DOJ Hosts First Meeting of Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias

 A Department of Justice press release reports that yesterday the DOJ hosted the inaugural meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.  The Task Force was created by an Executive Order of President Trump. Yesterday's press release described the Task Force meeting, saying in part:

The witnesses included:

Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College. Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations....

Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University. Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.

Phil Mendes: Navy Seal. Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.

 “As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

Additionally, members of the Task Force highlighted specific cases within their own agencies where the Biden Administration unfairly and harshly punished Christian Americans for their religious beliefs.

Christian Foster Care Ministry Can Limit Hiring to Those of Its Own Faith

In Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, April 21, 2025), an Oho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction restoring contracting and funding by the county to a Christian ministry that provides foster care services to girls who are victims of sex trafficking and abuse. The county had refused to renew its contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry's policy of hiring only employees that shared its religious faith.  The court said in part:

Gracehaven will likely succeed on the merits of its claim that Montgomery County’s actions violated the Free Exercise Clause because it excluded Gracehaven from an otherwise available public benefit based on Gracehaven’s choice to employ those who share the same faith....

“When otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from a public benefit ‘solely because of their religious character,’” the Court must apply strict scrutiny to the reason the benefit was denied.

President Responds to Death of Pope Francis

President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) yesterday ordering flags to be flown at half-staff on the day of the late Pope Francis' funeral. The President announced yesterday on Truth Social that he and the First Lady will attend the Pope's funeral in Rome.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Permissive Opt-Out of Children from Exposure To LGBTQ-Friendly Books

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contended that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. (See prior posting). The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the numerous amicus briefs filed in the case as well as to other pleadings and relevant news coverage of the case.  Oral arguments will be streamed live here at 10:00 AM today. A transcript and audio recording of the arguments will be posted here by the Court later today. A SCOTUSblog article has further background on the case.

Religious Corporation Exemption to Maryland Anti-Discrimination Law Does Not Excuse LGBT Discrimination Against Data Analyst

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (D MD, April 21, 2025), a Maryland federal district court held that the religious corporation exemption from the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act does not apply to the termination of spousal health care benefits of the same-sex spouse of a data analyst and advisor working for Catholic Relief Services. The Maryland Supreme Court had previously held that "in order for the exemption to apply, the employee’s duties must directly further the core mission(s) – religious or secular, or both – of the religious entity." Finding the exemption inapplicable here, the court said in part:

... [T]he evidence preponderantly demonstrates that Doe’s ... duties and responsibilities were sufficiently apart from effectuating CRS goals (and core mission) such that his ... job activities and responsibilities were far attenuated from, and not reasonably capable of bringing about (or preventing effectuation of), CRS goals or missions.  Doe did not directly serve the poor and vulnerable overseas, solicit or secure funding for projects, or possess authority to determine how CRS would pursue its mission through its programs.  Nor did Doe manage or supervise any employee with such responsibilities.... The evidence is that from time to time, he may have been called upon to assist those who were responsible for undertaking actions that effect CRS’s goals; yet he was always one or more steps removed from taking action that effect CRS goals or that bear such responsibility. ...

Because the court concludes that none of Doe’s five full-time positions with CRS directly furthered a CRS mission, and that each of his positions was one or more steps removed from taking the actions that effect CRS goals, the court similarly concludes that CRS has not met its burden to show that MFEPA’s religious entity exemption applies here. ...

Assuming without deciding that CRS has made the threshold showing of a burden on its free exercise rights by operation of MFEPA,.., the court concludes that CRS fails to demonstrate that MFEPA is not neutral and generally applicable in its application to CRS here.

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge Law Barring Schools from Disclosing Child's Change of Name or Pronoun

In Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom, (ED CA, April 18, 2025), a California federal district court held that plaintiffs, parents of school children, lack standing to challenge a California law that prohibits public schools from requiring disclosure to parents, without their child's consent, of their child's change of name or gender pronoun at school. Plaintiffs are "devout Christians and believe that God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders." They contend that the law violates their free exercise rights and their right to control the upbringing and medical care of their children.  The court said in part:

While the Court has no doubt as to the concern that Plaintiff Parents have toward the implementation of AB 1955, Plaintiff Parents have not shown that they have suffered or will imminently suffer any form of harm as a result the Act.  For example, Plaintiff Parents do not allege that their own child has gone or goes by a different name at school, that their children’s school has deprived the parents of relevant information about their child, or that this is something that is likely to happen in the future....

