Religion Clause

Monday, July 27, 2026

Maryland Supreme Court: Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Eviction of Defrocked Bishop From Parsonage

In Eritrean Orthodox Tweahdo Diocese of USA and Canada v. Sinoda, (MD Sup. Ct., July 23, 2026), the Maryland Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply to a wrongful detainer action by a church seeking to evict a defrocked bishop from a church parsonage. The court said in part:

Respondent contends that the removal of Patriarch Antonios by the Eritrean government was invalid. As a result, Respondent argues, the existing “government-controlled” Synod was organized in violation of the Bylaws. Due to its illegitimacy, Respondent claims, the Synod lacked proper authority to defrock him as Bishop. Consequently, he was not properly removed from the Board, and the Board’s subsequent decision to remove him from the Property – made without him present – was illegitimate. According to Respondent, he remains the true Bishop in control of the Corporation, with a possessory right to occupy the Property that serves as a parsonage for the current bishop. Respondent contends that, in order to decide whether or not he has a right to possess the Property, a Maryland court would need to decide a question of religious doctrine....

To resolve this case, it is not necessary to decide whether the Synod is legitimate or whether the decisions to defrock Respondent and to remove him from the Corporation’s Board are doctrinally proper. The crux of Respondent’s argument for his possessory interest in the Property is his position as Bishop....

However, the record lacks any evidence that there is any legal right for the Bishop of the United States and Canada to possess the Property. The Church’s Bylaws are silent concerning the provision of a parsonage to any bishop. The deed to the Property mentions nothing about who will occupy the premises. It is undisputed that no lease provides for Respondent to occupy the Property for as long as he serves as Bishop (or for any other period of time). There is no evidence of any other contract – such as an employment agreement – under which the Church or the Corporation agrees to provide the Property for use as a parsonage to the Bishop of the United States and Canada. Lastly, the Maryland Religious Corporation Law is silent on any such property right conditioned on the employment of a clergyperson....

The lower courts erred in invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. That doctrine has no application to this case because Respondent’s right to possess the Property does not turn on whether he is the Church’s rightful Bishop of the United States and Canada. Applying neutral principles of Maryland property law to the undisputed facts of this case, we conclude that Respondent was a licensee with respect to the Property and that the Corporation has revoked Respondent’s license to reside at the Property....

9th Circuit: Employee Adequately Alleged Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Weiss v. The Permanente Group, (9th Cir., July 24, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a California federal district court's dismissal of Title VII and California state law claims alleging that plaintiff's employer failed to accommodate plaintiff's religious objections to the Covid vaccine mandate after initially approving her request. The court said in part:

... TPMG notified Weiss that, due to its findings and concerns about a pattern of insincere religious exemption requests among its employees, it would be conducting additional review of all previously approved exemptions...

Weiss plausibly alleged that she provided notice of her religious conflict with the Mandate in her initial request for a religious exemption. She identified herself to TPMG management as “a Christian Jew” and described specific religious doctrines that she asserted prohibited her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. These doctrines included the Torah’s prohibition against “accepting foreign material into our bodies,” Deuteronomy’s counsel against “needle wounds except for direct curative benefit,” and the professed requirement under Jewish law to “maintain [one’s] body and blood uncontaminated.” She also stated that receiving a COVID=19 vaccine would be contrary to her belief that she should not “introduce foreign substances into [her] body temple that change how [her] Creator designed it.”...

Weiss acknowledged that she had previously received vaccinations, and she explained that her present concern arose not because the COVID-19 vaccine was different, but because her religious commitment had changed....

Judge Paez filed two unpublished partial dissenting opinions, one concluding that the district court should not have dismissed plaintiff's claim that TPMG's vaccination requirement and its intrusive questions about her religious and medical history constituted an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a prima facie claim for invasion of privacy. The second unpublished dissent contended that the court should certify to the California Supreme Court the question of whether a health care provider’s requirement that employees obtain either a COVID-19 vaccination or an exemption constitutes a serious invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Sunday, July 26, 2026

Canada Reports That Religion-Motivated Hate Crimes Decreased 18% In 2025

Last week, the Canadian government released data on Police Reported Crime Statistics in Canada for 2025, including data on hate crimes. The report says in part:

The number of police-reported hate crimes decreased 3%, from 4,841 incidents in 2024 to 4,708 incidents in 2025. Prior to 2025, the number of hate crimes had more than doubled (+166%) from 2018 to 2024. Expressed as a rate, police-reported hate crimes declined 4% in 2025 to 11 incidents per 100,000 yet were more than twice as high as in 2018 (5 incidents).

The decline in the number of incidents in 2025 was in large part the result of fewer hate crimes targeting religion (-18% to 1,115 incidents) and those targeting sexual orientation (-19% to 534 incidents)....

