Lawsuit Challenges Recent Kansas Law on Sex Designation for Restrooms, Birth Certificates, Driver's Licenses

On Feb.18, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto of SB 244 which requires the use of biological sex at birth to define usage of rest rooms and locker rooms in public buildings, and the use of biological sex on birth certificates and driver's licenses. It calls for correction of previously issued birth certificates and reissuance of previously issued driver's licenses.

Last week, suit was filed in a Kansas state trial court challenging the constitutionality of SB 244 under various provision of the Kansas state Constitution. The complaint (full text) in Doe v. State of Kansas ex rel. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., filed 2/26/2026) alleges in part:

2. The Act targets transgender Kansans across multiple, unrelated domains of their lives. This sweeping law restricts transgender individuals from obtaining driver’s licenses reflecting their gender identity and bans transgender people from accessing restrooms or other single-sex spaces in a range of public places including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops.  SB 244’s restrictions extend beyond just government buildings, applying also to buildings owned by or leased from the government, even if they are controlled by private entities. By targeting transgender Kansans, the Act violates the Kansas Constitution’s guarantees of personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and free expression. It also violates the Kansas Constitution’s single-subject and clear title requirements.  

3. SB 244 is just the most recent law in a shameful litany of statutes enacted by the Kansas Legislature meant to discriminate against and dehumanize transgender people. 

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

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Candice Mason Kulbeth, Church Autonomy: A Universal Sequencing Question ,(January 22, 2026).
• Ela A. Leshem, Normative Transplants: The Case of Ships as Legal Persons, (Forthcoming in Legal Personhood in Private Law (Paul B. Miller, Christopher Essert & Eva Micheler eds., Cambridge University Press 2026)).
• Joshua P. Fershee, Reimagining Legal Education: The Role And Purpose Of Law Schools In Modern Society-A Values-Driven Approach To Modern Legal Education, (Toledo Law Review, Volume 57, Issue 2, Winter 2026, pp. 229-42).
• Benjamin Fleshman, Church Autonomy as a Framework for Conditions on Government Benefits, (105 North Carolina Law Review (Forthcoming)).
• Anurag Deb, Lewis Graham & C.R.G. Murray, Religious Education and Indoctrination in Northern Ireland and Beyond After JR87, (Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 2026).
• Micah Schwartzman, The Asymmetry of Religious Motivation, (135 Y.L.J.F. 467 (2025)).
• Scott Altman, Steering, Subversion, and Rights, (USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 2607 (2026)).
• Lyric Helena Emerson, Abortion, Bodily Sovereignty, and State Power in 2025, (January 30, 2026).
• Dov Fox & Mary Ziegler, Reproductive Abuse, (UCLA Law Review (forthcoming 2026)).
• Rachel Crass, Sex and Gender in Sports: Examining the Constitutionality of Transgender Sports Laws in the United States and the Need for a New Approach to Scrutiny, (July 26, 2024).
• R. George Wright, The Many Constitutional Limits on Government Speech, (February 02, 2026).

From SSSRN (Islamic Law):

• Qazi Irfan, A Critique of Diminishing Musharakah (January 30, 2026).
• Oruj Ismayilov, From Darkness to Light: The Isrā as Divine Pedagogy, (January 25, 2026).
• Rachel Crass, Comparative Sharia Law in Iran and Nigeria: Effects on Athletes and Recommendations for Sports Governing Bodies to Increase Access for Muslim Women and Girls, (May 06, 2024).
• Dhruv B., Legal Enforceability of Smart Contract-Based Mahr Agreements in Online Nikah Platforms: A Comparative Analysis of UAE and Malaysian Jurisprudence, (August 24, 2025).
• Afthah Ashraf K.M., Mawālī in Early Islam: From Subaltern Class to Pioneers of Islamic Scholarship, (September 10, 2025).
• Eddie Ladja, "Zakat as an Instrument of Economic Empowerment: Assessing Its Impact on the Economic Resources of Muslim Residents in Zamboanga City, Philippines", (January 28, 2026).

