Supreme Court: Trump Administration Rules on Passport Gender Markers Can Go into Effect While Appeals Move Forward

In Trump v. Orr, (Sup. Ct., Nov. 6, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote granted an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction that had been entered by a Massachusetts federal district court.  The district court had enjoined, pending appeal, enforcement of the Trump Administration's policy of requiring U.S. passports to display the sex assigned to the passport holder at birth rather than the sex marker that matches their current gender identity. The challenged policy was put in place in compliance with a 2025 Executive Order on ... "Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."   In staying the injunction, the Supreme Court's majority said in part:

Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

What the Government needs (and what it does not have) is an explanation for why it faces harm unless the President’s chosen policy is implemented now....

 ... [The government] provides no evidence of harmful confusion or other problems caused by transgender Americans who are using passports with sex markers corresponding to their current gender identity.  To the contrary, as the plaintiffs’ experiences demonstrate, it is gender-incongruent passports that cause confusion and fail to provide a meaningful basis for identification.

 As for the Government’s suggestion that the President is harmed by not being able to impose a uniform definition of sex across various regulatory schemes, that assertion is just another species of the far-fetched contention that the President must be injured whenever he is prevented from doing as he wishes....

Politico reports on the decision.

FACE Act Suit Filed Against Anti-Israel Agitators

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court against nine named defendants and 40 unnamed defendants alleging disruption of interfaith and Christian religious services by anti-Israel agitators. The complaint (full text) in Christian and Jewish Alliance, Inc. v. Brunner, (SD CA, filed 11/4/2025), alleges violation of provisions of the FACE Act which impose civil liability for physically interfering with the exercise of the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.  It also alleges a claim for trespass. The complaint reads in part:

As worshipers have gathered at three separate events this year, a mob has targeted Plaintiffs The Mission Church .. of Carlsbad and The Christian & Jewish Alliance ... of the San Diego area, interfering with their worship services, intimidating their members and guests, and obstructing their access to gather safely. This mob targeted the Church and the Alliance due to the sincere religious beliefs of their members that require support for Israel. Plaintiff Ruth Mastron, a Jewish resident of Oceanside, was assaulted as she attempted to enter one of these events.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Seeking Damages for False Prediction of the Rapture Is Dismissed Under Anti-SLAPP Law

 In March 2025, a New York resident filed suit in a Connecticut state trial court against a Christian YouTube channel and the preacher who appears on it claiming that the preacher's prediction of imminent coming of the rapture caused plaintiff severe emotional distress and mental anguish. The complaint (full text) in Diver v. Cote, (CT Super. Ct., filed 3/20/2025), alleged claims for infliction of emotional distress, fraud and for violation of the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendants sought dismissal of the lawsuit under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP law which allows quick dismissal of unmeritorious suits that, among other things, challenge defendant's exercise of his free speech rights when defendant's speech relates to a "public figure". Now, in Diver v. Cote, (CT Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2025), the court dismissed this suit and a related one under the anti-SLAPP law, saying in part:

... [Defendants] have shown ... that the complaints in both actions are based on the exercise of their right of free speech on matters of public concern, that is, issues related to health, community well-being and a public figure; namely Jesus Christ. §52-196a(a)(1). The defendants' speech was made in a public forum; namely You Tube websites open to the public as required by §52-196a(a)(2).

Inside Investigator covered the lawsuit here and here.

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by the Moody Bible Institute challenging the Chicago Board of Education with excluding its students from participating in the Chicago student teacher program in violation of the Constitution and of state law. The complaint (full text) in Moody Bible Institute of Chicago v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 11/4/2025), alleges in part:

... Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign two agreements that contain provisions prohibiting Moody from employing only those who share its religious beliefs and agree to comply with its standards of Christian conduct (the “Employment Provisions”)....

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody....

