European Union Court of Justice: EU Countries Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other Member States

In Cupriak-Trojan v. Mazowiecki, (CJEU, Nov. 25, 2025), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires EU member states (even if they do not permit same-sex marriages domestically) to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other EU countries. The Court said in part:

75. While it is true ... that Member States enjoy a margin of discretion as regards the procedures for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens when exercising their freedom of movement and residence within another Member State, the lack of a procedure for recognition equivalent to that granted to heterosexual couples constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation prohibited by Article 21(1) of the Charter. It follows that where a Member State chooses ... to provide, in its national law, for a single procedure for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, ...that Member State is required to apply that procedure without distinction to marriages between persons of the same sex and to those between persons of the opposite sex....

77.  ...  Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State concluded lawfully in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, in which they have created or strengthened a family life, or the transcription for that purpose of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where that transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State for such recognition.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

West Virginia Supreme Court, Pending Appeal, Reinstates No-Religious-Exemption to School Vaccine Mandate

As previously reported, last month a West Virginia trial court held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law provides only for medical exemptions. This week, in State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Board of Education v. Froble, (WV Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2025), the West Virginia Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the trial court's Order pending resolution of a petition for a writ of prohibition that has been filed with the Supreme Court. Immediately following the Supreme Court's Order, the state Board of Education issued a Statement (full text) reinstating its directive to county school boards advising them not to grant religious exemptions to the state's compulsory vaccination laws.

AP reports on these developments. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Hears Street Preacher's Appeal Today

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in Olivier v. City of Brandon. In the case, at issue is whether a street preacher who was previously convicted of violating an ordinance barring protests outside a public amphitheater can sue to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, or whether allowing that would improperly undermine his prior conviction.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 AM, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Links to the transcript and audio of today's oral arguments are available from the Supreme Court's website here.  The Hill reports on the oral arguments.

Class Action Filed Challenging Texas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in All Classrooms

 A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the recently enacted Texas statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom.  Two decisions, together impacting 25 specific school districts, have held the law unconstitutional. (See prior postings 1, 2 )  However, Texas has over 1000 school districts. The class action seeks to bar enforcement of statute in all Texas schools that are not parties to other cases already in the courts.  The complaint (full text) in Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 12/2/2025), alleges in part:

6.  The state’s main interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools under S.B. 10 is to impose specific religious beliefs on public-school children, ignoring the numerous objections from Texas families and faith leaders from across the religious spectrum....

7. For these reasons, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated parents and minor children, seek a declaratory judgment that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as permanent injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants and other independent school districts similarly situated from complying with the Act. 

ACLU Texas along with several other civil rights organizations issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Catholic School Employee's Discrimination Claim

In MoChridhe v. Academy of Holy Angels, (MN App. Dec. 1, 2025), a Minnesota state appellate court rejected an employment discrimination claim by a former media specialist/librarian at a Catholic school. The school refused to renew her contract when she disclosed that she was undergoing gender transition to present as a female. The school based its decision on MoChridhe's refusal to abide by the "Guiding Principles for Catholic Schools and Religious Education Concerning Human Sexuality and Sexual Identity." The court said in part:

Does the First Amendment protect a religious employer from discrimination claims by a terminated non-minister employee if the termination was based on a religious reason?  Given the facts alleged in MoChridhe’s complaint and the absence of any binding precedent suggesting otherwise, we discern no basis to conclude that the broader religious protections of the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine are not available to the religious employer in that situation....

... [C]onsideration of MoChridhe’s claims would require consideration of the Archdiocese’s religious reason for the employment decision, would interfere with the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require compliance with the Guiding Principles in the school setting—which relates to the church’s mission to educate young people in its faith— and would foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.  The potential inapplicability of the ministerial exception does not change that conclusion, and there is no precedent indicating that it must...

