New Jersey Expands Protections for Providers and Recipients of Reproductive Health Care; Catholic Conference Provides Guidance for Protesters

On August 20, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed S2260 (full text) into law. The governor's press release announcing the signing of the bill describes it:

The legislation, S2260/A2218, signed today expands existing protections for reproductive healthcare patients and providers. New protections include:

Helping patients physically access care by making it a crime to injure, threaten, intimidate, or physically block patients or providers, or to damage property in an effort to interfere with reproductive healthcare services;

Empowering patients and providers by allowing them to take legal action against individuals who interfere with their access to or delivery of protected care; and

Protecting healthcare providers from professional penalties or adverse actions involving their medical malpractice insurance for providing reproductive healthcare that is legal in New Jersey. 

The legislation also expands New Jersey’s shield laws by expressly including gender-affirming care in the definition of protected reproductive healthcare services. This extends existing protections to patients seeking and providers delivering gender-affirming care in New Jersey. These protections include:

Protecting patient information related to reproductive healthcare from disclosure without prior authorization, as provided by law;

Restricting State entities from assisting certain out-of-state investigations or legal proceedings that seek to impose liability for providing or receiving protected reproductive healthcare; and

Protecting professional licenses by preventing licensing boards from taking action against a provider solely for providing protected reproductive healthcare.

In response, the New Jersey Catholic Conference has issued guidance for anti-abortion protesters in a document titled FAQs Regarding S2260 & Pro-life Activities. It advises in part:

Our call to be a peaceful, prayerful presence for mothers and their children has not changed. This new law does not stop you from praying, witnessing, or offering help outside a facility — it simply draws a clear line around a small set of specific actions. You are encouraged to be aware of that line, stay confidently on the right side of it, and continue this important ministry without fear....

YOU ARE FREE TO: Stand and pray on the public sidewalk; Hold signs; Offer a pamphlet or speak to someone once, as they approach; Sing, read Scripture, or hold a peaceful, stationary vigil; Film, photograph, or post about your own vigil

SIMPLY AVOID: Blocking or standing in a driveway, entrance, or exit; Following or continuing to talk to someone after they say no; Touching, grabbing, or making physical contact with anyone; Threatening, or using/threatening force against, anyone; Physically stopping someone from moving; Making it difficult for someone to access the facility; Damaging the facility's or anyone's property....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Shucheng Wang, Law and Religion as an Interdisciplinary Field in Legal Education: Reflections from the Australian School (July 30, 2026).
• Craig B. Mousin & Chris Inserra, Messengers of Hope: Responding to the Voices of the Persecuted to Reverse the Erosion of Refugee Rights (February 09, 2026).
• Naomi R. Cahn, Maxine Eichner & Mary E. Ziegler, "For Their Benefit": The Lost History of Parental Consent and Minors' Rights, 114 Calif. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026).
• Emir Dini, Beyond the EEOC: The Case for Privatizing Civil-rights Enforcement, (September 03, 2026).
• Jessica Clarke, B.P.J.'s Deviation From Heightened Scrutiny, Yale Law Journal Forum (forthcoming)).
• Erik Encarnacion, Discrimination as Bad Faith, (August 28, 2026).
• Samuel L. Bray, Scandal as a Concept in Anglican Canon Law, (August 26, 2026).

From SSRN (Legal Issues in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America):

• Natia Nakashidze, The Intersection of Civil and Ecclesiastical Orders and Its Property and Status Implications in Georgia, (August 29, 2026).
• Syed Muaz Shah, The Age of Marriage in Pakistan: An Islamic Jurisprudential Perspective from Recent Rulings of Federal Shariat Court and their Impact on Legal Landscape, (Human Rights Review, Volume IX, 2026, pp. 38-63).
• Divya Parmar, Recognition Undone: The Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026 and the Return of Social Morality, (Mainstream, Vol. 64, No. 16, 12 June 2026).
• Ayomikun Kuewumi, The Legal Status of Lgbtqia+ Persons in Nigeria: A Critical Examination of Criminalisation, Fundamental Rights and Human Rights, (July 27, 2026).
• Paulo Gracino Junior, Tiago Meireles do Carmo Morais & Mayra Goulart da Silva, Waiting for the Barbarians: Neoliberalism, Antagonism and the Discursive Construction of Evangelical Masculinism in Brazil, (August 31, 2026).