More detailed data on religion-motivate hate crimes shows that anti-Jewish hate crimes decreased 16% from 2025; anti-Muslim hate crimes decreased 11%; and anti-Catholic hate crimes decreased 39% from the prior year.

A report by JNS analyzes the Canadian data with a focus on anti-Jewish hate crimes. It points out that 70.7% of the 2025 hate crimes targeting a religious group and 16.7% of all 2025 hate crimes were aimed at Jews who constitute 1% of Canada's total population.

Friday, July 24, 2026

Justice Department Updates Guidance to Federal Agencies on Protecting Religious Liberty

Yesterday, the Attorney General issued a 26-page Memorandum to Executive Departments and Agencies (full text) on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty. The Memorandum updates and expands one issued in 2017 (see prior posting). According to a Justice Department press release:

Key updates in the guidance include:

Integration of recent Supreme Court precedent. The memo reflects recent judicial decisions clarifying the scope of the First Amendment, RFRA’s broad protection of religious liberty, and the requirement of equal treatment toward religious organizations in government programs.

Protection of parental rights. The updated guidance emphasizes the Supreme Court’s recent precedents confirming that the Constitution protects parents’ ability to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

Reaffirmation of church autonomy. The guidance highlights constitutional protections that bar government interference in internal religious governance, including employment.

Expanded direction for federal agencies. Agencies are instructed to proactively consider religious‑liberty impacts when developing rules and policies, designate officers to review regulatory proposals for compliance, and ensure enforcement actions respect RFRA and other protections. Agencies must also consider religious‑liberty concerns raised by the public during notice‑and‑comment periods.

Clarified protections in federal employment. The guidance reaffirms that agencies must follow recent Office of Legal Counsel opinions when accommodating religious expression and practice in the workplace, including scheduling accommodations and workplace religious expression.

Safeguards for religious organizations in federal contracting and grant programs. Agencies may not condition an individual’s participation in federal programs on relinquishing their religious character or hiring rights. Religious organizations must be permitted to compete on equal footing with secular organizations....

9th Circuit: School Social Worker's Office Display Was Government Speech Subject to School Regulation

In Theis v. Intermountain Education Service District Board of Directors, (9th Cir., July 21, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld an Oregon federal district court's determination that a school district could bar a school social worker from displaying, when students are in his office, books that the school found to be hostile toward transgender individuals. The majority held that plaintiff's display was not protected by the First Amendment because it is government speech. The court said in part:

First, Theis’s speech occurred within the scope of his professional role. It was confined to the environments—his offices—in which he was assigned to perform his duties and to times when he was with students. And Theis does not dispute that his speech was aimed at students. This case is therefore distinguishable from those in which a school employee engages in the challenged speech off school grounds or while performing tasks unrelated to the school’s ordinary operations, and from cases in which the employee does not direct his speech to students....

Second, and most importantly, Theis’s speech “owes its existence to his position” in the IMESD schools.... Theis displayed the books in his offices where he interacted with students as part of his assigned duties, and the displays were visible to those students during evaluations and meetings...

This case is different [from the Supreme Court case of Kennedy v. Bremerton]. Theis’s display of books occurred in the course of performing his assigned duties and in a setting where he was responsible for interacting directly with his students. Unlike Coach Kennedy, who was off the clock, Theis was not engaged in a moment of private expression detached from his role. To the contrary, he was engaged in his core professional responsibilities....

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

... [E]exactly no one believes the majority’s legal fiction—that anything seen by students on school grounds is necessarily government speech or perceived as such. When a student sees personal materials hanging in a teacher’s office, they naturally identify that ornamentation as reflecting the teacher’s own personal views.... A free and open American society appropriately recoils at the prospect of public-school teachers becoming involuntarily conscripted apparatchiks of any administration’s particular orthodoxy....

The fact that Theis’s speech was private expression does not render it immune from government regulation. When a government employee speaks in his personal capacity, he can only invoke the protections of the First Amendment if he can show that he spoke “on a matter of public concern.”... If this burden is met, courts engage in “a delicate balancing of the competing interests ... [to determine] whether an employee’s speech interests are outweighed by “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”

... [I]n this case, nothing could support the conclusion that the government’s interest in efficiently operating its public schools outweighed Theis’s speech interest.... [A]fter three years of Theis’s use of the books in decorating his office, the record contains no evidence whatsoever of “actual, material, and substantial disruption” in the school.... The only negative reaction to the books... all originated from a single, adult teacher who saw “the books in [Theis’s] office, researched them online, and then determined they were offensive.”...

