Supreme Court held in Groff that an employer experiences “undue hardship” only where the burden posed by an accommodation would be “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”... Thus, under Title VII, an agency cannot deny a religious accommodation if the burden imposed on the agency by the accommodation in the context of the agency’s work is insubstantial. Agencies should therefore disregard references in the 1997 Guidelines to the “de minimis” standard as inconsistent with their statutory obligations....

Second, the 1997 Guidelines provide that, although agencies generally may not “restrict personal religious expression by employees in the Federal workplace,” agencies must restrict such expression where it “creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion.”... Again, that restriction reflected Supreme Court precedent that has since been abrogated....

The 1997 Guidelines’ “official endorsement” test thus creates a special restriction on religious expression without a constitutionally valid justification.  

... [O]ur conclusion that the “appearance of official endorsement” test can no longer be enforced does not mean that all religious expression in the workplace must be permitted. Nor does it mean that the Constitution imposes no limits on religious conduct or expression by government employees. The Supreme Court has never cast doubt on the principle that government employers can prohibit disruptive or coercive behavior by their employees regardless of the religious nature of that conduct.

The OLC Opinion also went on to provide that telework as a form of religious accommodation for federal employees may still be used despite President Trump's directive to federal employees to return to in-person work.

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

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Dennis Wieboldt, The Dormant Commerce Clause's Lessons for Religious Exemptions, (59 Creighton L. Rev. __ (2026)).
• Eugene Volokh, Addiction to Constitutionally Protected Activity: Speech, Press, and Religion, (UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Kelly K.Gillespie, Heather A. Walter-McCabe & M. Killian Kinney, Testosterone, Telehealth & The Trans Erasure Project, (September 01, 2025).
• Serena Mayeri & Amanda Shanor, Antidiscrimination as Pretext: The Assault on Equality and Constitutional Democracy, (U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 25-43 (2025)).
• Patricia Barnett, Protect Transgender Kids: What Is "Protection" In Light Of Bans On Gender-Affirming Care?, (Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity: Vol. 13: Iss. 2, Article 6 (2025)).
• Voislav Stojanovski & Aleksandar Markoski, Analysis of the Implementation of Legislation on Hate Crimes and Criminalised Hate Speech in the Republic of North Macedonia for the Period from January 2019 to June 2024, (November 01, 2024).
• Magomet Yandiev, Islamic Political Economy: Money Splitting as the Basis of the Islamic Financial System, (July 01, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Bashar H. Malkawi & Bashayer Al-Majed, Moral Rights in Copyright of GCC Countries: Between Islamic Law and Current Laws, 58 International Lawyer 77-117 (2025).

Mother Loses Free Exercise Challenge To Violence Against Women Act

In United States v. Gaviola, (ED CA, Sept. 25, 2025), a California federal district court held that enforcement of 18 USC §2262(a)(2) does not violate the free exercise rights of a California mother who arranged for her 16-year-old son to be forcibly transferred to a religious boarding school in Missouri.  The son had previously obtained a temporary restraining order against his mother prohibiting her from contacting him. He had also filed a petition to become an emancipated minor. 18 USC §2262(a)(2), which is part of the Violence Against Women Act, criminalizes causing a person to travel in interstate commerce by force, coercion, duress or fraud where that violates a state court protection order. According to the court:

Gaviola asserts that her decision to cause her child, MV, to cross state lines in order to enroll him in a Christian school “reflects her sincerely held religious beliefs and her absolute right to direct her child’s religious and moral education.”... As such, she claims that “[p]rosecuting her under 18 U.S.C. § 2262 for this conduct imposes a substantial burden on her free exercise of religion, as it effectively penalizes her for making a constitutionally protected choice.”

In rejecting her claim, the court said in part:

Section 2262 is neutral. It does not single out religion or religiously motivated conduct for special burdens; it applies regardless of the defendant’s beliefs. It is generally applicable because it uniformly prohibits all persons from violating protection orders; it does not afford discretion to grant exceptions for secular motivations (e.g., employment, education, medical reasons) while denying them for religious ones. The government’s interest—interstate enforcement of state court orders and protection of victims of domestic violence—applies equally across the board. Thus, under Smith, § 2262 is a classic example of a neutral, generally applicable law whose enforcement does not trigger strict scrutiny, even if a defendant claims her conduct was religiously motivated....