From SSRN (Law of East Asia):

• Advaith Sri Krishna Datta Mamidanna, The Constitutional Experiment in Matrimonial Justice: A Critical Study of India's Matrimonial Justice Regime and Its Jurisprudential Paradox, (September 17, 2025).
• Sunil Sondhi, Dandaniti in the Indian Tradition, (October 18, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

•  3rd Annual Law v. Antisemitism Conference, FIU Law Review, Vol. 19, Number 3 (2025).
• Heidar Piri & Niaz A, Shah, The Application of Human Rights Treaties as Domestic Law in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 47 Human Rights Quarterly 282-307 (2025).

EEOC Says Federal Agencies May Base Restroom Access on Biological Sex

 In a February 26 press release, the EEOC announced:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 today to approve a federal sector appellate decision adjudicating an appeal regarding access to intimate spaces, including bathrooms and locker rooms, in federal workplaces under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

 “Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “When it comes to bathrooms, male and female employees are not similarly situated. Biology is not bigotry.”

When adjudicating appeals of alleged employment discrimination in the federal sector, the EEOC applies longstanding precedent, including relevant Supreme Court decisions, to the facts of the case. In this case, however, such precedent does not exist, as federal courts have not determined whether Title VII requires employers to permit trans-identifying employees to access bathrooms and other intimate spaces otherwise reserved for the opposite sex. In the absence of authoritative court precedent, the EEOC used the traditional tools of statutory construction, turning first to the ordinary meaning of the statute’s text and ensuring that the decision is further anchored by the Supreme Court’s precedents in comparable areas of law.

In applying the traditional tools of statutory construction, the EEOC found that Title VII permits a federal agency employer to maintain single-sex bathrooms and similar intimate spaces; and permits a federal agency employer to exclude employees, including trans-identifying employees, from opposite sex-facilities. Today’s opinion overturns a prior EEOC federal sector appellate decision (Lusardi v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (2015)) with respect to the portion of that opinion addressing a federal employee’s access to an opposite-sex bathroom based on “gender identity.”

As with all of the EEOC’s appellate decisions adjudicating federal agency employment discrimination complaints, this decision applies only to federal agencies subject to the EEOC’s administrative complaint process for federal employees. It does not apply to private sector employers, nor does it bind any federal court.

The Agency's action approved a 23-page Federal Sector Appellate Decision, Selina S. v. Driscoll, (EEOC Federal Sector Appeal, Feb. 26, 2026), a case brought by a civilian employee of the Army.

9th Circuit: Anti-Transgender Comments Justify Mayor's Veto of Membership on Police Advisory Board

In Hodges v. Gloria, (9th Cir., Feb. 26, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise challenges to the San Diego mayor's veto of the reappointment of a voluntary member of the city's Police Advisory Board.  The mayor vetoed the reappointment of Dennis Hodges, a correctional officer and pastor, because of Hodges' public comments that he considered “transgenderism” to be a sin just like adultery and fornication. The court said in part:

Hodges asserts that he was not a policymaker and that government officials may not create religious tests for holding public office.  However, a consistent line of cases ... hold that an appointed volunteer may be dismissed for statements that might otherwise be protected by the First Amendment when “commonality of political purpose” is an appropriate requirement for the volunteer’s services....

Hodges has not shown that the district court erred in rejecting his free exercise claim.  To prevail on this claim, Hodges would have to show that even though the veto of his reappointment did not violate his free speech rights, it violated his free exercise rights because of his underlying religious beliefs.  He offers no case law supporting such a proposition.  Moreover, he does not explain how his religious motive for making public statements changes the court’s evaluation of his claim....