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Trial Court Must Evaluate Penological Interest In Refusing to Replace Inmate's Arabic-Language Quran

In Kane v. Haynes, (9th Cir., July 23, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of a free exercise claim brought by a Muslim inmate against prison officials. The court said in part:

While transferring then-inmate Ali Kane between units at the Airway Heights Correctional Center, Department of Corrections (DOC) officers disposed of an unmarked Arabic-language copy of the Quran. After Kane initiated DOC’s grievance process, DOC offered Kane a replacement copy in English. Kane refused, stating that his religious practice requires him to memorize and utter his prayers in Arabic.

Kane sued the correctional officers in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the officers’ destruction of Kane’s copy of the Quran and refusal to provide a substitute Arabic-language copy violated his First Amendment right to free exercise....

... Kane ... offered that his inability to memorize the Arabic passages has severe religious consequences (e.g., sin cannot be forgiven as required by Islam), and Kane, having since forgotten the verses, cannot meet his daily religious obligations.

The district court, however, did not ... evaluate whether the government has shown a legitimate penological interest justifying its actions under [Turner v. Safley]... We thus remand so that the district court may consider the Turner factors....

Thursday, July 23, 2026

9th Circuit: Inmate Loses Challenge to Kosher Food Program

In Hertel v. Thornell, (9th Cir., July 22, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an Arizona prison inmate's challenges to the kosher diet he was receiving. The court said in part:

The district court correctly held that Hertel’s Establishment Clause claim based on the denial of meat is moot, as kosher meat is now provided.... With respect to the alleged RLUIPA violations—denial of daily fruit, uncut vegetables, kosher cheese and eggs, and the processing of food by non-Jews— ... there are compelling government interests in prison order and security, and Defendants further showed beyond dispute that they used the least restrictive means to uphold these interests.... The remaining First Amendment claims fail for the same reasons because the prison’s policies were “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” ...

The court also rejected Plaintiff's Equal Protection and 8th Amendment claims, saying in part;

... Hertel failed to provide any evidence of differential treatment between inmates on the Common Fare-Kosher Meat diet and inmates on the Common Fare-Vegan diet....

The diet’s alleged failure to follow USDA guidelines does not establish a constitutional violation.

Father's Suit Seeking Opt-Out for Son of Some Class Lessons Moves Ahead

In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, (D MA, July 21, 2026), the father of a kindergartener sued seeking to opt his child out of classroom lessons and activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity and violate plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs. Last year, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the school to provide an opt out. (See prior posting). Nevertheless, defendants now moved for a dismissal of all plaintiff's claims. Recognizing that the suit is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court in its opinion issued this week refused to dismiss plaintiff's free exercise claims and most of plaintiff's other contentions, including their claim of qualified immunity. The court however dismissed plaintiff's substantive due process claim because Mahmoud had based its holding on the Free Exercise clause, while a prior 1st Circuit case had held that the due process clause does not create a parental right to opt one's children out of particular lessons.

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

9th Circuit: Plan to Convince Vaccination Objectors to Reconsider Did Not Show Hostility To Religion

In Seagraves v. Wahington State Department of Children, Youth and Families, (9th Cir., July 21, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by 18 former employees of the Department of Children, Youth and Families who were separated from the agency after their requests for religious exemptions from the state's 2021 Covid vaccine mandate were rejected. The court said in part:

The [complaint] does not plausibly allege personal involvement by any of the Officials [named as defendants] in constitutional violations of the Employees’ free exercise, equal protection, or procedural due process rights. All the Employees’ requests for accommodations in their current roles were denied, based on determinations that they could not perform the essential functions of their positions unvaccinated without endangering the health and safety of others in the workplace, including children and families. Accordingly, their supposed constitutional injuries flow from this determination. Yet the [complaint] does not allege that any of the Officials [named as defendants] personally participated in evaluating the Employees’ accommodation requests or that they played a role in denying them pre-termination hearings....

The remaining factual allegations that the Employees provided in their pleadings undermine the plausibility of their “religious animus” theory. First consider Hunter’s August 23, 2021, email discussing DCYF’s communications plan for vaccination. The goal of this plan was to convince as many DCYF employees as possible to get vaccinated. Part of the plan involved addressing various potential objections to vaccination: medical safety, convenience, religious objections, and political tribalism. This plan did not single out religiously motivated objections for special treatment. Religious objections were included among several secular objections, and the aim of the plan was to convince DCYF employees that their concerns about vaccination were unfounded, regardless of the religious or secular character of those concerns. That religious objections were one of several objections to address does not, without more, indicate hostility toward religion....