Plaintiff alleges that this violates their rights under the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

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

Priest's Defamation Suit Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Catholic Diocese of Richmond v. Smalls, (VA App, Nov. 5, 2025), a Virginia state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation suit by a priest serving in the Diocese of Belize.  The Diocese of Richmond included plaintiff's name on a list of priests who had credible and substantiated allegation of sexual abuse of a minor.  The allegations against plaintiff occurred while he was a seminarian in the Richmond Diocese. The court said in part:

It is clear that the definition used to determine that there was a credible and substantiated allegation against Smalls of sexual abuse involving a minor includes references to religious precepts.  The definition discusses sexual abuse in terms of a violation of the Sixth Commandment.  It also provides that clergy who possessed, acquired, or distributed “pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen” committed sexual abuse, but does not define “pornographic images.”  But if there is doubt as to whether such an offense has occurred, bishops are directed to reference writings of moral theologians.  Smalls’s defamation claim thus rests on the falsity of a statement that is based on the application of a specific religious definition of sexual abuse.  “[C]ivil courts cannot adjudicate defamation claims when the truth of the statements in question turns on ecclesiastical law.” ...

Because Smalls’s claim for defamation cannot be resolved on neutral secular principles, the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case....

Texas Voters Approve Parental Rights Amendment

Texas voters yesterday by a vote of 70% to 30% adopted an amendment to the state Constitution providing:

To enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent's child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child's upbringing.

Trump Calls Out Jews Who Vote for Mamdani

 In a Truth Social post (full text) yesterday, President Donald Trump said:

Any Jewish person who votes for Zohran Mamdani, a proven and self-professed JEW HATER, is a stupid person!!!

Axios reports on the President's remarks.

Trump Declares Nigeria a "Country of Particular Concern"

 On October 31, President Trump announced on Truth Social (full text) that he is designating Nigeria as a "Country of Particular Concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act. He said in part:

... When Christians, or any such group, is slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria (3,100 versus 4,476 Worldwide), something must be done.... We stand ready, willing and able to save our great Christian population around the World.

In a follow-up Truth Social post on November 1 (full text), President Trump said:

If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country "guns-a-blazing"...

The Pillar has more details.

Presidential Message on All Saints Day

On November 1, President Trump issued a Presidential Message on All Saints Day (full text). It reads in part:

On All-Saints’ Day, the First Lady and I join Christians across our Nation in celebrating the saints who have gone before us and now share in the glory of God.  Their examples remind us that the strength of our country rests in the goodness of its people—and that through faith and virtue, our Nation can endure in liberty and truth.

From our earliest days, the United States has drawn inspiration from holy men and women whose witness shaped our people and deepened our faith.  The Blessed Virgin Mary, Patroness of the United States, has long been honored as a symbol of grace for our country.  Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini poured out her life in service to the most poor and needy among us; Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton formed generations through her schools of faith and learning; and Saint John Neumann led his flock with humility, courage, and unrelenting devotion.  Their example, and those of all the saints, demonstrates that faith transforms nations as surely as it transforms hearts.

Our country has long cherished the freedom of religion that allows faith such as theirs to flourish.  My Administration is committed to defending this sacred right, upholding the freedom of every believer to worship, speak, and live according to their beliefs.  We are standing firm against those who seek to persecute or marginalize people of faith, protecting churches, schools, and communities from religious discrimination, and ensuring that Christian values maintain their rightful place at the center of American life.  As we remember the perfect example of Christ and the legacy of His saints, we renew our promise to live as one Nation under God, defending liberty, seeking justice, and striving always toward the good that His truth reveals.

School May Bar Teacher from Hanging Crucifix on Classroom Wall

In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, Nov. 3, 2025), a Connecticut federal district court in a 54-page opinion rejected claims of a public middle-school teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated when she was disciplined for hanging a crucifix on a classroom wall near her desk.  The court said in part:

... Ms. Castro acted pursuant to her job duties as a teacher when she decorated the walls of her classroom with items the students would see during instructional time. The question is whether Ms. Castro was doing otherwise when she hung items she calls “personal expressive items” on the wall, including the crucifix. Ms. Castro specifically states that posting such items makes the classroom environment more conducive to learning because the items humanize the teacher to their students. In that way, therefore, Ms. Castro was acting pursuant to her official duties as a teacher by displaying the items....

Accepting Ms. Castro’s argument that teachers have a First Amendment free speech right to post “personal expressive items” related to matters of public concern on classroom walls—where they are visible to students during instructional time—would mean the District could not control the messages conveyed to students while the students are required to be present in the classroom for learning. Instead, with respect to each such item a teacher posted on the classroom wall, the District would need to engage in a Pickering balancing analysis and could prohibit only those items that are sufficiently disruptive.  