Moreover, if the Court set aside Smith and applied strict scrutiny, Gaviola’s arguments still fails....

Gaviola does not raise a claim or defense under the RFRA. However, whether under Gaviola’s interpretation of a First Amendment challenge or one under the RFRA, the “net effect” is the same: “the government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion if and only if the government’s action can survive ‘strict scrutiny.’” ...  

As previously discussed, the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Gaviola’s religious beliefs. The Court will also assume, without deciding, that prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(2) substantially burdens her exercise of religion. Even so, the government’s interests are compelling. 

The federal government has a paramount interest in protecting victims of domestic violence, including by ensuring the enforceability of state-court protection orders and preventing their evasion through interstate travel. Enforcing § 2262—as well as other provisions of the Violence Against Women Act—advances these compelling interests, such as safeguarding children, upholding judicial orders, and deterring interstate abduction.... 

Court Refuses to Dismiss Case on Misappropriation of Tithed Funds Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

 In Leach v. Gateway Church, (ED TX, Sep. 17, 2025), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a class action suit on behalf of Gateway Church members and tithers alleging misappropriation of tithed funds. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege Defendants induced Plaintiffs to donate money to Gateway by falsely representing fifteen percent (15%) of all donations would be distributed to global missions and Jewish ministry partners... [and that] Defendants guaranteed Plaintiffs a refund of their donated funds if Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with Gateway’s use of such funds.... Plaintiffs’ efforts to seek transparency and substantiation for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ donations or to otherwise recover any allegedly misappropriated tithe funds have not been successful....

Because Gateway’s membership exceeds 100,000 members since its founding, Plaintiffs allege the proposed class will consist of “tens of thousands of persons,” including members that do not reside in Texas....

The court held that it was not required to abstain from hearing the case on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act which directs class actions to state courts when there is minimal diversity of citizenship between members of the class and defendant.  

The court also refused to dismiss the case on ecclesiastical abstention grounds. The court said in part:

Defendants argue neutral principles of law cannot resolve Plaintiffs’ claims because “Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily touch on the religious doctrine and practice of tithing and intrude in Gateway’s internal affairs and administration”... 

At this stage ... Defendants have not established the disputed financial expenditures from Plaintiffs’ tithes were approved by a committee or governing body based on Gateway’s religious doctrine.... Second, Defendants have not pointed to any church policy outlining that its contested expenditures were justified by Gateway’s religious teachings.... Third, the Parties have not alleged they have differing definitions of “Jewish ministry partners” or any other term at issue....  

... Plaintiffs’ claims seemingly address Defendants’ non-religious conduct: acts of concealment; discrepancies in the reconciliation of donated funds balances; unaccounted for donations; financial irregularities; and lack of transparency or substantiations for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ donations.... The Court acknowledges the act of tithing is a religious act, but Plaintiffs do not dispute their tithing; rather, Plaintiffs allege their tithes were fraudulently allocated and Defendants misrepresented critical facts to Plaintiffs before tithing....

Ministry Watch reports on the decision.

Canceling Church's Sunday Lease on School Gym Violated 1st Amendment

 In Truth Family Bible Church Middleton v. Idaho Housing and Finance Association, (D ID, Sept. 22, 2025), an Idaho federal district court held that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when its lease to use a public charter school's gymnasium for Sunday services was terminated. The court said in part:

... Truth Family had a month-to-month lease with Sage International Network of Schools (“SAGE”), a public charter school, where they would pay rent for the use of the school’s gymnasium on Sundays for church services.... SAGE submitted an application to IHFA to participate in the Public Charter School Facilities Program [under which] it could receive bonds for facility improvements and construction.  

IHFA reviewed SAGE’s application and indicated the lease with Truth Family could be a problem because the bond proceeds could not be used for religious purposes under Article IX Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution (otherwise known as the “Blaine Amendment”).... Ultimately, SAGE decided to terminate the lease in order to proceed with bond financing.....