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Catholic Sisters Sue To Invalidate New York's Assisted Suicide Counseling Requirement

Last week, four Orders of Catholic Sisters along with the Catholic Diocese and Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York, filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging, at least as applied to them, the constitutionality of New York's Medical Aid in Dying Act as it interacts with the state's Palliative Care Information Act. Labelling these a "Suicide Counseling Mandate", the 102-page complaint (full text) in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. James, (ND NY, filed 7/17/2026) alleges in part:

13. The many New York nurse practitioners, doctors, mental health professionals, hospitals, and care homes with religious or moral objections to participating in assisted suicide will have nowhere to go, because New York’s purported “opt-out” is among the narrowest in the nation, and doesn’t apply at all to independent assisted living facilities, including those run by the Benedictine Sisters. The Catholic patients who wish to die without being offered the chance to kill themselves at their lowest moment will be left out in the cold.....

15. First, the First Amendment’s protected sphere of church autonomy requires the government to respect and stay out of matters of governance within religious institutions, such as how the Catholic Church chooses to implement its beliefs on the sanctity of human life and the decision of religious communities to form themselves around those same principles.

16. Second, its protection of the free exercise of religion prohibits the government from burdening the sincere religious beliefs of Plaintiffs and the patients they serve unless the state is furthering an interest of the highest order and using the least restrictive means to do so—an exceedingly high bar Defendants cannot meet.

17. Third, its protections against religious gerrymanders prohibit the government from enacting legal burdens that fall uniquely on religious adherents—such as those who object to providing assisted suicide.

18. Fourth, its protections against compelled speech prevent the government from forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to speak the government’s preferred, supportive message of assisted suicide.

19. And fifth, its protections for freedom of association allow the Catholic Church, its various communities, and the patients they serve, to organize themselves into like-minded communities with the same values and beliefs—the mission of which is to live faithfully according to those beliefs, for however long or short a time....

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

Britain Proposes Reform of Laws on Religious and Non-Religious Marriage Ceremonies

On July 16, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Justice published an Open Consultation Document titled Tying the Knot: Reforming Weddings Law in England and Wales (full text). The forward to the Document reads in part:

Current weddings law is still built on rules dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. It belongs to a different age and no longer reflects the diverse society we are today. The result is a system that is complicated, inconsistent and sometimes unfair, treating different groups in different ways.

The Anglican, Jewish and Quaker faiths each have their own legal framework, while every other religious group must fit within a single set of rules, which often fail to reflect their traditions. Civil weddings are governed by another set of rules altogether. And non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, cannot conduct legally binding weddings at all.

The law also places outdated restrictions on where people can marry and how their ceremony can be conducted.

This complex mix of laws can cause real problems for couples, particularly those who want a religious wedding. Some feel forced to pay for two different ceremonies, one legal and one belief based. Some enter into a marriage that isn’t legally recognised. Others feel they have little choice but to marry in a way which doesn’t reflect their beliefs, marring what should be a joyous occasion....

Non-religious couples also face unnecessary challenges, including being confined to choosing a location from a limited range of approved buildings. Yet there is no reason a wedding taking place on a beach, in a forest, or in a family garden can’t carry the same dignity and importance of a wedding held in a more traditional venue....

These reforms will create a modern framework that reflects our society today – giving couples more choice over who officiates over their wedding, where they can marry and how they celebrate one of the most important days of their lives....

But we are also clear that reform must not come at the expense of safeguards. Our proposals preserve the dignity and significance of marriage..... We will also strengthen protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages – to ensure marriages are always entered into freely, with informed consent, and are not used to exploit vulnerable people or gain unfair advantage....

The proposals are open for online comment from the public until September 24. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Monday, July 20, 2026

Texas Court Holds That Hindu Temple's Bylaws Are Invalid

In Sri Shirdi Sai Baba Temple of Austin v. Lam, (TX Bus. Ct., July 14, 2026), the Texas Business Court's holding that a non-profit corporation's Certificate of Formation controls over by-laws that conflict with the Certificate of Formation settled a complex battle over control of a Hindu Temple. The Temple's Certificate of Formation placed management of the Temple in a board of directors and stated that the Temple "will have no members." In 2024, the Temple's Board resigned in the wake of a fraudulent donation-matching scheme that was discovered at the Temple. The new Board adopted Bylaws that purported to vest control of the Temple in a General Body of Trustees, defined as devotees who contribute a one-time membership fee of $20,000. An attorney advised the Board that the bylaws were invalid. Nevertheless, one faction went ahead and held an election of a new Board by the Trustees. The court refused to issue a declaratory judgment that would have validated the election, saying in part:

Texas courts apply a “neutral principles methodology,” under which they lack jurisdiction to decide, and “must defer to the decisions of appropriate ecclesiastical decision makers” with respect to, “questions of an ecclesiastical or inherently religious nature,” but “apply neutral principles of law to non-ecclesiastical issues involving religious entities,” including issues of corporate formation and governance, “in the same manner as they apply those principles to other entities and issues.” This case presents a non-ecclesiastical issue of corporate governance that can be decided by neutral application of Texas corporate law, such that the Court has jurisdiction.