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in Appeal from Faith-Based Pregnancy Center Over Subpoena for Identity of Donors

The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. At issue in the case is an investigatory subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General seeking the names of donors to First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy center. First Choice contends that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights and the associational rights of its donors who are concerned about disclosure of their identities. The issue before the Supreme Court is one of whether the First Amendment question should be initially fought out in state or federal court. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal district court. The Attorney General then filed a subsequent suit to enforce the subpoena in state court. The district court held that First Choice’s constitutional claims are not ripe in federal court because they can be litigated in the subsequently filed state court action. That holding was affirmed by the Third Circuit and is now before the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 Am, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the full oral arguments. SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

2nd Circuit: Information About Abortion Pill Reversal Is Protected Speech

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, (2d Cir., Dec. 1, 2025), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's preliminary injunction barring New York's attorney general from taking enforcement action to prevent the plaintiff religious organizations from disseminating information regarding abortion pill reversal. Finding, on the record before it, that plaintiffs' speech is fully protected by the 1st Amendment, the court said in part:

... [W]e conclude that the speech at issue is noncommercial based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record demonstrating that the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the NIFLA plaintiffs receive no remuneration or financial benefit for engaging in it, and the NIFLA plaintiffs do not provide APR themselves, but rather provide the public with information about APR and access to third-party providers who can offer APR.  Put simply, in this context, these combined elements of the speech at issue here do not transform it into commercial speech for First Amendment purposes. 

To hold otherwise could potentially subject a sweeping range of non-profits to regulation of their speech for providing the public with information and resources concerning critical services.  This could include, depending, of course, on the particular facts and context of each situation, a reproductive rights group in a state with abortion restrictions that provides information about out-of-state organizations that will help women obtain the procedure for free; an LGBT rights group in a state with gender-affirming care restrictions that provides free information about out-of-state organizations that will help individuals seeking hormone therapy to obtain it; or a group that matches immigrants with organizations providing access to employment, English language classes, or immigration legal services.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Prison Chaplain Sues for Wrongful Termination

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian pastor who was terminated from his position as Senior Pastor at Madison Correctional Institution after he refused to proctor a newly-hired female pastor. The 75-page complaint (full text) in Horst v. Florida Department of Corrections, (ND FL, filed 11/26/2025), alleges in part:

13. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs grounded in the above-referenced passages of Titus and Timothy, among other Scriptures, Senior Chaplain Horst was compelled to abstain from proctoring training that instructs a female to teach and preach to men. Female chaplains ministering to males is a practice that directly contradicts Scripture and Senior Chaplain Horst’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

14. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Senior Chaplain Horst requested religious accommodation that would permit him to comply with his employments roles and requirements but also conform his conduct to his beliefs. 

15. Specifically, Senior Chaplain Horst’s religious accommodation request was that one of the DOC’s dozens of other competent and qualified chaplains proctor Chaplain Doe’s non-mandatory training.

Plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

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

1st Amendment Protects Law Student's Antisemitic Posts

In Damsky v. Summerlin, (ND FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the University of Florida law school to reinstate a student it had expelled after complaints about racist language in his term papers and then a social media post on X that read:

My position on Jews is simple: whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant by his call to “abolish the White race by any means necessary” is what I think must be done with Jews. Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.

He also engaged in a discussion with a professor online about his post. Students and faculty felt threatened, and the law school suspended him for creating a material and substantial disruption to the school's academic operation. After a disciplinary hearing he was expelled. In finding the student's statements protected by the First Amendment, the court said in part:

To be sure, those reading Damsky’s words may be justifiably fearful. Some may assume that anyone uttering such commentary is more likely to act violently than someone who does not.... But that is not the test. The test is whether Damsky’s posts constituted a “serious expression” that he meant “to commit an act of unlawful violence.”...

The bottom line is that the University has not shown that any of Damsky’s speech constituted a “true threat.”...

... Here, I cannot agree that an observer would reasonably interpret Damsky’s posts as threats of violence—much less school-directed threats. Damsky’s March 21 X post bears no connection with the school at all. He does not mention the University, its administrators, students, or professors....

Damsky expressly conditioned his use of “abolish” and “any means necessary” on “whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant.” Those phrases in a vacuum may suggest violence, but such a reading “ignores” Damsky’s “undeniable reference to” Ignatiev. Morse.... Damsky’s reference to an academic further undermines any conclusion that he was threatening imminent violence....

On November 29, the court issued an Order (full text) staying the injunction until December 3 to allow the University to seek a stay pending appeal from the 11th Circuit.

Fox News reports on the court's decision.