IHFA did not single out Truth Family’s lease in a way that was neutral or generally applicable, and SAGE did not terminate Truth Family’s lease in a manner that was neutral or generally applicable. Therefore, Truth Family met its burden of showing there was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause here....

To refuse the issuance of bonds to anyone who contracts with a religious organization to use their facilities is likely not narrowly tailored to any government interest that could possibly be served by the Blaine Amendment....

... [T]he government is still indicating a preference for a certain religion or non-religion when it excludes another. When Truth Family was prevented from using facilities to participate in worship services, that indicated IHFA and SAGE’s preference for non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

SAGE terminated the lease solely due to Truth Family’s status as a religious organization. While the motivation might have been money rather than a direct issue with the message itself, the result is the same: Truth Family could no longer spread its message at the school because it was a religious one. This is a violation of the Free Speech Clause, and summary judgment is proper....

Idaho Ed News reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Employee's Objection to Covid Vaccine Accommodation Was Not Religious

 In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit under Title VII and a parallel Oregon statute brought by Sherry Detwiler, the medical center's Director of Health Information. Detwiler initially objected on religious grounds to her employer's Covid vaccine requirement. She was granted an exemption, conditioned, in part, on her having weekly antigen testing. She objected to that accommodation because she believed the ethylene oxide used in obtaining a nasal swab for the test was carcinogenic. She told her employer in part:

I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and jeopardizing my relationship with God and violating my conscience . . .

As a Christian protecting my body from defilement according to God’s law, I invoke my religious right to refuse any testing which would alter my DNA and has been proven to cause cancer. I find testing with carcinogens and chemical waste to be in direct conflict with my Christian duty to protect my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Detwiler asked instead either for saliva testing or remote work. The majority said in part:

The Ninth Circuit has not yet endorsed a test for determining the nature, whether religious or secular, of a belief underlying a Title VII claim....

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not establish her belief is consistent, widely held, or even rational.  However, a complaint must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle.  Invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction....

The District Court acknowledged the sincerity and religiosity of Detwiler’s belief in her body as a temple and even the implied prohibition on ingesting harmful substances.  Therefore, at issue is Detwiler’s belief that the testing swab is harmful, and specifically that EtO is a carcinogen.  This belief is personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research.  In essence, Detwiler labels a personal judgment based on science as a direct product of her general religious tenet.  Yet, her alarm about the test swab is far too attenuated from the broad principle to treat the two as part of a single belief....

Invocation of prayer, without more, is still insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.... Indeed, crediting every secular objection bolstered by a minimal reference to prayer as religious “would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” 

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

By affirming the district court, the majority creates a circuit split.  When faced with the question of whether religious objections to COVID-19 policies mirroring Detwiler’s objection were sufficiently pled, our sister circuits have consistently answered in the affirmative.... 

To work well, the majority’s mode of analysis must be capable of objective, impartial, and consistent application.  If not, such analysis opens wide the door to the discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs.  Those beliefs christened by a judge as “truly religious” will be protected, and those condemned as too mixed with “secular” beliefs will be left unprotected.  The majority’s approach requires the impossible—we are judges, not theologians or philosophers.  Judges are ill equipped to parse mixed claims into the “truly religious” and “purely secular” silos that the majority purports to discern....

Salem Reporter reports on the decision. 

President Sends Rosh Hashanah Greetings

Rosh Hashanah-- the Jewish New Year-- begins at sundown this evening. The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Rosh Hashanah. In it, President Trump said in part: 

As the Jewish community gathers for this special time of spiritual renewal, my Administration recommits to upholding religious liberty and ending faith-based persecution—including the scourge of anti-Semitism.  Above all, we pledge to build a future of peace—and to recognize the dignity imprinted on every human soul.

