President Trump Creates Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias (full text). The Order establishes within the Justice Department a temporary Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Chrisian Bias chaired by the Attorney General and made up of 16 other Cabinet level and high-ranking Administration officials. The Executive Order sets out at length the reasons for creating the Task Force, saying in part:

... [T]he United States Constitution enshrines the fundamental right to religious liberty in the First Amendment....

Yet the previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.  The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities....

At the same time, Catholic churches, charities, and pro-life centers sought justice for violence, theft, and arson perpetrated against them, which the Biden Department of Justice largely ignored. ...

... [A] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) memorandum asserted that “radical-traditionalist” Catholics were domestic-terrorism threats and suggested infiltrating Catholic churches as “threat mitigation.”  This later-retracted FBI memorandum cited as support evidence propaganda from highly partisan sources.

  The Biden Department of Education sought to repeal religious-liberty protections for faith-based organizations on college campuses.  The Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sought to force Christians to affirm radical transgender ideology against their faith.  And the Biden Department of Health and Human Services sought to drive Christians who do not conform to certain beliefs on sexual orientation and gender identity out of the foster-care system....

 My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government....

Also yesterday, President Trump spoke for 24-minutes (full text of Remarks) at the National Prayer Breakfast held in the U.S. Capitol

Title VI Does Not Cover Protected Speech, But Antisemitic Actions at Cooper Union Went Beyond Speech

In Gartenberg v. The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, (SD NY, Feb. 5, 2025), a New York federal district court held that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act must be applied consistent with the 1st Amendment, even as to private schools. In the case, a group of Jewish students asserted a claim for deliberate indifference to national-origin harassment under Title VI growing out of on-campus incidents after the Gaza-Israel conflict began. The court said in part:

First, speech “on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community,” will generally fail to “constitute unlawful harassment.” ...

[C]onstruing Title VI not to reach instances of pure speech on matters of public concern, or an institution’s failure to censor or punish the same, does not mean that such expression is irrelevant to determining whether actionable harassment occurred.  To make out a hostile environment claim, a plaintiff must plead (and then prove) not only that they suffered objectively severe or pervasive harassment, but that the harassment was motivated, at least in part, by a protected characteristic....

Cooper Union’s first line of defense is that none of the speech or conduct identified in Gartenberg’s Complaint was motivated by animus towards Jews, but was instead mere “criticism[] of Israel and/or its policies” and a “show[] of solidarity for the Palestinian cause.”... Gartenberg, by contrast, maintains that Zionism and support for Israel are “an integral part of the national origin and identity of many Jews,” and that Jews’ “belief in Israel as their ancestral national homeland is fundamental to their Jewish identity.” ...

... [T]his case can be resolved without opining on whether conduct or speech hostile to Zionism, itself a term subject to a considerable variety of interpretations, is necessarily antisemitic....

... That the demonstrators at Cooper Union generally avoided the use of overtly antisemitic language and symbols is ... not dispositive. Here, Gartenberg’s Complaint is replete with words and phrases that she alleges are thinly veiled “code words” designed to “activate conscious or subconscious [antisemitic] concepts and frames.”...  On October 25, 2023, for instance, pro-Palestinian students at Cooper Union chanted slogans like “[l]ong live the intifada,” “[r]esistance is justified,” and “[i]t is right to rebel.” ...  Although the parties offer competing interpretations of these slogans, when uttered just two weeks after the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust in a manner that reasonably appears to celebrate and glorify that same violence, the Court agrees that such phrases support at least a plausible inference of animus towards Jews....

Regardless of whether this expression is better characterized as righteous protest in support of a noble cause, as the vulgar celebration of terrorism and antisemitism, or as something in between, it is not a proper basis on which to impose civil liability on Cooper Union....

Gartenberg’s allegations, however, go beyond identifying instances of pure political speech.  Although the October 25 demonstration began as a peaceful, public protest concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gartenberg alleges that after a couple hours a mob of protestors forced their way past campus security guards and into the Foundation Building....  