Recent Articles of Inteterest

From SSRN:

• Anna Lukina, Evil Law in St. Thomas Aquinas's Philosophy (November 20, 2025).
• Rahmatulloh Ismoilov, Regulation of Islamic Knowledge and Empowering Individual Understanding: Historical Patterns and Modern Solutions, (October 18, 2025).
• Himangshu Ranjan Nath & Saksham Patiyar, State Intrusions Into Freedom of Conscience and Religion: Constitutional Challenges, (Indraprastha Law Review, Vol. V, Issue 1, Summer & Winter 2024, pp. 17-36).
• Monika Verma, Myanmar Junta’s Rohingya Return Initiative is Nothing More than a Strategic Pretense, (July 10, 2025).
• Monika Verma, The Politics of Repatriation: Analyzing Myanmar Military Junta's Rohingya Return Initiative in 2025, (November 02, 2025).
• Joel Harrison, & Lukas Opacic, Challenging the Unreal: The Future of Australian Law and Religion, (February 02, 2025).
• Freer Donley, A Non-Person Theory of the Fetus, (67 Boston College Law Review (forthcoming)).

From SmartCILP:

Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen, Blasé: Deviant Lawyers and the Denial of Discrimination, 59 Law & Society Review 324-355 (2025).

"In God We Trust" On Currency Does Not Burden Jewish Plaintiff's Religious Exercise

 In Clayman v. Bessant, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiff's RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, Takings Clause and other challenges to the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. Plaintiff alleged that unlike prior cases which have rejected similar claims, he raises "unique Jewish religious objections" and cites "Jewish Hasmonean and Maccabean religious traditions and obligations, which strongly oppose the casual or superfluous use of G-d’s sacred Name in secular contexts." According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for 28 days due to his inability to pay cash-only bail;  that he continues to be vulnerable to pretrial detention due to the unavailability of cashless bail; that he is excluded from certain employment because he cannot handle cash; that he faces surcharges for not using cash; that he has difficulty with road trips in that he has to avoid cash-only tolls; that he cannot hold cash in contemplation of electronic systems failing due to natural disasters; that his future children’s lives will be disrupted because they cannot handle cash; that he has difficulty tipping and donating to the needy; that he cannot walk into public bathrooms with cash on his person; that he cannot park in cash-only lots; that he is unable to accept small-dollar political contributions; that he cannot operate a retail business; that he was unable to use $2,000 in cash he received as wedding gifts; that he suffers from a loss of privacy; and that he is excluded from cash-only services such as laundromats, bars, social events, and street food.  

In dismissing plaintiff's claims (with leave to amend), the court concluded that plaintiff had not established that the government has substantially burdened his exercise of religion.

West Virginia Court Says Schools Must Allow Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Requirements

In Guzman v. West Virginia Board of Education, (WV Cir. Ct., Nov. 26, 2025), a West Virginia state trial court, in a 75-page opinion, held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law enacted in 2023 requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law (CVL) provides only for medical exemptions. In 2025, the Governor issued an Executive Order instructing the Health Department to create a religious exemption process. However, schools, pursuant to a policy adopted by the State Board of Education, refuse to recognize religious exemption certificates issued by the Health Department. The court said in part:

Collectively, the Court finds the aggregation of individual behaviors the government permits..., to include without limitation, medical exemptions; students who are permitted to attend school on a daily basis while willfully out of compliance with the CVL; teachers, coaches, and staff who are not subject to the CVL; the learning pod, homeschool, and microschool option for unvaccinated children; and members of the general public who have not received vaccines required under the law but who regularly intermingle on school campuses and mass gatherings throughout the State—pose a greater threat to West Virginia’s claimed goals than would permitting Plaintiffs ’children to attend school with a religious exemption. 

These other activities “produc[e] substantial harm” to the protection of the health and safety of the public, which Defendants assert is their compelling interest....

Considering these factors, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that “the protection of the health and safety of the public” will be undermined in any material way by granting religious exemptions, particularly given the bevy of comparable activity that the state permits. Thus, the Court determines that requiring these children to be vaccinated is not “essential”—within the meaning of W. Va. Code § 35-1A-1(a)(1)—“to further a compelling governmental interest,” with that interest here being the protection of the health and safety of the public....

Having considered the full record before it, the Court also concludes that Defendants have failed to satisfy the least restrictive means test....

Defendants cannot satisfy this standard given that forty-five states with a religious exemption process deploy a variety of alternative tactics, such as quarantine in the event of an outbreak, temporary exclusion from school, and other measures to effectively control vaccine preventable diseases while simultaneously respecting religious freedoms....

West Virginia Watch reports on the decision.

President Issues Thanksgiving Proclamation

President Trump this week issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring today a National Day of Thanksgiving. The Proclamation reads in part:

This year, God has bestowed abundant blessings all across our land and indeed the entire world.  As we give thanks to Him, we continue to advance our Nation through strong leadership and commonsense policy.  As a result, the American economy is roaring back, we are making progress on lowering the cost of living, a new era of peace is sweeping around the world, our sovereignty is being swiftly restored, and the American spirit is coming back greater and more powerful than ever before.