Another Suit Challenges Texas' Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Classrooms

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. Five days later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. (See prior posting.) Today, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against 14 more of Texas' 1207 school districts seeking an injunction barring those districts from complying with SB 10. The 67-page complaint (full text) in Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 9/22/2025) alleges in part:

... [P]ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom—rendering them unavoidable—will unconstitutionally harm the Plaintiffs. The displays will pressure students, including the minor-child Plaintiffs, into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. The displays will also send the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that S. B. 10 requires—do not belong in their own school community, pressuring them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences. And the displays will substantially interfere with and burden the right of the parents-Plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Baha’i, Humanist, or nonreligious, to direct their children’s education and upbringing when it comes to religious questions and matters.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Russell Bell, The Wayfinders of Knowledge: How Communities Preserve Critical Information During Institutional Crisis (September 17, 2025).
• Preston Green, Christopher Saldaña, Christopher Baker Bruce & Julie Mead, Preserving Rural School Districts from the Threat of Vouchers and Charters, (Forthcoming in Idaho Law Review (Fall Edition, Vol. 62, 2025)).
• Ronald J. Colombo, Free Exercise as Establishment, (forthcoming in the Michigan State Law Review (2025-26)).
• Kerri Froc & Paul McGregor, Where Shielding Clauses Yield: Women's Equal Rights following the Supreme Court's Dickson Decision, (September 05, 2025).
• Clara Piano & Ennio Piano, The Medieval Origins of Spousal Consent, (September 16, 2025).
• Russell Bell, The Psychological Choreography of Belief Change: Demonstrating the 'Intellectual Cartography' Framework with a Composite Case of Religious Literalism, (September 19, 2025).
• Darrell A. H. Miller, Falsifying Tradition, (University of Chicago Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 25-37 (2025).
• Ande Somby, A Doctrine of Insignificant Presence: Legal Survivals and the Erasure of Indigenous Rights (September 10, 2025).
• Noa Ben-Asher, Skrmetti’s Gender Trouble, (August 29, 2025).
• Oluwakemi Mary Adekile, Family Law and Marriage: Definitions, Sources, Functions and Theories, (October 01, 2024).
• Kathryn Chan, Nonprofit Organizations as Public Interest Litigants, ((2026) 104 Canadian Bar Review (forthcoming)).
• Regina Lambert Hillman, Lavender Scare to Lawfully Married: From Deviant to Dignified, (February 25, 2025).

From SSRN (Islamic law):

• Saparuddin, Hawalah as an Instrument for Debt Transfer in the Modern Sharia Financial System, (September 01, 2025).
• Zainuddin & Hamsir, The Dominance of Debt-Based Financing in Islamic Banking: Legal Challenges and Implications in Indonesia, (September 14, 2025).
• Hameed Adegoke, Sharia and Secular Law: A Framework for Legal Pluralism--A Proposal for Integrating Faith-Based Justice within Secular Societies, (September 04, 2025).
• Dr. Arif Jamil, Md. Rafi Ibn Masud, Sal Sabil Chowdhury & Ragib Ahmed Women's Right to Abortion After Overturning Roe v Wade: Contextualizing the USA and Bangladesh, (September 03, 2024).
• Manish Kumar Yadav, Supreme Court of India on the Rights of Divorced Muslim Woman in the Presence of Multiple Legislations, (33 Religion and Law Review 37 (2024)).

From SmartCILP:

• Paul Cavill, Book Review. The King's Felons: Church, State and Criminal Confinement in Early Tudor England, by Margaret McGlynn, 42 Law & History Review 659-660 (2024).
• Hi'ilei K Casco, A Right to Living Culture: Articulating Issues and Opportunities for Protecting Contemporary and Emerging Native Hawaiian Rights, Practices, and Resources, 47 University of Hawaii Law Review 180-248 (2024).
• James D. Nelson, Disestablishment at Work, 134 Yale Law Journal 1890-1954 (2025).

Texas Governor Signs Ban on Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

On Sept. 17, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 7 (full text), a complex 20-page law aimed at preventing the shipment from out-of-state of abortion-inducing drugs. The key section of the law provides:

... [A] person may not: (1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state....

The law then sets out lengthy lists of exceptions, including any action taken by a pregnant woman in attempting to induce an abortion.

The ban is enforceable through a qui tam action by any person, with certain exceptions. To deal with plaintiff's standing, the Act provides:

An action brought under this section must be brought in the name of the qui tam relator, who is an assignee of this state’s claim for relief. Notwithstanding any other law, the transfer of this state’s claim to the qui tam relator is absolute, with the state retaining no interest in the subject matter of the claim.