From SmartCILP:

• Songfeng Li, In Defense of the Ten Commandments in Public Spaces: An Analysis Based on the Supreme Court's New Judicial Standard, 79 Arkansas Law Review 41-80 (2026).
• Jack Thorlin, Federalist Politics and the Elusive Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, 75 Catholic University Law Review 476-539 (2026).
•  Zachary Runge, Comment. The Ministerial Exception and Defamation: Navigating Churches' Autonomy and Their Communications, 53 Pepperdine Law Review 363-392 (2026).

Catholic Sisters Challenge Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act

Several orders of Catholic sisters as well as Chicago Archbishop Cupich filed suit yesterday in an Illinois federal district court challenging the constitutionality of requiring them to comply with Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act. The 93-page complaint (full text) in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. Prince, (ND IL, filed 9/3/2026) alleges in part:

9. Through its euphemistically-named End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, and the Act’s incorporation of burdens imposed by the Health Care Right of Conscience Act, Illinois has conscripted even religious healthcare providers and institutions to participate in the provision of physician-assisted suicide. 

10. Beginning September 12, medical providers caring for terminally ill Illinois residents will have to proactively inform and counsel their patients about their “option” to kill themselves....

12. These national and international norms against doctors raising assisted suicide with their dying patients exist for good reason. Public health researchers have extensively documented that an increase in the public discussion of suicide is often followed by an increase in suicide rates....  

23. The Court can address these problems by enforcing federal law and the First Amendment and finding that Illinois cannot coerce religious providers in this way. That approach would leave the End-of-Life Options Act generally in force. Alternatively, the Court could also invalidate the entire End-of-Life Options Act, because it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. 

24. Either way, Illinois’ effort to control religious providers and their patients is unlawful and cannot stand.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Catholic World Report discusses the lawsuit.

United Methodist Parent Body Sues Local Church Over Amendments to Governing Documents

Last month, the parent body of the United Methodist church in Texas filed suit in a Texas state trial court against a Dallas Methodist congregation alleging that the congregation improperly amended its governing documents to eliminate its affiliation with the parent body. The amended petition (full text Petition) in Horizon Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Highland Park Methodist Church, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/18/2026) alleges in part:

24. On November 16, 2022, without seeking or obtaining consent from the District Superintendent as required by the [Book of] Discipline or providing any notice to the Charge Conference or the Conference, HP Corporation filed its Restated Certificate of Formation .... In pertinent part, the Restated Certificate changed the corporation's name to Highland Park Methodist Church and removed all references to The United Methodist Church, the Conference, and the Discipline.

25. HP Corporation also adopted amended bylaws in November 2022 which ... i) removed all references to the United Methodist Church, the Conference and the Discipline; ii) removed the rights of HP Church's Professing Members to participate in any matter "affecting or involving the church"; iii) reserved for the Church Council the right to determine the denomination of HP Church; and iv) provided that the Church Council is chosen only by itself and answerable only to itself....

27. Despite [this]... HP Church still holds itself out as a United Methodist Church....

30. ... The Conference maintains that a decision to withdraw from a religious faith or denomination is a personal one, guaranteed by both the United States Constitution, and -- in Texas-- by the Texas Constitution. However, the question here is whether a governing body of a local church may formally attempt to sever the church's connection to a denomination while continuing to accept the benefits and identity of that denomination.

Plaintiff asks for a declaratory judgment setting out the rights, status and other legal relations between the congregation and the parent Conference. After asking for that relief, the Petition goes on to say:

34. The matters above involve initial determination of neutral questions of law regarding he rights and status of the entities involved.... However, answers to certain of these questions implicate ecclesiastical matters; the internal affairs..., the governance..., and the administration of the United Methodist Church and its local churches.

D Magazine reports on the lawsuit.

Court Allows Suit by Jewish School Denied Zoning Approval to Move Ahead

Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh, Inc., v. City of Hollywood, Florida, (FL Bkr., Aug. 28, 2026), is a civil rights action being pursued in federal bankruptcy court because plaintiff is in Chapter 11 federal bankruptcy proceedings and the case is related to those proceedings. The court said in part:

Plaintiff Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh, Inc., is a Jewish religious nonprofit that operates a synagogue. It purchased commercial property ... in Hollywood, Florida with the intention of opening a K–12 Jewish day school. To do so, it needed a special exception under the City of Hollywood’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations. The City denied Bet Midrash’s special exception application. Bet Midrash contends the denial was unconstitutional – that the City applied a zoning scheme that has already been found unconstitutional in another case by a District Court Judge in this District, and that the denial violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Defendant City of Hollywood moved to dismiss the complaint ..., arguing that the special exception criteria are facially neutral and generally applicable, that they are subject only to rational basis review....