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Mandated Insurance Coverage for Anti-HIV Drugs Over Religious Objections

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments this morning in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. Plaintiffs in the case objected on religious grounds to providing their employees the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's mandated insurance coverage for pre-exposure drugs that prevent the transmission of HIV. Plaintiffs contended that this coverage makes them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use and sexual activity outside of marriage. In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That is the issue before the Court today. Oral arguments will be streamed here at 10:00 AM. A transcript and audio recording of the arguments will be posted later today at this web page. See prior related posting.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments. Vox reports on the oral arguments.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• R. Shawn Gunnarson, James Cleith Phillips & Christopher Bates, Religions Employment and the Tensions Between Liberty and Equality, (Brigham Young University (accepted forthcoming)).
•  Joel Alicea, Constitutional Theory at a Catholic University, (75 Cath. U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)).
• Edward L. Rubin, The Biblical Concept of Mercy as a Pragmatic Decision Protocol, (Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 25-07 (2025).
• Irene-Marie Esser, Iain MacNeil & Catriona Cannon, The Legal Dimension of 'Corporate Purpose': A Study of Companies with a Religious Influence, (forthcoming: European Business Law Review).
• L. Ali Khan, The Ministry of Jesus: A Comparative Study of the Qur'an and New Testament, (March 30, 2025).
• Jay Wexler, The Endorsement Test’s Early Years, 1983-1985: Notes from the O’Connor Files, (Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper No. 25-7 (2025)).
• Jill Wieber Lens, Stillbirth & the Law (Book Introduction), (March 25, 2025).
• B. Sullivan, The Myth of Legal Neutrality and Its Role in Undermining Abortion Rights in The United States, (McGill Undergraduate Law Review No. 10 (2025)).
• Mark David Hall, Ten Commandments in the Public Square and Public Schools, (William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal (forthcoming)).

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

• Thomas Latendresse, Evaluating the Constitutionality of Bill 21 Amid Restricted Judicial Review, (McGill Undergraduate Law Review No. 10 (2025)).
• L. Ali Khan, Rigveda as a Proto-Islamic Scripture of the Indus Valley, (March 26, 2025). 
• Soliu Dagbo Abdulllahi, An Overview of Legal and Regulatory Framework for Islamic Finance in Nigeria, (March 18, 2025).
• Ashlynn Kendzior,  Remaining Barriers to Abortion Access in Post-Repeal Ireland, (15 Creighton Int'l. & Compar, L. J. (forthcoming 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Nicole V. Godfrey, Group Prayer in Federal Prison, 103 Nebraska Law Review 19-44 (2024).
• Michael Allan Wolf, "Zoning" Matters: RLUIPA and the New Normal of Religious Discrimination, 61 San Diego Law Review 343-406 (2024).

"Religious" Belief Defined Broadly in Title VII Claim

Numerous cases challenging employers' refusal to grant exemptions to Covid vaccine mandates during the height of the Covid epidemic continue to wend their way through the courts. Here is the latest.

In Huber v. TIAA, (WD VA, April 17, 2025), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a former employee's Title VII failure to accommodate claim and allowed the parties to move on to discovery.  The employer had refused to grant a religious accommodation, claiming that the employee's objections were secular, not religious.  According to the court:

... [Plaintiff] subscribes to “a faith based holistic healing process” promoted by the Optimum Health Institute in Southern California....  A page from the Optimum Health Institute’s website, which Huber attaches as an exhibit to the amended complaint, describes the Institute as “a healing ministry of the Free Sacred Trinity Church, which promotes healing through the use of non-medical, all-natural, holistic healing practices.”...

Shortly after Huber filed her amended complaint, the Fourth Circuit clarified that courts evaluating religious discrimination claims should not rigorously examine whether a plaintiff’s beliefs are “religious in nature.”...  It confirmed that courts should limit the inquiry to “whether ‘the beliefs professed . . . are, in the claimant’s own scheme of things, religious[.]’”...  An employee’s claim that her belief “is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight” in this analysis....

... [T]his court finds that Huber has plausibly alleged the beliefs she communicated to TIAA were “religious in nature.” Huber’s asserted faith, which “comes from the belief in a universal force and energy” and focuses on holistic healing ... is different than the biblical Christianity employees often invoke when seeking exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine requirements....  But Title VII protects nonconventional as well as conventional religious beliefs—courts “are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them ‘incomprehensible.’...

The amended complaint does not provide a clear or complete account of Huber’s conversation with the TIAA interviewer, and it is possible that later fact development will show she did not communicate an objection that was based on a sincerely held religious belief.  But the court finds that her allegations are sufficient to allow for discovery on this issue....