An action may not be brought against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, distributor or common carrier unless it is shown that the defendant failed to adopt and implement a policy to comply with the law.

If a plaintiff is successful, the court is to award not less than $100,000. If the plaintiff is the woman who was pregnant or a relative of the unborn child, plaintiff is to retain the entire award.  If the suit is brought by someone else, plaintiff is to retain $10,000 and the remainder is to be placed in trust for a charitable organization selected by plaintiff.

Reuters reports on the governor's action.

School's Policy on Disclosure of Students' Social Transitioning Violated Due Process, But Not Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, Sept. 18, 2025), parents of a middle school student, referred to as G.M., challenged a school's policy on non-disclosure of their child's social transitioning of gender. The school referred to G.M. by a female name and pronouns when speaking with the parents. However, teachers and other employees referred to the child by a masculine name and with masculine pronouns at school. A Michigan federal district court held that this did not violate parents' free exercise rights, but that parents had stated due process claims.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the District has conditioned the privilege of their child attending public school on their willingness to abandon their sincere religious beliefs.  Not so.  As parents, the Meads “are not being coerced or compelled into recognizing any individual in any particular way inconsistent with their religious beliefs.” ... The District allows its students to request their preferred name and pronouns....  In no way does that compel students or their parents to recognize a preferred name or pronouns of the opposite sex.  

Accordingly, the court finds the District’s policy and practice to be neutral and generally applicable.  As a result, the policy and practice are not subject to strict scrutiny but must have a rational basis....

Defendants proffer the legitimate purpose of promoting a safe and supportive learning environment for LGBTQ students.... Plaintiffs do not dispute that the policy is rationally related to this purpose....

Plaintiffs allege two fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, (1) the parental right to direct the upbringing of their child and their child’s education, and (2) the parental right to direct their child’s healthcare.  Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the first set of rights when it failed to inform them of their child’s requested gender transition and when it deceived them so they wouldn’t find out besides their child telling them.  Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the second set of rights when it conducted a “psychosocial intervention” to treat their child’s gender dysphoria and other mental health disorders.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Organization Ordaining Ministers Online Loses Challenge to Tennessee Officials

Tennessee law provides that persons who receive ordination online may not solemnize marriages in the state. In American Marriage Ministries v. Collins, (ED TN, Sept. 17, 2025), plaintiff, an organization that ordains ministers online sued Tennessee officials who refused to provide it with the same non-prosecution assurances, and agreements not to challenge their marriages, that officials had previously given to Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse. A Tennessee federal district court rejected various challenges to the refusal. The court said in part:

Here, AMM contends Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause by “set[ting] up favored and disfavored religious institutions under the law” and impermissibly “ma[de] accommodations for some religious denominations and not others.”  ...)  However, AMM does not cite any evidence from the record that would indicate a denominational difference between it and ULCM, nor does it otherwise explain how Defendants’ disparate treatment of AMM and ULCM constitutes denominational discrimination sufficient to show an Establishment Clause violation....   

...  AMM [does not] cite any authority to support the proposition that, in the absence of a showing of denominational discrimination, an official preference among different “religious institutions” violates the Establishment Clause....

... AMM lacks standing to bring the claim it now seeks to press under the Free Exercise Clause because that claim contests the constitutionality of the text of the Online Ordination Ban rather than Defendants’ disparate treatment of ULCM and AMM...

... AMM’s arguments for strict scrutiny fall short.  The record does not support a finding that Defendants’ disparate treatment of AMM and ULCM is based on religion, because—just as there was no denominational difference to support an Establishment Clause violation—AMM has not pointed to any relevant religion-based distinction between the two organizations that could support a finding of “classification . . . based on religion.”...

... AMM cannot meet its burden of “showing pure arbitrariness by negativing every conceivable basis that might support the government's decision.”... This is an extremely difficult burden for a plaintiff to satisfy, even in the already deferential realm of rational basis review....