... [T]he City argues that the as-applied challenge ... is deficient because Bet Midrash does not allege that the City applied the special exception criteria in a manner that was hostile to its expressive activity, or that the City selectively enforced the special exception provision against it.... Second, Bet Midrash argues that it is engaged in First Amendment protected activity – operating a synagogue and seeking to expand into religious education – and that the Free Exercise Clause protects that activity...

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Religious education – particularly the operation of a Jewish day school by a religious nonprofit that also operates a synagogue – is a form of religiously motivated conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause.  At the pleading stage, the Court accepts these allegations as true. Whether Bet Midrash can ultimately prove that its proposed school constitutes protected religious exercise is a question for another day. For now, the allegations are sufficient....

Maine Supreme Court Upholds Ending Mother's Sharing in Control of Daughter's Religious Upbringing

In Bickford v. Bradeen, (ME Sup. Ct., Sept. 1, 2026), the Maine Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision to modify an order originally issued in 2013 that gave the separated parents of an infant daughter shared parental rights on all matters. In modifying the order, the trial court concluded that the parties were unable to co-parent on matters of the child's religious upbringing (as well as on medical decision making for the child). The Amended Order allocated religious decision making (as well as medical decision making) to the father. The mother contended that the Amended Order's provisions on religious decision making violated her 1st Amendment rights. The Maine Supreme Court upheld the trial court's modifications, though on different grounds than the trial court used. The Supreme Court said in part:

... [W]e determine that the [trial] court erred by applying strict scrutiny.  We instead conclude that courts may always use the best-interest standard to allocate parental rights between two parents, and that the Constitution protects the religious rights of parents by prohibiting religious bias or hostility from influencing a court’s best-interest analysis.

The Maine Supreme Court described the evidence that led to the trial court's conclusion: 

[The mother, Emily] Bickford started attending church services at Calvary Chapel Greater Portland in May 2021, bringing the child to multiple services per week....

 ... Calvary Chapel teaches the Bible “verse by verse, chapter by chapter.”  This entails sermons that include ... “quite vivid description[s]” of Hell....  [The church's pastor] testified that he preaches about the “Second Coming of Christ,” which will involve “seven years of . . . pure hell on earth under the persecution of ...  the Antichrist” for those who have not “accept[ed] the terms of God.”  

The child has experienced fear and anxiety associated with these teachings.  The child has asked [her father, Mathew] Bradeen a lot of questions about Heaven and Hell and about why Bradeen and his other child would not be in Heaven with her.  The child has left notes around Bradeen’s house because she fears that the Second Coming is approaching and that Bradeen will be left behind.  The child has experienced panic attacks related to these topics.

Bradeen reached out to Bickford to express his concerns.... Bickford’s response was that she lives under God’s law, not the state’s law.  Bickford does not believe the child is, or should be, experiencing any anxiety, because she and the child “just pray” and “give it to God.”...

In a press release, Liberty Counsel that represents the mother said it will petition The U.S. Supreme Court for review.  AP reports on the decision.

Federal Court Settles Application of Michigan's Civil Rights Act to Catholic Institutions

In two lengthy opinions issued last month, a Michigan federal district court granted summary judgment to the state, dismissing pre-enforcement civil rights actions, one brought by a Catholic parish-run school and school parents, and the second brought by a Christian medical services ministry. Both suits allege that Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights by interfering with their faith-based employment policies and other policies reflecting their religious views. In 2025, the parties agreed to the application of the ELCRA to a number of situations. The recent decisions dismissing the complaints settle a number of remaining issues.

In Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, August 5, 2026), the court said in part:

In summary, the ELCRA survives the challenges posed in this case. Sacred Heart has not demonstrated that either the "co-religionist doctrine" or the right to expressive association protect its employment choices. Conversely, the ELCRA, via § 403 and the First Amendment, adequately protects Sacred Heart, including its policies regarding admissions, pronouns, sexual orientation, restrooms, uniforms, and sports teams. Consequently, the relief Plaintiffs seek is not warranted. Defendants, in contrast, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these issues.

In Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (WD MI, August 5, 2026), the court said in part:

In summary, the ELCRA survives CHC's challenges. CHC has not demonstrated that the "co-religionist doctrine," the right to expressive association, or the right to assembly protect its employment choices. Conversely, the ELCRA, via the First Amendment, provides that CHC can hire whomever it chooses for its Biblical Counsel and Physician positions and can maintain its pronoun policies and gender-affirming care policies that are grounded in sincere religious beliefs. Consequently, the declaratory and injunctive relief CHC seeks is not warranted. Defendants, in contrast, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these issues.

4th Circuit Debates When the Reason for Seeking an Accommodation Under Title VII Is "Religious"

In Wilkins-Bailey v. Essity Professional Hygiene North America, LLC, (4th Cir., Sept. 1, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a North Carolina federal district court wrongly granted summary judgment to an employer charged with religious and racial discrimination under Title VII. The employer denied an exemption from its Covid vaccine mandate to a black female sales administrator who is a Jehovah's Witness. Plaintiff's refusal to be vaccinated led to her dismissal by the company. The company contended that plaintiff's reasons for seeking an exemption were secular, not religious. In rejecting that contention, the 4th Circuit's majority said in part:

... Wilkins-Bailey, by connecting her refusal to vaccinate to her belief that her “body is a temple,” has based her claim on a belief which is religious....  She blends her explanation of her beliefs with numerous references to personal safety and the natural or non-natural character of vaccination and other medical treatments, as well as historical concerns about discriminatory practices in medicine.....

Even so, we think it is plainly clear that Wilkins-Bailey has connected her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine with her religious beliefs by stating that it “is God’s law” that she must “be protective of [her] temple.”... Indeed, a claimant’s mixed secular and religious motives do not preclude protection under Title VII....

Wilkins-Bailey has clearly provided sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that her refusal to vaccinate is connected to her religious beliefs....

Moreover, “courts should not expect, much less require, exemption requests to sound like they were written by someone with legal training.”...

Even though Wilkins-Bailey’s beliefs are sufficiently religious, it may be that they do not impose on her a “religious obligation to refuse” vaccination....  Essity contends that because Wilkins-Bailey believes she may personally interpret the requirements of her religion, that her interpretation is therefore the product of a “personal decision.”...

We do not agree.  This interpretation of Title VII would leave millions of religious Americans unprotected in their workplaces.  Many religions permit and even encourage their adherents to discern or interpret official texts, teachings, and tenets in order to decide for themselves which actions are required to fulfill religious obligations.  Some religions have no centrally managed canons, nor agreed-upon sacred commandments.... Title VII protects even those religions which do not require strict adherence to a written catechism....

The court, however, affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's racial discrimination claim, saying in part:

Essity has proffered a nondiscriminatory reason for its differential treatment of Wilkins-Bailey and her posited white comparators: it viewed their requests as stating “religious” reasons, while Wilkins-Bailey’s stated “secular” reasons....  For the purposes of a race discrimination claim, that differentiation is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason....

Judge Floyd dissented as to the religious discrimination claim, saying in part: 

I would ... require a plaintiff bringing a religious accommodation claim to put forward more than a mere scintilla of evidence to factually support the conclusion that her belief is connected with her refusal to comply with an employment requirement....

Wilkins-Bailey has not presented the court with a record that could allow a jury to find that her refusal to receive the vaccine is connected to her religious beliefs....

In practice, the majority’s low evidentiary bar would allow any plaintiff who brings a religious discrimination claim to reach a jury so long as they testify that their personal decisions are cloaked in religiosity.  This is improper at summary judgment stage....  Under the majority’s reasoning, an employee who obliquely references Psalm 127:2 ... (“In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat—for he grants sleep to those he loves.”) to refuse to work before noon creates a jury question as to whether the company religiously discriminates when it declines to accommodate that employee’s schedule....

... Wilkins-Bailey prays and then reaches a personal decision, and she concedes that she is not obliged by her religion to come to a particular conclusion.  Her belief that her religion vests her with the ability to make that personal decision is one step removed from her ultimate decision.  Indeed, Wilkins-Bailey “concedes that none of her religious beliefs requires [sic] her to object to the COVID-19 vaccine.”...