Once inside, the protestors obstructed the hallway and disrupted classes while apparently attempting to locate President Sparks.,,, Unable to find her, the protesters then “descended on the hallway surrounding the library” while continuing to chant their slogans...

It is plausible that this incident was physically threatening or humiliating to the Jewish students huddled inside the library.  The demonstrators “attempted to enter the library, banging on and rattling the locked library doors and shouting ‘let us in!’”...

The Court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI.  These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be.  In sum, the physically threatening or humiliating conduct that the Complaint alleges Jewish students in the library experienced “is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause,....

JNS reports on the court's decision.

Australia Strengthens Hate Crime Laws In Face of Rising Antisemitism

Yesterday, Australia's Parliament gave final passage to Amendments to Australia's Hate Crimes Law. (Full text of law.) (Full text of Explanatory Memorandum.) The law is intended to strengthen Australia's efforts to combat hate crimes, particularly in the face of rising incidents of antisemitism in the country. As summarized by BBC:

The new laws were passed following a wave of high-profile antisemitic attacks which have become a major topic of debate in the country.

The amendments have been described by the government as the "toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes".

But critics say that the governing Labor Party is caving to opposition demands and going against its own policy of opposing mandatory jail sentences.

Under the amendments, displaying hate symbols or performing a Nazi salute is now punishable with at least one year in prison.

Other penalties include a minimum of three years for financing terrorism and six years for committing or planning terrorist acts.

U.S. Withdraws from UN Human Rights Council

On Tuesday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council and ordering a review of the United States membership in UNESCO. The United States currently holds a seat on the Human Rights Council. The Executive Order provides in part:

The United States helped found the United Nations (UN) after World War II to prevent future global conflicts and promote international peace and security.  But some of the UN’s agencies and bodies have drifted from this mission and instead act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism.....

Three UN organizations that deserve renewed scrutiny are the UNHRC; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)....

The United States will not participate in the UNHRC and will not seek election to that body.  The Secretary shall terminate the office of United States Representative to the UNHRC and any positions primarily dedicated to supporting the United States Representative to the UNHRC.

... The United States will also conduct a review of its membership in UNESCO....  In particular, the review will include an analysis of any anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization.

VP Vance Speaks to International Religious Freedom Summit

Vice President JD Vance yesterday delivered a 1 hour and 49-minute address to the 2025 International Religious Freedom Summit at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C.  (Video of full remarks.) He said in part:

I'm here this morning in part to reflect not only on the words of our Founders, but especially on those of their intellectual forebears, the Church fathers of classical Christianity to which we owe the very notion of religious liberty. And I know we have people of every faith here, but it is, I think, a conceit of modern society that religious liberty is a liberal concept. But we know that religious freedom flows from concepts central to the Christian faith, in particular the free will of human beings and the essential dignity of all peoples. We find its foundational tenets in the Gospels themselves with Christ's famous instructions to render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's....

Our Administration believes we must stand for religious freedom not just as a legal principle, as important as that is, but as a lived reality both within our own borders and especially outside of it. In recent years too often has our Nation's international engagement on religious liberty issues been corrupted and distorted to the point of absurdity. Think about this. How did America get to the point where we're sending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars abroad to NGO's that are dedicated to spreading atheism all over the globe.

Catholic News Agency and Religion News Service reported on his remarks.

University Did Not Violate Constitution by Permitting Anti-Zionist Encampment

In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, (ED CA, Feb. 4, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis participated in the denial of plaintiff's constitutional rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to continue even though it violated University rules on camping and obtaining permits. Plaintiff who is Jewish and identifies as a Zionist was blocked by the encampment from walking through the campus. He was told that Zionists are not welcome and was struck by an umbrella. Rejecting plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of establishing even a causal connection between defendants’ actions and plaintiff’s exclusion from the encampment, let alone that defendants acted with discriminatory intent.... Nor does plaintiff allege any facts suggesting that the university treated Jewish individuals differently than the encampment participants; there is no indication that Jewish individuals sought to establish an encampment, or that if they had, the university would have rebuffed them or prevented them from engaging in comparable treatment of pro-Palestinian protestors....

Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants “deprived [him] of the right to express his Jewish identity freely” by “allowing the encampment to thwart religious dialog[ue]” in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....  It is not possible to draw a plausible inference that defendants’ actions (or inactions) had the effect of favoring or disfavoring any religion or burdening plaintiff’s religious exercise....

The court also concluded that defendants had qualified immunity. Plaintiff's claim under Title VI was dismissed for lack of standing because he was not connected with any University program that received federal funding. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's Americans With Disabilities Act claim. While plaintiff had a mobility issue, the fact "that a single path preferred by plaintiff was not accessible does not plead a violation of Title II of the ADA."

Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Retroactive Elimination of Limitation Period for Child Sex Abuse Claims

In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe, (MD Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2025), the Maryland Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision upheld the retroactive elimination of the limitation period for bringing child sexual abuse suits.  The majority said in part:

In 2017, the General Assembly enacted legislation that, among other things, established a new time restriction applicable to filing child sexual abuse claims.  The new provision stated that “[i]n no event” may a civil action for child sexual abuse be filed against a defendant not alleged to have been the perpetrator of the abuse “more than 20 years after the date on which the victim reaches the age of majority.”...  

In 2023, the General Assembly enacted the Child Victims Act of 2023.  That law eliminated all time restrictions applicable to child sexual abuse claims, including the new provision that had been added in 2017....

We hold that the relevant provision of the 2017 law created a statute of limitations and that the running of a statute of limitations does not establish a vested right to be free from liability from the underlying cause of action.  We further hold that it was within the power of the General Assembly to retroactively abrogate that statute of limitations.  The Child Victims Act of 2023 is therefore constitutional as applied to the defendants in the three cases before us. 

Justice Biran, joined by Justices Eaves and McDonald, filed a dissenting opinion which said in part:

The text of the 2017 Act is unambiguous. In that legislation, the General Assembly created a statute of repose with respect to claims against non-perpetrator defendants. Thus, any claims against non-perpetrator defendants that were untimely on the effective date of the 2017 Act, or that became untimely before the effective date of the 2023 Act, could not be revived without violating the vested rights of the affected defendants. To the extent the General Assembly retroactively repealed the 2017 Act’s statute of repose by enacting the 2023 Act, it violated Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Article 3, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution.

Justice McDonald also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Biran and Eaves. 

Teacher Sues After Suspension for Hanging Crucifix in Her Classroom Workspace

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a public-school teacher who was placed on administrative leave after she refused to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The complaint (full text) in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, filed 1/30/2025) alleges in part:

Federal and state law prohibit government officials from using the Establishment Clause as an excuse to abridge the free speech and religious free exercise rights of their employees.... Other teachers, meanwhile, display in their classroom workspaces Wonder Woman action figures, images of Baby Yoda and Santa Claus, and other personal expressive items.  Yet only Ms. Castro has been suspended and threatened with termination.  The disparity of treatment here against religious expression makes this an easy case...: if Defendants permit teachers to display personal expressive items like family photos and inspirational quotes in their classrooms, they may not punish Ms. Castro for doing the same by hanging a crucifix in the personal workspace aside her desk.

National Review reports on the lawsuit.

Requirement for Church to Obtain Permit Before Hosting Homeless Encampment Is Upheld

In Miller v. City of Burien, (WD WA, Feb. 3, 2025), a Washington federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Methodist church challenging the city's requirement that the church apply for and obtain a temporary use permit before it could host a homeless encampment on its property. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that requiring a permit violated its rights under RLUIPA as well as its free speech and free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The parties concede that caring for unhoused individuals is an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RLUIPA. However, the parties dispute whether requiring the Church to apply for a temporary use permit before it is allowed to host a homeless encampment constitutes “imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise” under the statute. It is important to note that this is not a denial of application case; rather, the question here is whether the City can require the Church to submit a permit application.... 