Catholic Employers Get Permanent Injunction Against EEOC

In Catholic Benefits Association v. Lucas, (D ND, April 25, 2025), a North Dakota federal district court converted a preliminary injunction granted last September to a Catholic diocese and a Catholic employers' organization (see prior posting) into a permanent injunction. At issue are rules and guidance documents issued under the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The permanent injunction provides in part:

(1) The EEOC and its agents are permanently enjoined from interpreting or enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and any implementing regulations ... against the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, including present and future members, in a manner that would require them to accommodate abortion or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith, speak in favor of the same or refrain from speaking against the same.  

(2) The EEOC and its agents are permanently enjoined from interpreting or enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any implementing regulations or guidances, including the Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, against the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, including present and future members, in a manner that would require them to speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; refrain from speaking or communicating against the same when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological sex; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Appellate Court Upholds $1.2M Fine Against Church for Violating Covid Public Health Orders

In People of the State of California v. Calvary Chapel San Jose, (CA App., April 15, 2025), a California state appellate court affirmed the imposition of administrative fines totaling $1,228,700 on defendant church for violating Covid public health orders requiring face coverings and submission of a social distancing protocol. The court rejected Calvary Chapel's Free Exercise defense. The court said in part:

...  [T]he People have met their burden to establish as a matter of law that the face covering requirements set forth in the orders are neutral and of general applicability, and Calvary Chapel has failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. 

First, the text of the revised risk reduction order and the safety measures order shows that these orders are neutral because they are not specifically directed at religious practice, do not discriminate on their face, and religious exercise is not the object of the orders....

Having reviewed the very limited exemptions that Calvary Chapel asserts show that the face covering requirements in public health orders are not of general applicability, we decide that Calvary Chapel has provided no evidence to create a triable question of fact regarding general applicability.

The court also rejected Calvary Chapel's due process claims and additionally held:

... [T]he undisputed facts show that Calvary Chapel’s level of culpability due to violating the public health orders requiring face coverings is high, and therefore the fines in the amount of $1,228,700 do not violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.

USCIS Is Screening Immigration Applicants for Antisemitic Activity

Last week (April 9), the Department of Homeland Security announced that it will begin screening the social media of aliens applying for immigration benefits to determine whether they have been engaged in antisemitic activity. A News Release (full text) posted by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reads in part:

Today U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin considering aliens’ antisemitic activity on social media and the physical harassment of Jewish individuals as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests. This will immediately affect aliens applying for lawful permanent resident status, foreign students and aliens affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity.

... DHS will enforce all relevant immigration laws to the maximum degree, to protect the homeland from extremists and terrorist aliens, including those who support antisemitic terrorism, violent antisemitic ideologies and antisemitic terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, or Ansar Allah aka: “the Houthis.”

... USCIS will consider social media content that indicates an alien endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests....

UK Supreme Court Interprets Meaning of "Sex" In UK's Equality Act as Biological Sex

In For Women Scotland Ltd. v. The Scottish Ministers, (UK SC, April 16, 2025), the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that considering the interaction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 with the Equality Act 2010, the terms "woman", "man", and "sex" in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.  The Equality Act gives separate protection to persons who have undergone or are proposing to undergo sexual reassignment. The court explains the limited question it is deciding:

24. ... [A] person who is aged at least 18 can apply for a GRC [Gender Reassignment Certificate] under the GRA 2004. Section 9(1) of that Act provides that when a full GRC is issued to a person the person’s gender becomes “for all purposes” the acquired gender so that if the acquired gender is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman....

25. The central issue on this appeal is whether references in the EA 2010 to a person’s “sex” and to “woman” and “female” are to be interpreted in the light of section 9 of the GRA 2004 as including persons who have an acquired gender through the possession of a GRC. 

26. The focus of this appeal is not on the status of the large majority of trans people who do not possess a full GRC. Their sex remains in law their biological sex. This appeal addresses the position of the small minority of trans people who possess a full GRC....

The court summarized its ruling in part as follows:

265.... (xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC [Gender Reassignment Certificate] greater right than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC.... 

(xiii) That interpretation would also seriously weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation for example by interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations.... 

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others.... 

(xv) Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces....

The UK Supreme Court also issued a 4-page Press Summary of the Court's 88-page Opinion. And CBS News reports on the decision.