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Sues for Recognition as Student Organization

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by a Christian student organization at Broome Community College that is part of the State University of New York system. The group was denied recognition as an official student organization because its proposed constitution requires all student leaders of the organization to affirm its Statement of Faith. The school says that this religious leadership requirement violates the school's non-discrimination policy. The complaint (full text) in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. SUNY Broome Community College, (ND NY, filed 8/21/2026), alleges in part:

... [I]n over 150 years of precedent, the Supreme Court has emphasized that religious organizations have the right “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”... SUNY Broome’s actions here not only interfere but also seek to control a core component of InterVarsity’s governance, faith, and doctrine....

... [I]n the past decade, the Supreme Court has warned governments three times that they cannot deny religious organizations access to benefits because of their religious beliefs....

In 14 counts, the complaint alleges violation of the free exercise, free speech and equal protection provisions of the U.S. and New York constitutions as well as violation of New York's Human Rights Law. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship also filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and a Memorandum of Law supporting that motion.

Becket Fund has issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Misrepresentation Suit Against LDS Church Was Filed After Statute of Limitations Had Run

In In re: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Tithing Litigation, (10th Cir., Aug. 31, 2026), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a class action lawsuit claiming misrepresentations regarding the use of funds donated to the LDS Church was filed after the statute of limitations had run. Church investment of some donated funds ran counter to the Church's public statements that contributions were promptly used for charitable purposes, and counter to its representations that it was not using tithes to pay for developing a mall in order to revitalize an area near the Church’s Temple Square.

If plaintiffs should have learned of the Church's misrepresentations before October 2020, their October 2023 lawsuit would be untimely. At issue is whether a whistleblower's report that was covered in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Forbes, Fox News and CNN would have caused a reasonable person to investigate. The court said in part:

... [W]e emphasize that it is incorrect to say, as Plaintiffs do, that our holding means that “ordinary donors to a charity are legally obliged to read the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post to ensure that their donations are being honestly and legally used.”... We merely affirm the well-recognized principle that a plaintiff can be charged with knowledge of events that are so widely reported that a plaintiff exercising reasonable diligence should have learned of them.

Compliance With Building Code Does Not Impose Substantial Burden on Plaintiff's Religious Exercise

In Hadez v. City of Springfield, Illinois, (CD IL, Aug. 28, 2026), a state trial court had ordered plaintiff to cease residing in structures on his property that inspectors found to be unsafe and in violation of the city's Building Code. The structures lack toilets, a sewage system, running water and smoke alarms. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction from an Illinois federal district court granting him emergency occupancy of his property. He argues that the city's land use regulations impose a substantial burden on his religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. According to the court:

Plaintiff claims he is an adherent of the Celestican Church of Christ and holds sincere religious beliefs that require him "to live off-grid in a faith-based tiny-home or POD structure on real property that he owns or controls.".... Plaintiff states that Scripture teaches him Jesus was a carpenter and he acquired the vacant lot at 1705 E. Carpenter Street as an "intentional act of religious exercise and devotion." ... Plaintiff is allegedly homeless due to the state court injunction and order.

Rejecting plaintiff's petition, the court said in part: 

... [T]he City's Zoning and Building Codes are facially neutral ordinances that pertain to public safety, welfare, and the single family nature of the residence. The ordinance does not treat Plaintiff's exercise of his religion differently from any other activity that he might do in his home.... The City is not simply prohibiting Plaintiff from exercising his faith at the property. It is prohibiting him from doing anything at the property while residing there based on health and safety concerns. If Plaintiff's home was built in compliance with the City's Codes, the City would not be seeking to enjoin Plaintiff from living on the property and Plaintiff could practice his religion at his home. Plaintiff has not shown how a structure that meets the City's Code would substantially burden his religious practice. The fact that he might incur significant costs in bringing his property up to code is not enough to show that the regulation imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiff's religious exercise.

Idaho's Abortion Ban Is Found to Be Too Broad; Court Expands Exceptions

In Seyb v. Members of the Idaho Board of Medicine, (D ID, August 13, 2026), decided three weeks ago, an Idaho federal district court in an 81-page opinion held that portions of Idaho's abortion law that impose a nearly total ban on abortions are unconstitutional. The court said in part:

...  [This case] is not an attempt to relitigate Dobbs....  Rather, it is about a pregnant woman’s ability to seek necessary obstetric care under the most difficult and tragic circumstances. It is about whether the state may pick and choose which life-threatening conditions can justify an abortion.... [T]he Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment establish a narrow but fundamental right to abortion when a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health....