Here, the Church did not apply for a permit, the City did not deny the permit application, and the City did not deny the Church’s the right to host a homeless encampment—indeed, the City supported the Church’s endeavor. However, the City did require that the Church fill out a simple two-page application so that the City could ensure that the health and safety of the neighborhood residents, as well as the encampment occupants, was accounted for. Such minimum inconvenience does not constitute a substantial burden on the Church for purposes of RLUIPA. ...

 ... [T]he Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulation impacts speech. As such, its prior restraint facial challenge fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed....

... [Z]oning laws that permit some individualized assessment for variances remain “generally applicable” so long as the laws are motivated by secular purposes and impact equally all landowners seeking the variances. That, of course, is the case here. No landowner—secular or religious—is permitted to host a homeless encampment within a multi-family zone without a permit.... Nor has the Church alleged that Burien’s regulatory scheme is religiously motivated.... Therefore, because the Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulatory scheme was not neutral and not generally applicable, it has failed to state a free exercise claim under the First Amendment.

Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Is Upheld

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (WD MI, Jan. 28, 2025), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement against counselors employed by Catholic Charities of Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to prove that the ban violates their free speech or free exercise rights, or that is void for vagueness.  The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they believe that “when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live” ...

The law is not subject to any form of heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment because the conduct regulated by the law is not merely “tied to a [medical] procedure,” ..., but consists solely of the administration of the procedure or treatment itself.... 

... In passing the new law, Michigan legislators found that treating children with conversion therapy fell below prevailing standards of care, and Michigan legislators targeted the specific and devastating harms to children that result from conversion therapy, including dramatically increased risks of depression and suicide....

Plaintiffs are not likely to establish the Free Speech violations alleged in Counts I through III....

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Plaintiffs have plausibly demonstrated that Michigan’s law burdens the free exercise of religion, a law that burdens religious exercise is presumptively unconstitutional unless it is both neutral and generally applicable....

Michigan’s new law readily passes this test of facial neutrality.... There is no reference to religion nor any use of words with religious connotations. Michigan’s law prohibits all conversion therapy on minors, regardless of whether the minor’s (or the minor’s parent’s) motivation for seeking such therapy is religious or secular, or some variation....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Michigan’s law was enacted with “official expressions of hostility to this well-known religious practice” ....  However, ... the comments Plaintiffs highlight do not necessarily demonstrate hostility to religion, only criticisms of conversion therapy.

News from the States reports on the decision.

Military Ends Travel Reimbursements to Service Members and Dependents for Out-of-State Abortions

In a January 29 Memorandum (full text), the Department of Defense removed the section of the military's Joint Travel Regulations that permit travel and transportation allowances for service members and their dependents to obtain abortions and other reproductive health care when it is not lawfully available in the local area where they are stationed. The travel allowance policy was announced in 2023. (See prior posting.) The policy was removed in accordance with President Trump's Executive Order, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment. (See prior posting.) The Hill reports on these developments.

Justice Department Announces Multi-Agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism

In a press release yesterday, the Department of Justice announced the formation of a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. According to the Release:

The Task Force’s first priority will be to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.

In addition to the Department of Justice, the Task Force will include representatives from the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies as it develops. The Task Force will be coordinated through the Department’s Civil Rights Division.

9th Circuit En Banc Affirms Dismissal of James Huntsman's Fraud Claims Against LDS Church

In Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (9th Cir., Jan. 31, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a fraud claim brought by James Huntsman, a prominent former member of and large contributor to the LDS Church.  Huntsman charged the Church with fraudulently misrepresenting the manner in which funds from tithes would be used, saying that that the Church falsely represented that the funds would not be used for commercial projects. The en banc court said in part:

No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project.  Although the Church stated that no tithing funds would be used to fund City Creek, it also clarified that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used....