Street Preachers Can Move Ahead with Free Exercise Claims Against Police

In Raio v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Feb. 24, 2026), two street preachers and a Gospel singer who had been cited and, on another occasion, arrested for violating Chicago's sound ordinance brought a civil rights action against the city. The three use a microphone connected to a battery-operated speaker for their preaching and music. Ruling on the city's motion to dismiss, the court said that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged First Amendment retaliation, free exercise, false arrest, retaliatory arrest, and IRFRA claims, but dismissed plaintiffs' vagueness, equal protection, and free speech claims. The court said inn part:

Plaintiffs allege that Chicago police officers “cite all street preachers, regardless of whether they meet the requirements of the [Amplification Ordinance] and regardless of the evidence,”... and “engag[e] in a targeted practice of enforcing their interpretation of the [Amplification Ordinance] against only religious speakers,”... Defendants argue that the Amplification Ordinance is instead a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation....

Plaintiffs have failed to allege a single instance in which they, or anyone similarly situated, used amplification to communicate a non-religious message without consequence.  Nor do they allege that secular speakers regularly violate the Amplification Ordinance without any police intervention.  Plaintiffs instead include only conclusory allegations ... extrapolated from the two instances in which the Defendant Officers interacted with them.  Thus, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants have selectively enforced the Amplification Ordinance....

Plaintiffs do not allege that the Amplification Ordinance burdens their religious exercise....  Plaintiffs instead contend that Defendants violated their First Amendment free exercise rights by burdening their religious beliefs via an unwritten policy and custom of targeting religious activity....

... Plaintiffs provide enough facts that Defendants’ unwritten policy targeting amplified religious speech imposes, at least plausibly, an unjustifiably substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion for the claim to move forward....

... Plaintiffs have not alleged any instances where police officers declined to cite or arrest any similarly situated secular individuals under similar conditions....  As such, Plaintiffs’ non-conclusory allegations fail to suggest that Defendants acted with a discriminatory intent and, consequently, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim...

Canadian Province Awards $750,000 In Damages to LGBTQ Teachers For Trustee's Hate Speech

In the Canadian province of British Columbia, the province's Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Board of Education trustee to pay damages of $750,000 (Canadian) to compensate LGBTQ teachers in the Chilliwack School District for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by respondent's discriminatory and hate speech that violated the British Columbia Human Rights Law.  In Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld, (BC HRT, Feb. 18, 2026), the Tribunal (in a 141-page opinion) said in part:

... In 2017, the Ministry approved resources and tools aimed at fostering a SOGI [Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity]-inclusive education environment in all schools....

The backlash to SOGI 1 2 3 was immediate. One of its loudest critics was the Respondent, Barry Neufeld. At the time, Mr. Neufeld was an elected trustee of the Chilliwack Board of Education ....  For the next five years of his tenure as a trustee, Mr. Neufeld engaged in a high-profile public campaign against SOGI 1 2 3 and the values underlying it. He did this through social media posts, as well as in statements made in Board meetings, rallies, and interviews. Throughout these publications, 30 of which are at issue here, Mr. Neufeld broadcast the message that SOGI 1 2 3 is a “weapon of propaganda”, which threatens “traditional family values” and instructs children about the “absurd theory” that “gender is not biologically determined, but a social construct”. This “lie”, he warned, alienates children from their parents and primes them for sexual abuse....

 We declare that Mr. Neufeld violated ss. 7(1)(a), (b) and 13 of the Code....

... [A]lthough Mr. Neufeld occasionally alluded to his religion, at no point in this complaint did he assert, or lead evidence to support, that his right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter was engaged. In our view, it would not be appropriate to speculate about s. 2(a) of the Charter without a factual foundation or proper argument. For that reason, we have not considered whether our decision appropriately balances Mr. Neufeld’s religious freedoms....