As we prepare to celebrate 250 glorious years of American independence, this Thanksgiving, we summon the faith, resolve, and unflinching fortitude of the giants of American history who came before us.  We vow to build a future that echoes their sacrifice.  Above all, we offer our endless gratitude to Almighty God for His love, grace, and infinite blessings....

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Colorado's Regulation of Health Care Sharing Ministries

On Nov. 20, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (Audio of full arguments). In the case, a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. (See prior posting.)

Texas AG Sues State Agency for Excluding Sectarian Use of Homelessness Funds

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Monday he has filed suit against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs challenging its requirements that funds disbursed in its Homelessness Programs and its Bootstrap Loan Program not be used for sectarian or explicitly religious activities such as worship, religious instruction or proselytization. The complaint (full text) in Paxton v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/24/2025), alleged in part:

The Bootstrap Loan Program’s and Homelessness Program’s restrictions on sectarian use of program funds ... are unconstitutional because they condition participation in a government benefit on theological choices about worship, instruction, or proselytization, and they impermissibly compel governmental oversight into theological decisions....

To be sure, the Sectarian Exclusions are wholly unnecessary to avoid Establishment Clause concerns.... In other words, the programs would not run afoul of either the U.S. Constitution or Texas Constitution if the rules were silent on the issues upon which they speak or if the rules simply didn’t exist....

... [T]he Sectarian Exclusions are unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Sections 6-7 of the Texas Constitution and, therefore, the Rule interferes with and impairs or threatens to interfere with and impair Texas citizens’ rights or privileges under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Sections 6-7 of the Texas Constitution....

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

Yesterday the State Department announced a change in focus for future Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The Daily Signal and the Washington Post report on new instructions and guidelines provided to U.S. embassies and consulates as they begin to prepare reports for their nations. As reported by The Daily Signal, the following will now be treated as human rights violations by foreign countries:

Sex-change procedures for minors, such as hormone replacement regimens or irreversible transgender surgeries.

Government funded abortions or abortifacient drugs, as well as the total estimated number of annual abortions.

Arrests, administrative penalties, and “official investigations or warnings” for speech or “hate speech.”

The enforcement of policies like affirmative action or diversity, equity, and inclusion that “provide preferential treatment” to workers on the basis of race, sex, or caste.

The facilitation of mass or illegal migration across a country’s territory into other countries.

Attempts to coerce individuals into engaging in euthanasia.

Violations of religious freedom, including antisemitic violence and harassment.

Medical abuses, including forced testing, forced organ harvesting, and eugenic gene-editing practices on human embryos.

According to the Washington Post:

In unveiling the dramatic shift, Trump administration officials offered an unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights. “The United States remains committed to the Declaration of Independence’s recognition that all men are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights,” said a senior State Department official also involved with briefing the news media. The aim is to focus on rights “given to us by God, our creator, not by governments.”

New Test Case on State-Funded Religious Charter Schools Is Being Assembled

 As previously reported, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the question of whether the 1st Amendment allows Oklahoma to authorize and fund a religiously-sponsored virtual charter school. The split was caused by Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusing herself due to her connection to an early legal advisor to the school. The 4-4 split resulted in the affirmance of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violated Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Now, according to JTA, a new test case is being put together. JTA reports in part:

The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has notified an Oklahoma state board that it intends to apply for a statewide virtual high school integrating Oklahoma academic standards with daily Jewish religious studies....

... [T]he group’s legal team — led by Becket, a prominent nonprofit religious-liberty law firm — is preparing for the state board to reject the application, setting the stage for a federal lawsuit and, potentially, a precedent-setting ruling at the Supreme Court....

The group will not sue in state court, bypassing the state Supreme Court ruling against St. Isidore, but in federal court, where they believe they will prevail.

By framing Oklahoma’s refusal as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, Ben Gamla hopes to build on recent Supreme Court rulings holding that states may not exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefits solely because they are religious.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Does Not Bar Wage-and-Hour Claim

In Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, (CA App., Nov. 21, 2025), a California state appellate court held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the church autonomy doctrine bars a wage-and-hour claim for past services by an employee who is a "minister" under the ministerial exception doctrine. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply because plaintiff's wage claims do not raise an ecclesiastical concern. The court said in part:

 ... Lorenzo only challenges the Center’s failure to pay her a minimum wage and overtime wages for work that she has already performed as part of the Center’s commercial activities.  She does not challenge the Center’s decision to terminate her employment or seek reinstatement.  Despite this, the Center asserts that the enforcement of California’s wage-and-hour laws would inevitably result in excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the Religion Clauses solely because Lorenzo is a minister.  But the Center does not explain why, and its omission is telling. ...