There is at least one conceivable rational basis for Defendants’ disparate treatment of AMM following the ULCM Stipulations.... Defendants’ entry into the ULCM Stipulations was a rather extraordinary official act, in the sense that they made a series of promises not to enforce a civil statute over which (according to their own views of the relevant law) they lacked any enforcement power.  Given this context, in which Defendants made promises about a subject matter and a statute outside of their authority, it is conceivable that they might choose to avoid further entanglements with the Online Ordination Ban. It is as if, having found themselves off the road, Defendants have since endeavored to stay in their lane; this is certainly a rational attitude for government officials to take towards their duties.

USCIRF Issues Policy Update on Mass Atrocities Targeting Religious Communities

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom this month released a Policy Update titled Preventing Mass Atrocities Targeting Religious Communities. The Policy Update says in part:

This policy update explores the relationship between mass atrocities and religious freedom. Mass atrocities are preceded by a range of early warning signs, such as religious freedom violations. When religious freedom is systematically denied or religious identities targeted, the risk of atrocity crimes may increase. This policy update sheds light on the link between atrocity risk and religious freedom violations by cross-referencing the top 30 countries most at risk of mass atrocities with USCIRF’s 2025 Annual Report recommendations. 

This policy update also details relevant legislative requirements passed by the U.S. government to improve its capacity to detect, prevent, and respond to genocide and atrocities globally. It emphasizes the need to continue to prioritize atrocity prevention and response, with a focus on promoting international religious freedom as a tool to prevent atrocities targeting religious communities pursuant to USCIRF’s mandate.

Wild Hunt discusses USCIRF's Policy Update.

Department of Education Says School Violated Title IX in Handling Complaints About Locker Room Policy

The U.S. Department of Education yesterday announced that its Office for Civil Rights has found that the Louden County, Virginia, public schools violated Title IX in its handling of dueling complaints from a transgender male (referred to in DE's announcement as a "female") and from two cisgender males. The complaints allege sexual harassment in the boy's locker room.  The County allows students to use locker rooms based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex. 

According to DE's Release:

... [T]he female student recorded audio and video of two male students. This led the female student’s parent and the two male students’ parents to file Title IX complaints with the school.

The Department said in part:

OCR’s investigation revealed a sex-based double standard: Loudoun County failed to meaningfully investigate complaints of sexual harassment by two male students concerning the presence of a member of the opposite sex in male-only intimate spaces yet thoroughly investigated the female student’s sexual harassment complaint about the boys....

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “We urge Loudoun County to abandon its reliance upon post-modern ideology and instead embrace the requirements of law by coming into compliance with Title IX. The Trump Administration’s dedication to equal protection under the law is unwavering, and we will not permit rogue localities to defy that principle.” ...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Stays Implementation of New Social Studies Standards While Litigation Is Pending

 As previously reported, in July a suit was filed asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction and enjoin implementation of the State Board of Education's 2025 Academic Standards for Social Studies in grades K-8. The Standards call for teaching of stories from the Bible with a Christian perspective on them.  Now, in Randall v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-2, assumed original jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing a temporary stay while the challenge to the new Standards is being litigated. The Court ordered that the 2019 Social Studies Standards be used while the litigation proceeds.

Hawaii Supreme Court Interprets State Constitution's Establishment Clause

In Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State of Hawai'i, (HI Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2025), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the Hawaii state constitution's Establishment Clause invalidates a provision in a 1922 land grant from the Territory of Hawaii to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The land grant provided in part:

The land covered by this Grant is to be used for Church purposes only. In the event of its being used for other than Church purposes, this Grant shall become void and the land mentioned herein shall immediately revert to and revest in the Territory of Hawaii.

The current owners of the land seek a declaratory judgment holding that the reversionary clause is invalid.  The majority said in part:

Ultimately, we hold that the State’s action to enforce the Deed Restriction, requiring that the Property be used “for Church purposes only” or else the Property would revert to the State, violates Hawai‘i’s Establishment Clause in article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution.  We resolve this appeal based on the Hawai‘i Constitution.  In doing so, we need not consider the Federal Establishment Clause....

When the Hawai‘i Constitution was framed and subsequently went into effect, three U.S. Supreme Court cases delineated the law under Federal Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing. Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203 (1948); and Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).  We conclude that these decisions provide appropriate and ample guidance to decide this case....