3rd Circuit Hears Arguments on Whether Religious Motivation of Founders Allows Nonprofit Corporation to Assert Free Exercise Claims

On April 9, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in United States v. Safehouse. In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a nonprofit corporation that plans to open a safe injection site for those struggling with opioid abuse cannot claim protection from federal prosecution under the free exercise clause or RFRA merely because its founders had a religious motivation. The corporation's articles do not set out any religious purpose. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

West Virginia Enacts Parents' Bill of Rights

On April 14, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey signed HB 2129, the Parents' Bill of Rights (full text). The new law provides in part:

(a) All parental rights are reserved to the parent of a minor child in this state ...  including, but not limited to ...: (1) The right to direct the education and care of his or her minor child. (2) The right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or her minor child. (3) The right to apply to enroll his or her minor child in a public school or, as an alternative to public education, a private school, including a religious school, a home education program, or other available options, as authorized by law. (4) The right to access and review all school records relating to his or her minor child. (5) The right to make health care decisions for his or her minor child, unless otherwise prohibited by law.

Under the new law, the state may interfere with parental rights only if it demonstrates that its action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored, and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.

Religious Exemption from Medicaid Program Not Required

In Kynwulf v. Corcoran, (SD OH, April 11, 2025), an Ohio federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from the estate recovery provisions of Ohio Medicaid’s Specialized Recovery Services program. The court said in part:

Mr. Kynwulf’s allegations do not raise a plausible conclusion that the SRS Program is a coercive program sufficient to state a claim under the Free Exercise Clause. He does not allege that the SRS program is mandatory – instead, he alleges that when he requested to be removed from the SRS program, he was removed.... These allegations make clear that Medicaid’s SRS Program neither compelled nor coerced Mr. Kynwulf such as to prevent him from continuing to practice his religion. 

Instead, Mr. Kynwulf seeks to require Ohio Medicaid to conform its program to the tenets of his religion. However, although the Free Exercise Clause “protects, to a degree, an individual’s right to practice [his] religion within the dictates of [his] conscience, it does not convene on an individual the right to dictate [that a governmental program] conform to [his] religion.”... The Free Exercise Clause “is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.”...

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Nathan B. Oman, That Principle of Freedom…Belongs to All Mankind: The United States Constitution and Religious Freedom in the Latter-day Saint Tradition, (February 13, 2025).
• Laura Portuondo, The Myth of Equal Protection, (16 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026)).
• Alex Deagon, & Francis Beckwith, Religious Freedom and Abortion: Why State-Imposed Abortion Restrictions Do Not Breach The First Amendment, (Baylor Law Review 76 (Fall 2024): 511-574).
• Nicholas Reaves & Matthew Krauter, Religious Liberty Pragmatism, (24 Federalist Society Review 331 (2023)).
• Johnny Rex Buckles, A Defense of the Unborn Person, (28 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 629 (2024)).
• Ortal Isaac, Lifesaving Care, Denied: Torts as a Tool in a Post-Dobbs World?, (March 01, 2025).
• Mansi Jain Comparative Analysis Of Judicial Review: Assessing The Influence On Same-Sex Marriage Rights In The United States And Germany, (January 03, 2024).
• Gail L. Heriot, Statement of Commissioner Gail Heriot in Enforcing Religious Freedoms in Prison 2017-2023—a Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper (forthcoming)).
• Michael L. Smith, State Constitutional Due Process Protections After Dobbs, (16 Faulkner L. Rev. (Forthcoming 2025)).

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

• Abraham Maslow Azanya, Free Education as the Catalyst for National Transformation: The Case of Ghana's Free Senior High School Policy and Its Long-Term Impact, (March 01, 2025).
• Sanjay Koul has posted several short articles: Spirituality at the Workplace: A Pathway to Fulfillment, Productivity, and Growth, (March 15, 2025); Shirdi Sai Baba: The Saint Who Bridged Religions and Hearts, (March 15, 2025); The Cosmic Blueprint: Creation, Karma, and the Eternal Soul in Sanatana Dharma (January 30, 2025); Spirituality: A Journey to Self-Realization and Universal Connection, (March 02, 2025); A Comparative Analysis of the Four Vedas: Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda (October 18, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Stephen M. Feldman, Who Belongs?: "We the People" in the Twenty-First Century, 52 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1-44 (2024).
• Anya Bernstein, Book Review. The Battle for Sabarimala: Religion, Law, and Gender in Contemporary India, by Deepa Das Acevedo, 58 Law & Society Review 541-542 (2024).