“[T]he aspect of the church-minister employment relationship that warrants heightened constitutional protection—a church’s freedom to choose its representatives”—is not “present” in every employment claim....  For example, not every aspect of a minister’s compensation is “an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.”...  Indeed, “[t]he constitutional rationale for protecting some of a church’s [autonomy to choose its representatives] . . . does not apply . . . where what is at issue is not who the [church] will select to educate its youngest students, but only whether it will provide the people it has chosen with meal breaks, rest breaks, and overtime pay.”...

...[T]he Center has not pointed to and we have not come across anything in the history of the Religion Clauses to suggest that a minister’s compensation, much less the minimum compensation that a minister should receive to subsist, was a concern of the founders....

North Dakota Supreme Court Upholds State's Abortion Ban

In Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, (ND Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2025), the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision that had invalidated North Dakota's statute that bans most abortions. While 3 of the Supreme Court's 5 justices held that the abortion law is unconstitutionally vague, North Dakota's constitution provides that it takes 4 of the Court's 5 justices to invalidate a law passed by the legislature. The Court's vote thus upholds the constitutionality of the ban. Justice Crothers' opinion for 3 justices said in part:

To the extent an abortion implicates a legal defense justifying or excusing the use of force, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 introduces an apparent conflict of law in North Dakota. A physician who acts with an honest but mistaken belief that an abortion was necessary to protect the life or health of a pregnant patient would be guilty of a crime under the objective reasonableness standard set out by N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1. Simultaneously, under the subjective reasonableness standard that applies to defenses under N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-05, the same physician would be innocent because his belief that the abortion was necessary, although mistaken, was honest. On their face, these conflicting standards make it unclear whether a physician who performs an abortion in good faith will nonetheless suffer criminal penalties....

We agree with the district court that, in the context of medical care the Plaintiff physicians perform with the intent of protecting the lives and health of their patients, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, does not give fair warning and allows for discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement....

Justice Tufte writing for two justices, said in part:

I depart from the majority opinion in two significant respects. First, the majority opinion extends to the natural rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, the more stringent vagueness standard we have previously reserved for First Amendment rights that receive the additional protection of the chilling effect doctrine. Second, the majority opinion extends our precedent to allow a pre-enforcement facial challenge in which the challengers present only hypothetical future conduct as the basis for the testifying experts’ disagreement about the legal application of the statute. The parties’ presentation of witnesses having expertise in medicine or history who disagree about lawyer-crafted hypotheticals is not a sufficient basis for a court to declare a statute unconstitutionally vague....

The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, are those natural rights as they were known to the people of North Dakota at the time the constitution was adopted. These natural rights were fixed at that time, and our judicial duty is to ensure that they “shall not be infringed.” These rights are protected from legislative overreach because they are excluded from the state’s broad legislative power.

 ... [T]he natural rights that every North Dakota citizen has “by nature” include an individual right to seek medical care without risk of criminal prosecution, including but not limited to abortion, when reasonably necessary to preserve the individual’s life.... Section 1 does not imply a right to abortion as such, and evolving public opinion on abortion cannot create one—only a constitutional amendment can do that.... Section 1 limits state power to regulate abortion where it is a necessary means to the constitutionally protected end of "defending life."