Huntsman’s claim with respect to the $600 million allegedly transferred to Beneficial Life also fails.  Huntsman does not identify any specific statements made by the Church about the source of funds for Beneficial Life....

Because nothing in our analysis of Huntsman’s fraud claims delves into matters of Church doctrine or policy, our decision in this case does not run afoul of the church autonomy doctrine.

Judge Bress, joined by Judges Smith and Nguyen and in part by Judge Vandyke, concurred in the judgment saying in part:

... [W]e should not indulge in the illusion that this is merely a secular lawsuit about civil fraud.  Under the First Amendment, the plaintiff’s challenge to the Church’s understanding of tithing is not susceptible to resolution in a court of law, lest the judiciary wrest control from religious authorities over matters of theological concern.  

It would have been straightforward and preferable for the court to recognize that plaintiff’s unprecedented theory encounters overwhelming First Amendment impediments.  While every judge on this panel agrees that the plaintiff’s claims fail, I write separately to explain why a suit like this could never succeed under the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine. 

Judge Bumatay filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, saying in part:

In deciding religious matters, the Constitution strictly limits our authority.  Simply put, the church autonomy doctrine bars federal courts from resolving matters of faith, doctrine, and church governance.  So we can’t just sidestep the doctrine and jump straight to the merits.  Nor can the doctrine be assumed away, considered an afterthought, or serve as a convenient alternative ruling.  Rather, it’s a threshold structural bar that must be reckoned with.  Otherwise, we violate the restraints the Constitution places on our power.

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Window for Bringing Time-Barred Child Sex Abuse Claims That Were Not Previously Adjudicated

The North Carolina Supreme Court last week decided four cases raising the constitutionality and reach of the SAFE Child Act. In McKinney v. Goins, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld against attacks under the state constitution a provision that created a two-year window during which victims of child sexual abuse could bring tort claims that were previously barred by existing statutes of limitation. The Court held that neither the "Law of the Land" Clause not the Ex Post Facto Clause of the North Carolina Constitution bar the challenged provision. The Court also rejected a substantive due process claim. Justice Earls filed an opinion concurring in the result but strongly disagreeing with the majority's method of constitutional interpretation which he labels "extreme originalism".

In Cohane v. Home Missioners of America, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan 31, 2025), the Court held that the SAFE Child Act revived suits against those who enabled the abuse, as well as against the abusers. The Court said in part:

The issue here is whether the General Assembly meant to distinguish between abusers who personally harmed the plaintiff and those organizations, institutions, and parties that employed or supervised the abuser or otherwise condoned, ratified, or facilitated the abuse (enablers). Defendants would have us hold not only that the revival provision distinguished between the two types of potential defendants but also that it authorized suits against abusers and not against enablers, in contravention of background tort law principles. We conclude that such a distinction does not follow from the plain text of the provision, nor does it find support in the SAFE Child Act or related statutory provisions read as a whole.

However, in two cases consolidated for decision, John Doe 1K v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and John Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2025), the Court said in part:

Plaintiffs in this case are alleged victims of child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. The SAFE Child Act would have revived plaintiffs’ time-barred claims except for one glaring problem— plaintiffs already brought those claims over a decade ago and courts already entered final judgments dismissing those claims with prejudice because they were time barred. 

... [T]he General Assembly does not have the power to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch.