...  Idaho’s failure to permit a health-of-the-mother exception to the abortion ban represents an outlier position that contravenes basic principles of our constitutional order....  By banning health preserving abortion, Idaho attempts to deny this fundamental right on the basis that the threat of harm comes from a fetus, which depends on the woman for survival. But a pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim....

The Court thus holds that the right to a health-preserving abortion is one of the liberties guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. Idaho may not criminalize abortions deemed medically necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or prevent serious and long-term impairments to her health unless the restriction is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. A blanket ban on health-preserving abortions is not narrowly tailored.

... Idaho also may not criminalize abortions that are necessary to prevent the death of the woman from self-harm. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restricts states’ authority to privilege or disadvantage different classes of citizens..... The brain is an organ of the body, and healthcare providers use empirical tools to reliably assess the risk of suicidality and the most effective treatments. It is an affront to human dignity to bar pregnant women from receiving life-saving care on the basis that the threat comes from a mental health condition rather than a physical health condition.

The final question concerns Idaho’s ban on abortion when the fetus will die shortly after birth and for high-order pregnancies where the termination of one fetus increases the chance that the others will survive.... [F]or women without an elevated health risk, no fundamental right is at stake. Under these circumstances, the state remains free to prohibit abortion as long as the restriction is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Here, Idaho’s policy forces women to remain pregnant for weeks or months knowing that the outcome will be to watch their child die, often within minutes of birth. Nonetheless, the law is rationally related to the state’s interests in, for example, preventing abortions based on mistaken fetal diagnoses and affirming the dignity of people with profound disabilities. This aspect of Idaho’s abortion ban passes constitutional muster....

The Lawyering Project issued a press release announcing the decision and has posted links to all the pleadings in the case.

Immediately, the Idaho Attorney General announced that he would be appealing the case and sought an emergency stay of the injunction, pending appeal. In an August 25 decision, the district court narrowed the injunction to ban enforcement only against the plaintiff in the case while the appeal is pending, rather than more broadly against all doctors. KTVB News reports on these developments.

On August 26, Idaho's Attorney General filed an emergency motion and a memorandum in support of it asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the district court's injunction while an appeal is pending. Zeale News reports on this filing.

Court Says No "Substantial Burden" On Religion When Impacted Belief Is Not Central to Plaintiff's Religion

 In John v. Aviles-Ramos, (ED NY, Aug. 27, 2026), a New York federal district court rejected claims by a former special education teacher that his former colleagues and supervisors discriminated against him because he was a Jehovah's Witness and placed a substantial burden on his practice of his religion. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

This claim is based on three alleged instances of misconduct.  First, that he was forced to sing “happy birthday” during school birthday celebrations; second, that he was required to bring his students to a school Christmas party; and third, that he was asked to take down a “God is love” sign....  Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Defendants imposed any policy targeting his religion, and none of the alleged incidents of misconduct rises to the level of a violation of his right to free exercise of his religion....

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not shown that the alleged incidents of misconduct resulted from non-neutral policies.... The Complaint does not allege any facts suggesting that the school’s policies surrounding the birthday parties, the Christmas celebration, or the affixing of religious signs were created specifically to target Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

In any event, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the incidents he describes substantially burdened his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs.  The determinative question in assessing whether an action imposes a substantial burden “is whether participation in the [event] . . . is considered central or important to [the plaintiff’s] practice of [his religion].” Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 593–94 (2d Cir. 2003). “A burden on religious exercise is not substantial when it ‘comfortably could be said that a belief or practice is so peripheral to the plaintiff’s religion that any burden can be aptly characterized as constitutionally de minimis.’”  ...

... Though Plaintiff does not celebrate birthdays due to his religious beliefs, ... there is no basis for his claims that being instructed to sing “happy birthday” at a student’s birthday celebration ... would meaningfully burden his ability to practice as a Jehovah’s Witness.

Plaintiff next alleges that Granger informed him “that he would have to bring the kids to the room” for a Christmas party, and that he “was told there were no exceptions.” ... [A] requirement to merely escort students to a school Christmas party — but without requiring him to actually participate in the celebrations at that party — is not a substantial burden protected by the Free Exercise Clause....