... I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to prevail on her claim that her display of the crucifix on the wall of the classroom constitutes speech as a private citizen rather than pursuant to her job duties as a teacher. Therefore, I conclude she is not likely to prevail on her free speech claim....

Ms. Castro says that she “sincerely believes that her religion compels her to display her crucifix, not hide it under her desktop” and “[s]tifling her religious expression through concealment of the crucifix ‘would be an affront to [her] faith....  

I have already concluded that the crucifix display on the classroom wall was pursuant to Ms. Castro’s official duties and is therefore speech attributed to the District. The speech is thus, for constitutional purposes, the government’s own speech....

Defendants argue that allowing the crucifix to remain on the classroom wall would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause or, at the very least, expose the District to a risk of liability for such a violation....

Based on the existing record, I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to show that Defendants did anything other than make “a reasonable, good faith judgment” that permitting Ms. Castro to hang the crucifix on the classroom wall during instructional time “runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause.... I agree with Defendants, therefore, that a preliminary injunction should not issue....

As noted, under binding Second Circuit cases, the District must be afforded some leeway in balancing the free exercise rights of its employees and the risk of an Establishment Clause violation.... Unlike the coach’s prayer in Kennedy, the crucifix display is a religious message on the classroom wall broadcast to a “captive audience” of students required to be in the classroom. ...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

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

Village's Zoning Law for Places of Worship Is Unconstitutional

In Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York, (ED NY, Oct. 30, 2025), a New York federal district court granted partial summary judgment to a Lubavitch organization that wants to build a Chabad House on land in Old Westbury. Plaintiffs allege that the Village has thwarted their efforts by enacting a discriminatory Places of Worship zoning law. The court said in part:

On a full summary judgment record, the case for the facial infirmity of the POW [Places of Worship] Law has been strengthened. ... The record now available demonstrates many more ways in which the POW Law treats religious development less favorably than comparable secular land uses.  Thus, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion, denies defendant’s motion, and declares the POW Law facially invalid under the United States Constitution....

Given the irresponsible and misleading arguments lodged by defense counsel in its filings, which border on contumacious, the Court considered striking the defendant’s motion.  However, considering the seeming interminability of this case, the motion will be resolved if only to avoid further delay.  Furthermore, despite weighty submissions, defendant’s motion can be easily dispatched....

It has been almost seventeen years since this matter was filed.  In its last major decision in this case, this Court declared as follows: 

The allegations raise serious issues of constitutional magnitude, and this matter has lingered far too long.  That ends now. Counsel will be expected to work diligently to bring this matter to resolution—in whatever form that might occur—with all deliberate speed....

Two more years of litigation, and the matter remains at this unsatisfactory juncture: the Court has now determined that the Village enacted a discriminatory law in violation of the United States Constitution.  Plaintiffs still have been unable to construct their Chabad.  Still more legal battles, costs and delays lie ahead.

It would behoove all involved to work together to reach a satisfactory resolution of this matter.  Given its history, the undersigned cannot reasonably hold out much hope.  

In a footnote, the court described the difficult issues on computation of damages that remain:

... [C]ounsel represents that “from 1999 to 2020 [plaintiffs] lost more than $15 million in pledged donor commitments,” while “Rabbi Konikov’s lost earnings and benefits . . . exceed $5 million.”...  As these figures include a time frame that predates the filing of litigation by nearly a decade, may well include speculative matters and, at a high level, would suggest double-counting, it is clear that, should the litigation proceed to that stage, the risks and costs will be substantial.   

Local Church's Property Held in Trust for Parent United Methodist Church

In French Broad United Methodist Church v. Holston Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, (TN App., Oct. 31, 20225), a Tennessee state appellate court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a local church's suit against its parent body. In this portion of a broader set of claims regarding ownership of a property that had been used as a parsonage, the local church challenged a provision in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church that provided all local church properties were held in trust for the benefit of the denomination. The court said in part:

The trial court determined that Bethel UMC’s claims to quiet title, for a declaration that the trust clause in The Book of Discipline was invalid, and for judicial modification of the trust ... were barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.  Even if the doctrine did not bar these claims, the trial court found that The Book of Discipline would require the dismissal of these claims pursuant to the hybrid neutral principles approach, “under which trust provisions in governing church documents must be enforced.”  The trial court noted that the dispute at issue “post-dated the codification of the ‘trust’ provisions of The Book of Discipline.”...