AP reports on the decisions. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Louisiana Grand Jury Indicts NY Doctor For Sending Abortion Medication to Purchaser in Lousiana

Louisiana Illuminator reports that last Friday a Baton Rouge, Louisiana grand jury indicted a New York doctor and her New York clinic for sending abortion pills into Louisiana in violation of a Louisiana statute enacted in 2022. This is the first criminal indictment of this kind since the overruling of Roe v. Wade. The abortion medication was ordered by a pregnant minor's mother who allegedly coerced her daughter into taking the pills. The mother has also been indicted in Louisiana. New York has a shield law designed to protect New York physicians from prosecution by other states for violation of their abortion laws.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Maria Javed & Varun Sharma, Courts Shaping Religion: Moving Beyond the Essential Religious Practices Test, (August 01, 2024).
• Ekaterina Ryzhkova, The Institute of Public Finance in the Legal Tradition of the Arab East, (November 06, 2024).
• Robert Watson, Applying Bostock: The Queer Case Against Public Single-Sex Schooling, (Journal of Law & Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, Fall 2022).
• Robert Watson, A New Sex Education: The Title IX Defense Against “Don’t Say Gay”, (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 57:403 (2023)).
• Robert Watson & Neha Srinivasan, Under (Conduct-Based) Attack: Rejecting the Trans Care Bans, (August 01, 2024).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Transgender Disenfranchisement, (102 Washington University Law Review (forthcoming 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mihir Khetarpal, Permissive Exemptions and Entrenchment. 85 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 27-80 (2023).

ED "Dear Colleague" Letter Says Agency Will Not Enforce 2024 Rule Protecting Transgender Rights

Yesterday, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) to educators informing them that the Office of Civil Rights will enforce a 2020 version of Rules under Title IX governing responses to allegation of sexual harassment. Consistent with an Executive Order issued by President Trump mandating the removal of all rules and policies protecting transgender individuals, the letter rejects the version of Title IX rules adopted in 2024 by the Biden administration. Last month, a Kentucky federal district court invalidated the 2024 Title IX rules saying that they exceed the agency's authority, are vague and overbroad, and violate teachers' freedom of expression. (See prior posting.)

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Township Over Sewage Restrictions on Amish Residents

 In a press release yesterday the Justice Department announced that it has reached a settlement agreement (full text of proposed Consent Order) with Sugar Grove, Pennsylvania Township and its Sewage Authority in a RLUIPA lawsuit. The suit claims that defendants have burdened the religious exercise of Old Order Amish residents by requiring that they connect to the municipal sewage system and by barring privies on private property intended for permanent residences. According to the press release:

As part of the consent order, the Township and SUGASA will exempt certain Old Order Amish households from mandatory connection to the municipal sewage system, permit Old Order Amish residents to use privies on their private properties, and forgive any outstanding liens, fines, or other monetary penalties against Old Order Amish households for prior noncompliance with the two ordinances. The consent order also requires the Township and SUGASA to train its officials and employees on RLUIPA’s provisions, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints, and provide reports to the United States.

The consent order must still be approved by the court.

Court Refuses to Enjoin Colorado's Reporting Requirements for Health Care Sharing Ministries

In Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (D CO, Jan. 13, 2025), a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. The court said in part:

The Alliance has not made a showing—strong or otherwise—that it is likely to succeed on the merits of any of its claims.  First, the Alliance has not demonstrated that the Reporting Law is not neutral or generally applicable, or that it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  Accordingly, the Alliance has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free exercise claim.  Second, generally applicable administrative and recordkeeping regulations like the Reporting Law do not violate the Establishment Clause.  The Alliance is therefore unlikely to succeed on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim.  Third, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law’s requirement that the Alliance’s members disclose certain third-party vendors poses any risk of chilling the Alliance’s members’ First Amendment associational rights.  Thus, the Alliance’s challenge to the Reporting Law on freedom-of-association grounds is unlikely to succeed.  Fourth and finally, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law—in compelling the Alliance’s members divulge their marketing materials and to report factually accurate operations data—violates the Alliance’s members’ free speech rights.  The Alliance therefore has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free speech claim.

In a motion filed Jan. 28 (full text), plaintiff seeks an injunction pending appeal.