Finally, Plaintiff claims that he was told to take down a sign he had “put up” reading “God is love.” ...  However, it is well established that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired.” ...

The court also held that plaintiff failed to allege adequate facts to support his disparate treatment and failure to accommodate claims.

Suit Challenges New Jersey School Policy on Social Transitioning

Suit was filed last week in a New Jersey federal district court challenging a school board's policy on dealing with students who seek social gender transition. The school policy provides in part:

Once a student notifies a school official that s/he would like to be referred to by a different pronoun or name, or requests to use the facilities associated with a different gender, his/her school counselor will meet with the student to confidentially discuss the request. During such meeting, the school counselor will also assess the student’s parent/guardian’s knowledge, if any, of the student’s request. If the student’s parent/guardian is not aware of the request, the school counselor will assess whether, and to what extent, parents/guardians can be involved….

The complaint (full text) in Moms for Liberty v. School District of Chathams Board of Education, (D NJ, filed 8/24/2026) contends that this policy violates recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The complaint contends in part:

Parents A and B are practicing Christians who sincerely believe that God created only two genders, male and female....  As Christians, they believe it would be morally wrong to deny one’s God-given status as male or female and purport to be the opposite gender. They also believe that no public school has any right to interfere with the moral and religious formation of their children contrary to their religious beliefs against what they view as the immoral ideology of “transgenderism.”...

These provisions ... further violate the parental rights of Parents A and B by allowing the District to change a student’s name and “gender identity” without parental consent and then allowing the “transitioning” student to live an entire double life at school hidden from his or her parents, solely at the student’s request as affirmed by a school counselor who has no right to interfere in the student’s moral and religious development or to handle the obvious psychological issues involved in a student’s professed gender dysphoria....

Parents A and B have counseled Students C and D to adhere to their Christian beliefs by refusing to pretend that a fellow student has changed his or her gender and must now be referred to by a different name and/or different pronouns that do not correspond to the reality of that student’s God-given gender of male or female.  

Students C and D wish to speak what they believe is the truth of this matter in all its aspects without fear of punishment, both in school and away from school grounds...; For example, they would refuse to say that Tommy is now Sally or that he is now to be referred to as “they” as this would involve uttering what they believe to be lies that contradict their own religious and moral beliefs....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Joshua McDaniel, Courts and Commanders: Regulating Religious Freedom in the Military, (August 24, 2026).
• John M. Breen & Lee J. Strang, Jesuit Identity in American Legal Education: An Historical Examen, (July 23, 2026).
• Jon D. Michaels & Mathew Segal, Misdiagnosing Anti-Jewish Animus: How the Judiciary's Approach to Anti-Zionism Risks Distorting the First Amendment, Excusing Antisemitism, and Imperiling All Civil Rights, (Forthcoming, 48 Cardozo Law Review __ (2027)).
• L. Joe Dunman, Ignoring Religious Sincerity, (August 05, 2026).
• L. Joe Dunman, Mahmoud v. Taylor's Unanswered Questions, (August 26, 2026).
• Michael L. Selmi, Discounting Discrimination:  Title VII's Damage Caps, (Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Paper No. 7351259 (August 27, 2026).
• Brendan Conner, Self-Misgendering Mandates and the First Amendment Official Duty Doctrine, (Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Forum, Vol. 62, pp. 1–59 (2026)).

From SSRN (Abortion Issues):

• Richard T. Stith, An Abortion Option Can Make Women More Vulnerable to Exploitation and Abandonment, (August 26, 2026).
• Paul Benjamin Linton, Are Physicians at Risk for Performing Abortions Permitted Under Exceptions to State Laws Prohibiting Abortion? What The Record Shows, (February 28, 2025).
• B. Jessie Hill, The Reemergence of Religious Freedom Arguments in Abortion Rights Litigation, (26(1) Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy 101 (2026)).

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

• Hein Htet Kyaw, Heretics of the Saffron State: The Rise and Suppression of Sky-Blue Buddhism in Myanmar, (August 24, 2026).
• Yaoharee Lahtee When Interpretation Hardens Epistemic Authority, Asymmetric Revisability, and Conflict in Muslim Knowledge Regimes, (August 27, 2026).
• Liaqat Ali Khoso, Sources of Islamic Law, (August 23, 2026).