... Tennessee cases dictate that the property dispute between Bethel UMC and Holston is subject to determination in accordance with the hybrid neutral principles approach, which requires a court to defer to and enforce the trust provisions of The Book of Discipline....

Bethel UMC asserts that The Book of Discipline and the trust clause fail because Bethel UMC did not “ever intend to give centuries old properties, worth billions of dollars, away to strangers, when it violates their lives, liberties, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness to worship as they wish without harm to others or in violation of any laws.” 

We respectfully disagree with Bethel UMC’s reasoning. The trial court found that, “Bethel admits that it was an affiliate of The United Methodist Church.” The trial court also noted that the dispute at issue “post-dated the codification of the ‘trust’ provisions of The Book of Discipline.”  By its affiliation with the national church, Bethel UMC agreed to be bound by the governing documents of the United Methodist Church.... Further, ... Bethel UMC concludes that, instead of applying the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, “as the long lineage of cases clearly indicates, . . .  the legal neutral principles should have been applied to the trial court cause of action, which it was not.”  As previously discussed, however, Bethel UMC’s claims were likewise subject to dismissal under that theory, which would require application of the trust provisions.

9th Circuit: Oregon Right to Life Group Is a Religious Organization

In Oregon Right to Life v. Stolfi, (9th Cir., Oct. 31, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, remanded the case to the district court for it to re-evaluate whether requiring Oregon Right to Life to furnish its employees with health insurance covering abortion and contraception violates its First Amendment rights. The majority said in part:

We agree with ORTL that its beliefs are religious and sincerely held.  In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. 238 (2025), which reiterated the constitutional significance of exemptions granted to some religiously motivated organizations but not others, we return this case to the district court to reevaluate whether RHEA’s application to ORTL violates the First Amendment....

ORTL’s religious motivations and beliefs are overt and long-established.  They are announced throughout ORTL’s governing documents, shared by ORTL’s board, and have been publicly declared by ORTL since before this litigation....

Judge VanDyke filed a concurring opinion saying that he would also order the district court to enter a preliminary injunction because ORTL has shown a strong likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim.

Judge Schroeder filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority appears to suggest that the plaintiff, Oregon Right to Life, may have been wrongfully denied an exemption as a religious employer under Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA).  Yet Oregon Right to Life never asked to be considered a religious employer.  The case is thus unlike the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.... 

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Matthew Bolton, Anti-Zionism as 'Protected Belief': The Case of David Miller, (Forthcoming in Industrial Law Journal).
• Leo E. Strine, Jr., Confronting AI’s Ethical Mirror Test, 49 J. Corp. L. Digit. 101 (2025).
• Drew Taylor, Marriage Equality and the First Amendment: A Pluralism Argument, (October 08, 2025).
• S, Agnes Sachitha, Women’s Rights vs. Fetal Rights: A Clinically, Consciously and Grounded Analysis, (September 15, 2025).
• Amos N. Guiora, Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and the Politics of Criticism, (Unadorned Conversations on Antisemitism, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, In Sight Publishing. (2025)).
• Ezra Young, Skrmetti's Mistake, (August 01, 2025).
• Catherine E. Smith, Tanya Washington, Jeremiah Chin & Sara Hildebrand, Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars for the Advancement of Children's Constitutional Rights in Support of Defendants-Appellants in Roy v. Darren Patterson Christian Academy, (September 15, 2025).
• David B. Cruz, Invisible Bastards: Nonmarital Children, Transgender People, And Equal Protection, (USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 2526 (2025)).
• Stephen E. Sachs, Zionism and Title VI, (Harvard Law Review Forum, Volume 139 (forthcoming 2025)).
• Eric Steven Smith, Abortion and State Taxes: Unexpected Parallelism, (Forthcoming, Oklahoma Law Review).
• Nicholas Serafin, Obergefell After Dobbs and the Future of Substantive Due Process, (Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 5620630 (2025).