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Adriano P. Díaz Cisneros, The Competitive Values of Christianity: An Antitrust Perspective on Western Civilization (November 07, 2025).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & Cameron Grinnell, The Persistence of the Unconstitutional Status/Use Distinction in Federal Grants to Religious Nonprofits (October 17, 2025).
• Osama S. Qatrani, The End of an Excuse: A Scientific Reassessment of Frank Zindler’s Rejoinders (1984–2025), (November 11, 2025).
• Micah Schwartzman, Richard Schragger & Nelson Tebbe, The Structure of Religious Preference, (139 Harv. L. Rev. 211 (2025)).
• Jeffrey A. Brauch, Beauty, Justice, and the Lawyer's Calling: A Review of Mark Fowler's Beauty and the Law, (Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Volume 15, No. 2 (2025), pp. 72-75).
• Christian Edmonds, En Banc Amicus Brief Of The Roberston Center For Constitutional Law In Support Of Defendants-Appellants And Reversal in Roake v. Brumley, (November 14, 2025).
• Lynne Marie Kohm & Joseph Kohm, C. S. Lewis's Influence in American Case Law, (November 19, 2025).
• Cristian Edmonds, Chipping Away at Stone: Rethinking the Establishment Clause After Kennedy, (October 25, 2025).
• Katie R. Eyer, Institutional Challenges in an Authoritarian Age, (November 20, 2025).
• Linda C. McClain & James E. Fleming, "What Shall Be Orthodox" in Polarized Times: Overview and Response to Commentators, (90 Missouri Law Review (2025)).

From SSRN (Reproductive Rights, Abortion and Gender):

• Martin Katz, Skrmetti and the Problem of Incidental Intent, (67 Wm. & Mary L. Rev XXX (2026)).
• Joanna L. Grossman, The Tenth Anniversary of Marriage Equality: How Traditional Marriage Law Led to Constitutional Protection for Same-Sex Marriage, (3 Journal of American Constitutional History 899 (2025)).
• Teresa Stanton Collett, Was Dobbs Worth It? Protecting Life Three Years Later, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-15 (2025).
• Danielle Bell, The 1867 Peonage Act Offers a Statutory Solution for Revitalizing Reproductive Rights, (May 15, 2024).
• Naomi Schoenbaum, Sex Equality After Skrmetti, (August 05, 2025).
• Samia Jaman Karobi, Abortion Laws and Bangladesh in 2025: Developments and Challenges, (October 20, 2025).

From SSRN (Religious Law):

• Jeffrey R. Baker, The Church of Dissent in the Imperial Republic, (November 08, 2025).
• Mintae Cha, Representation vs. Democracy? Presbyterianism in the Age of the French Revolution. (Church History , First View , pp. 1 - 27 (Sept. 2025)).
• Samuel J. Levine, A Brief Look at Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism Through a Perspective of Jewish Law and Tradition, (Perspectives on Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism from Literature, Philosophy, Law, and History (Marko Trajkovic, ed., 2025)).
• Imam Sujono, Application of John Stuart Mill's Formal Equality Theory to Distribution of Inheritance for Adopted Children: A Comparative Study of Burgerlijk Wetboek and Compilation of Islamic Law, (November 06, 2025).
• Saparuddin, Optimizing Islamic Public Revenue Sources Through the Islamic Circular Fiscal System (ICFS) Model: A Sustainable Finance Perspective, (October 20, 2025).
• Lutforahman Saeed, Women's Right to Freedom of Movement in Islamic Law and Under Taliban-Ruled Afghanistan, (Fordham International Law Journal (forthcoming)).

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

• Novi Andriani, Policy Anomalies in the Government’s Approach to the Involvement of Religious Organizations in Mining Management in Indonesia, (October 25, 2025).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & María Paz Madrid, Ecuador:  Funding and Regulation of Private and Faith-Based Schools, (June 01, 2025).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & Maria Paz Madrid, Columbia:  Funding and Regulation of Private and Faith-Based Schools (June 01, 2025).
• Jane Thomson,  "And Two Cows to my Wife… so Long as she Remains my Widow." Public Policy and Testamentary Marriage Clauses in Canada, (Canadian Bar Review, Volume 103 (3). (Forthcoming)).
• David Antia, The Ramadan School Closure Conundrum: A Legal and Policy Analysis of Religious Freedom and the Right to Education in Nigeria, (March 10, 2025)).
• Bilyana Petkova, Natalie Alkiviadou, Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights  2025, (Human Rights Law Review, volume 25, issue 4 (2025)).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Nicole Stelle Garnett, Parental Rights, Parental Choice, and State Public Education Mandates, 26 The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 73-98 (2025).
• Howard Slugh & Jason Bedrick, Yeshivas and the Legacy of Meyer and Pierce: Is Substantive Due Process Substantial Enough?, 26 The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 241-280 (2025).
• Karina V. Korostelina, Marc Gopin, Jeffrey Helsing & Alpaslan Ozerdem, The Role of Identity and Religion in Peace Processes, 41 Negotiation Journal 195-227 (2025).
• Benjamin Mann, Immigration Enforcement and the Christian Conscience, CatholicVote, 2025).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) Organizations, (November 2025 edition).