... The State ... asserts that we should adopt the now-prevailing test for Federal Establishment Clause challenges in Kennedy, 597 U.S. 507.  We decline to adopt either the Lemon or the Kennedy tests. ...

We see no reason to adopt the Kennedy test to analyze the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause.  We recognize the well-founded concerns raised by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Kennedy, highlighting the challenges of unearthing and applying historical practices and understandings from the period around the U.S. Constitution’s adoption in 1787.  Further, Appellants make the salient point that applying the Kennedy test in the context of state actions in Hawai‘i is even more fraught with questions and peril.  It would be discordant to require that the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause be construed based on the historical practices and understandings of the Founding Fathers given that the Hawai‘i Constitution was adopted by its electorate in 1959, one-hundred and seventy-two years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted. ...

Justice Eddins, joined by Justices McKenna and Devis filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Because in my view article I section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution has a pluralistic purpose and secular spirit grander than the majority suggests, and the Department of the Attorney General urges us to interpret our constitution to match recent Supreme Court case law, I write separately....

The delegates intended for Hawaiʻi’s Establishment Clause to reflect Everson’s separationist ideals.... Separation of church and state guided the adoption of Hawaiʻi’s religious clauses....

If the Supreme Court decides a case based on mission, text trickery, originalism, or imagination, then that case may have little value to a state that prefers a more principled way, or an interpretive approach that does not force “contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.”...

The Roberts Court’s off-the-wall jurisprudence reimagines the First Amendment.  The Constitution creates a barrier against state support for religion and state involvement in religion.  But the Court misshapes the Constitution to require government support of religion. 

Two years ago, I feared the Court self-inflicted harm, eroded faith in the courts, and exposed itself to real criticisms about its legitimacy....  

Back then in the big games, the Roberts Court called balls and strikes based on the pitcher and hitter.  Bad enough for the integrity of our judicial system – national and subnational.  But now pitches that bounce to the plate or sail over the catcher’s head are strikes.  Just because the ump says so.  Pretend law is not law.   State constitutionalism makes it easy to consider Roberts Court jurisprudence white noise.

India's Supreme Court Stays Enforcement of Several Parts of Waqf Amendment Act

In In re: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. (India Sup. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025), the Supreme Court of India in a 128-page opinion upheld many of the provisions of the controversial Waqf Act Amendments enacted earlier this year but stayed enforcement of several parts of the Act.  As explained by The Independent:

Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government passed the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 earlier this year, claiming it would improve the management of waqf properties – religious and charitable assets governed under Muslim personal law....

Critics said it was a thinly veiled attempt to seize Muslim-controlled properties, weaken the autonomy of the 200 million-strong Muslim minority, and increase state control of religious assets. They promptly moved the top court seeking a stay on the changes.

The amended legislation requires all waqf properties to be registered on a centralised digital portal. Failure to register can lead to the property being classified as “disputed” and referred to a tribunal....

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai suspended the new provisions allowing the local collector to determine the ownership of a waqf property....

The court also stayed the provision requiring that only individuals who have been practising Islam for at least five years may dedicate a waqf property, pending the creation of state-level rules for determining a person’s adherence.

Another contentious amendment allowed for the appointment of non-Muslims in the management of waqf institutions. The original law mandated that all waqf board members must be Muslim, including at least two women and elected representatives.

The new law enables state governments to nominate members, including non-Muslim lawmakers, judges, and “eminent persons”. The top court said the Central Waqf Council should not include more than four non-Muslim members, and state waqf boards no more than three. It suggested that the chief executives of waqf boards should ideally be Muslim, although this is not legally mandated.

California Legislature Passes Law Aimed at Combatting Antisemitism and Other Bias in Schools

On September 12, the California legislature gave final passage to AB 715 (full text) which amends the state Education Code to create a state office of Civil Rights. The new Office is to work directly with local educational agencies to address discrimination and bias. It is to provide educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms bias. The bill also requires the Office to employ an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator who is to provide antisemitism education to school personnel and make recommendations to the legislature on legislation that is needed to prevent antisemitism in educational settings. The bill provides in part:

The United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, shall be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism.