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

• William Jones, The Transmission of Sacred Offices: Royal Bloodlines, Priesthood, and the Continuity of Divine Stewardship, (September 28, 2025).
• Mohd Mudassir M.Ae.S.I, Is the Fluid/Sea/Murky Water Mentiond in Quran Refers to Spacetime? A Scientific Perspective on Quranic Verses, (April 08, 2025).
• Muhammad Munir, The Role of Shari'ah in Pakistani Legal System: An Introduction, (September 30, 2025).
• Michael Quinlan, The Untethering of Law from Faith and Reason: NSW Anti-Discrimination Law Reform, Voluntary Assisted Dying and Surrogacy, (September 12, 2025).
• Michael Quinlan, Religious Freedom in Contemporary Australia, (February 22, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, TAYYAB and Statutory Law of Pakistan, (October 20, 2025).
• Malik Muhammad Aqdus, Ombudsman Institutions: A Study in the Light of Shariah and Pakistani Law, (August 11, 2025).
• Fathimath Sheema Zahir, Anupama Roy, Citizenship Regimes, Law, And Belonging: The CAA And The NRC (July 23, 2025).
• Wajid Kumar, Comparative Legal Studies of Divorce: Insights from Islamic and Secular Jurisdictions, (December 01, 2023).
• Wajid Kumar, Sati as Custom and Crime: A Socio-Legal Examination of Widow Burning Practices, (December 01, 2024).
• George Henry, Triple Talaq and Women's Rights: Human Rights Concerns in Islamic Legal Systems, (December 01, 2024).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Dheepa Sundaram, An Academic Conference, a Bomb Threat, and a Title VI Complaint: U.S. Hindu Nationalist Groups' Litigious Assault on Academic Freedom, 16 Drexel Law Review 837-890 (2024).
•  Australian Journal of Law & Religion, Volume 6 (2025).

Court Cannot Require Congregational Vote on Disaffiliation from Methodist Parent Body

In Ex parte Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2025), the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to dismiss a suit brought by certain members of the Auburn United Methodist Church (AUMC) who wanted to disaffiliate from its parent body, the United Methodist Church, because of disagreement with the UMC's position on human sexuality. Those members sought a court order to require a vote of all the members of AUMC on whether the congregation should disaffiliate and a declaration that the parent Conference lacked any interest in the congregation's property. The Court held in part:

Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, Alabama courts may not adjudicate disputes that are ecclesiastical in nature, including matters of church doctrine, polity, or internal governance.... Generally, the process of disaffiliation is governed by ecclesiastical rule.... Thus, a dispute concerning disaffiliation is typically considered an ecclesiastical matter -- not a civil one.

The Court went on to hold that an Alabama statute on church control of its real property does not require a congregational vote on denominational disaffiliation. AL.com reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

FDA Restrictions on Abortion Drug Held to Be Arbitrary and Capricious

 In Purcell v. Kennedy, (D HI, Oct. 30, 2025), a Hawaii federal district court, in a 79-page opinion, held that the FDA must re-evaluate the "Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy" which it has imposed for the use of mifepristone. The court said in part:

... [T]he court concludes that the Agency violated the APA by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for its restrictive treatment of the drug, which was compounded by its decision to limit the scope of information it considered when evaluating the REMS. More specifically, the Agency neglected to consider certain required statutory factors and generally failed to sufficiently explain the logic behind any reasoning it did provide, rendering the 2023 REMS Decision arbitrary and capricious.

The court ordered the FDA to reconsider its restrictions. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.  [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Christian Opposition to Halloween Surfaces Again

Today is Halloween. The Wild Hunt this week reported on growing Christian religious opposition to Halloween celebrations. The report says in part:

Beginning early this month and, frankly, on cue, a surge of conservative Christian messaging has renewed the annual calls to avoid Halloween celebrations — and, in some cases, to confront or disrupt them. While many faith groups simply discourage participation, others have taken a more aggressive approach, framing Halloween and related Pagan observances like Samhain as manifestations of evil that must be “spiritually opposed.”...

Across social media, Christian influencers and ministries have once again amplified warnings that Halloween is “anti-Christian,” not merely secular or non-religious. Some claim that its roots in Samhain and ancestor veneration make it inherently pagan and demonic, even citing biblical passages as prohibitions against its observance....

While these ideas are not new, their intensity this year appears to have coincided with organized actions intended to “reclaim” public spaces from what these groups see as darkness. In Salem, often called “the Witch City,” that rhetoric has turned into direct confrontation....