Camping Ordinance Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights of Homeless Resident

In Hebbe v. City of Folsom, (ED CA, Dec. 3, 2025), plaintiff who is an unhoused resident of Folsom, California, challenges on numerous grounds a Folsom Ordinance that prohibits public camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.  One of his claims-- rejected by the decision of a California federal magistrate judge-- is that the public camping ban violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights. The court said in part:

To state a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff must allege that the government action substantially burdens the plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.... A substantial burden exists when the government puts significant pressure on a person to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs....

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Ordinance, which prohibits camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., forces him to sleep during the day, which prevents him from attending church service....  These allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state a cognizable Free Exercise Clause claim.  Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the Ordinance targets religion or is applied in a discriminatory manner.  Neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.... Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing the Ordinance places a substantial burden on his ability to practice his faith.  Conclusory statements that he cannot go to church service are insufficient....

7th Circuit: Chicago's Reporting Requirement for Employees During Covid Pandemic Were Constitutional

In Kondilis v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 2, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by City of Chicago employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate that, nevertheless, the reporting requirements imposed on them violated their free exercise and equal protection rights. All employees were required to enter their vaccination status and unvaccinated employees were required to enter their Covid test results into the employee portal. The court said in part:

Section VII, which addresses the COVID-19 testing reporting requirements for the portal, ... draws no distinction based on religion: it applies to all “[e]mployees … who are covered by this policy” and are “not fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021,” without further distinction. And neither section reflects any religious animus at all. Both sections “are neutral: They do not target religion or religious institutions.” ... 

That said, Plaintiffs contend that the sections were not generally applicable because the City applied the Policy inconsistently. They allege that not all employees had to comply with the portal reporting requirements, making them “selectively burdened” for being forced to do so....

But this argument fails. It is not enough for Plaintiffs—all of whom profess sincere religious beliefs—to show that the Policy was inconsistently applied across their own personal circumstances; they must plausibly show that this inconsistency bore upon religion in some way.... Yet the complaint does not do so.... [A chart they introduced into evidence] does not identify any trend singling out a particular religion or set of religions for differential treatment within the plaintiff group....

We need not spill much ink in holding that the City had a rational basis for its Policy’s reporting requirements and disciplinary procedures during a global pandemic. ...

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.