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Clergy Seek Access To ICE Detainees

Suit was filed this week in a Minnesota federal district court by Evangelical Lutheran and United Church of Christ organizations and by a Catholic priest seeking access to a federal building in Minneapolis that houses individuals held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. The complaint (full text) in Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MN, filed 2/23/2026) alleges in part:

The Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building ... now stands in stark contrast to its namesake’s legacy. The federal government is using the building to hold Minnesotans detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) while barring faith leaders from offering prayer, pastoral guidance, sacramental ministry, and spiritual comfort to detainees in moments of profound fear, isolation, and despair. By prohibiting faith leaders from providing essential pastoral care to individuals in ICE detention, the federal government unconstitutionally obstructs their sacred obligation to exercise their faith through ministry to community members in the greatest need of spiritual comfort....

Defendants’ policies and practices unreasonably burden Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the broad protections under RFRA.

[Thanks to Heather E. Kimmel for the lead.]

DOJ Sues UCLA Under Title VII Alleging Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias

The Justice Department Civil Rights Division this week filed suit against the University of California alleging that UCLA violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli employees from antisemitic and anti-Israel harassment and violence. The 81-page complaint (full text) in United States v. Regents of the University of California, (CD CA, filed 2/24/2026), alleges in part:

Swastikas, calls for the extermination of Jews and the Jewish state of Israel, antisemitic violence, and open harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff: this was the grim scene at the University of California Los Angeles ... beginning in the 2023 to 2024 academic year. Following the October 7, 2023 ... massacre in Israel, UCLA’s administration turned a blind eye to—and at times facilitated—grossly antisemitic acts and systematically ignored cries for help from its own terrified Jewish and Israeli employees. Activists at the now infamous encampment at Royce Hall physically excluded Jewish students, faculty, and staff from portions of campus.... UCLA is currently under a permanent injunction banning it and its officers from allowing further exclusions of Jews or religious supporters of Israel from campus or activities. That prior action generally sought to protect the Jewish students at UCLA. But the harm to Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA goes much deeper. The general atmosphere of antisemitism was, and remains, so severe and pervasive that UCLA’s own official Task Force on Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias concluded that the University’s failures to protect Jewish staff and faculty constituted a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.... This suit seeks to right these wrongs.

Until the United States Department of Justice issued its notice of investigation letter to UCLA in March 2025, not a single one of the dozens of civil rights complaints filed by Jewish and Israeli employees since October 7 was properly investigated. UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI Office) ... routinely ignored complaints of antisemitism. And UCLA continues to mishandle them....

Moreover, UCLA’s flawed Anti-Discrimination Policy was poorly designed and maintained, making it difficult for victims to report hostile work environment claims. UCLA faculty, staff, and administrators were untrained on the University policy and routinely failed to report antisemitism. The most sophisticated faculty and staff, including members of UCLA leadership, were puzzled by the confusing and ineffective complaint procedures, leaving Jewish and Israeli employees with nowhere to turn. They got UCLA’s message that filing an antisemitism complaint was futile....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Ban on Feeding Feral Animals Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, (ND CA, Feb. 23, 2026), a California federal district court dismissed all but a selective prosecution claim in a suit involving activities at a public park in Hayward, California.  Plaintiff, a lover of cats, regularly fed feral and neighborhood cats in the park in violation of an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of wild or feral animals.  He also regularly, to little avail, asked authorities to enforce against dog owners the ordinance requiring dogs in the park to be on leashes. Plaintiff sued the park district and park rangers alleging failure to perform mandatory duties under California law and violations of the Fourteenth, Fourth, and First Amendment.  

One of plaintiff's claims was that the no-feeding ordinance violated his 1st Amendment free-exercise rights. In dismissing that claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that under his Catholic faith and the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi, he believes he has “a duty to God to take care of and love all of God’s animals.” ...  Due to these religious beliefs, Plaintiff “takes care of, feeds, shelters, provides medical needs, spay and neuters, play, love, and protect these cats and all of God’s animals.”  ... Plaintiff has alleged that this park ordinance interferes with his ability to feed cats within Meek Park, thus burdening his religious duty to take care of animals, specifically, the cats that frequent Meek Park. 