The bill also provides in part:

51500. (a) (1) A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation or because of a characteristic listed in section 220....

(2) Discriminatory bias in instruction and school-sponsored activities does not require a showing of direct harm to members of a protected group. Members of a protected group do not need to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias.

(3) If the governing board or body of a local educational agency finds that instruction or school-sponsored activities are discriminatory pursuant to this section, corrective action shall be taken.

(b) Teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and align with the adopted curriculum and standards ..., and be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility, rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.

The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. JNS reports on the passage of the legislation. KQED reports on the controversy that surrounded the bill.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Roshan Biju, Between Myth and History: A Critical Examination of the Bible's Origins, (August 23, 2025).
• Richard Osborne, What's History without Tradition?, (Volume 75 of Catholic University Law Review (2026).
• Osama S. Qatrani, A Response To: "An Islamic Tale of Cartoons, Cartoonacy, And Cartoonatics, (Atheism Under the Microscope Responses to Zindler Response Vol 2 – 2025).
• Dimitris Christopoulos, & Dimitri Dimoulis, Art Can Legitimately Offend. Artistic Freedom Versus Religiousness, (August 29, 2025).
• Pranoto Iskandar, Negara Kesatuan, A Different Kind of Unitary State: Theorizing a Folk Theory of the State, (August 24, 2025).
• Evan D. Bernick, Text, Violence, and the Implausibility of Antiabortion Constitutionalism, (UC Davis Law Review Online, 2025).

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

• Asmita Mallick, LGBTQ: Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody & Laws Worldwide (September 04, 2025).
• Amreen Ayaz, Modernity, Mimicry, and Moksha: A Postcolonial Study of R. K. Narayan's The Guide and V. S. Naipaul's A House for Mr Biswas, (August 22, 2025).
• Yang Cai, Shuo Chen & Dongxu Li, Tambora Eruption and Peasant Revolts in Ancient China: An Apocalypse (August 30, 2025).
• Madhav Khosla & Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Caste Formalism: The Law and Politics of Equality in India, (Columbia Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Mohd Mudassir M.Ae.S.I, A Study on the Interconnection Between Sound Vibrations and the Softening of Iron: Quranic Insights and Scientific Principles, (August 28, 2025).
• Abdulmaleek Kadiri, An Examination of the Concept of Burden of Proof in Adultery Cases under Islamic Law, (July 20, 2024).
• Filzah Assi, "Short Communication on Dignity in the Digital Age", (August 20, 2025).
• Syed AbuMusab, The Virtue of Artificiality: Islamic Ethics and the Reconceptualization of AI Caregivers, (July 04, 2024).

9th Circuit Upholds Requirement to Use Only Secular Curricular Materials in Charter School Home Instruction Programs

In Woodlard v. Thurmond, (9th Cir., Sept. 11, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment challenges to California's refusal to purchase and permit the use of religious curricular materials in home-based independent study programs of two charter schools. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs ... argue that the defendant charter schools’ independent study programs are really homeschooling and that the schools’ provision of curricular materials should be treated as a generally available public benefit in aid of homeschooling, access to which cannot be denied based on Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The argument is premised on three recent Supreme Court decisions holding that when a state creates a generally available public benefit, it cannot exclude a potential recipient from the benefit because of religious status or religious use....

... [N]ot all government decisions that engender religious objections impose burdens on religion that fall afoul of the Free Exercise Clause. As the Supreme Court made clear in Carson, a state’s decision to provide a “strictly secular” public education does not do so....

... [I]n contrast to private homeschooling, parents in independent study programs can teach only under the supervision of state employees. The extensive legal requirements applicable to the defendant charter schools’ independent study programs make the programs sufficiently public to defeat Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim....

Plaintiffs’ compelled speech claim fares no better. It is premised on the argument that “[w]hen parents in the Blue Ridge and Visions programs select a diverse array of curricula for their children’s diverse needs,” the parents are speaking, not the government. However, we have held that a public school’s curriculum is an “expression of its policy,” ... and that “information and speech ... present[ed] to school children may be deemed to be part of the school’s curriculum and thus School District speech,”