HARD Ordinance 19(b) is neutral and generally applicable.  Any burden it places on Plaintiff’s ability to exercise his religious beliefs in caring for animals is incidental.  Since the law is neutral and generally applicable, Plaintiff must show that it is not rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government purpose.  But there are many potential legitimate bases for the rule: for example, feeding wild or feral animals attracts them to the park, increasing the risk of conflict with parkgoers and their pets, and the spread of disease.  Since the rule has a conceivable legitimate basis, Plaintiff’s free exercise claim fails.

Various other claims against the park district and park rangers were also dismissed.

Supreme Court Denies Review of RFRA Claims by Military Who Refused Covid Vaccine

The Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Doster v. Meink, (Docket No.25-446, cert. denied 2/23/2026) and Poffenbarger v. Meink, (Docket No. 25-448, cert. denied 2/23/2026). (Order List.) Both cases involve Air Force members who on religious grounds refused to comply with the military's Covid vaccine mandate. In Doster, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed RFRA claims by 18 members of the Air Force as moot. (Full text of opinion.) In Poffenberger, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a claim under RFRA for compensatory relief on sovereign immunity grounds. (Full text of opinion). Military Times reports on the Supreme Court's action.

In India Court Orders Protection for Unmarried Interfaith Couples

In India, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Noori & Another v. State of U.P. & 4 Others, (HC Allahabad, Feb. 23, 2026), issued an order protecting the right of unmarried interfaith couples to live together. The court said in part:

3. A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners have decided to stay together in an interfaith live-in relationship and they claim that they have an apprehension of life threat from the private respondents. The Police of concerned Districts have been approached by them, but no heed was paid....

31.  This Court does not see the petitioners herein as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily for a considerable time. The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to hetrosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

51.... (i) The petitioners herein are at liberty to approach the police authorities for reddressal of their grievances, in case any harm is caused by private respondents or their associates. Upon receipt of such application, the police authorities shall examine the matter and age of the petitioners and if they find any substance in the allegations of the petitioners, they will act in accordance with law for protection of life, limb and liberty of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners may lodge a report/complaint if anybody attempts to convert their religion against their wishes, or by any fraudulent means, force, coercion, allurement, undue influence or practice of misrepresentation....

Bar and Bench reports on the decision.

Hospital Justified In Firing Nurse for Praying with Patients, Discussing Holocaust With Patient

In Sanders v. Kootenai Hospital District, (D ID, Feb. 20, 2026), an Idaho federal district court rejected various claims by Claudia Sanders, a nurse at a crisis center who was fired by her employer, a publicly operated hospital. Sanders duties included triaging patients. According to the court:

Sanders alleges two incidents in which she engaged in constitutionally protected speech or activity that were the cause of her termination. First, she maintains that on January 23, 2022, she “discussed the Holocaust in general terms” with a Jewish patient and provided the patient a copy of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, a book written by a psychiatrist who survived the Holocaust.... Second, she contends that she has previously prayed with patients who asked her to pray.

In rejecting Sanders' free speech claims, the court said in part:

The First Amendment does not protect speech made pursuant to a government employee’s official duties....

Sanders admitted that she prayed with patients under the belief that such conduct fell within her job responsibilities....

Sanders’ January 23 discussion on the Holocaust with a patient also was made pursuant to her official duties as a NICC triage nurse....  Because Sanders’ speech owes its existence to her position, she spoke as an employee—not as a citizen. Therefore, the Court concludes that Sanders did not engage in protected speech....

... It is not unreasonable for Kootenai to consider Sanders’ statements about the Holocaust, which implied that it either did not happen or that it was a good thing ...  disruptive to its ability to serve the community...

Kootenai was also justified in terminating Sanders for engaging in prayer with patients. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government has a compelling interest in avoiding the appearance of taking a position on questions of religious belief when the restriction applies to government employees engaging in religious speech while providing state-sponsored services.... 

... Sanders promoted religious messages while working with patients on Kootenai business, raising a legitimate Establishment Clause concern.....

The court also rejected Sanders' claims of wrongful termination, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and tarnishing of her reputation.