6th Circuit: Inmate's Requests to Observe Ramadan Fast Did Not Meet Requirements of Prison Rules

In Perry v. Curtis, (6th Cir., Aug. 5, 2026), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a RLUIPA claim by a Michigan inmate who was denied arrangements for a religious fast for the last 10 days of Ramadan. The court said in part:

From 2016 until the end of March 2022, Perry's religious designation was listed as "Nation of Islam," which is one of three religious groups that MDOC has approved to participate in a Ramadan fast. On March 29, 2022, Perry changed his religious designation to "Melanic Islamic Faith," which is not on the list of approved religious groups and instead is considered by MDOC to be a "Security Threat Group."... 

... Perry argues that he followed the prison's policy to enable him to fast for Ramadan. That policy required a prisoner "who wants to observe a religious fast or feast [and who] has not already been approved" for one to "submit a written request to do so to the Warden or designee that shall include information"—i.e., "supporting documents"—"regarding the religion's beliefs and practices."...

The defendants met their burden of showing that Perry did not properly request a religious fast in accordance with the policy. Specifically, they presented evidence showing that, although Perry sent three separate kites concerning his desire to fast during Ramadan in 2022, none of those kites qualified as a proper request under the policy. The first kite was not a proper request for an unapproved fast because, at that time, Perry's religious designation was "Nation of Islam," a designation the MDOC had approved for participation in a Ramadan fast; thus, no additional approval was needed.... The second and third kites were not proper requests because Perry merely declared that he was "required to fast the last ten days during the Arabic month of Ramadan," and did not formally request approval to fast.,,,, Nor did the kites provide the required "supporting documents" about Perry's newly proclaimed "Melanic Islamic Declaration of Faith.....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Essien Oku Essien, Cumulonimbus Cloud System and Indigenous Spirituality: A Comparative Semiotic Theology of Convective Storms in the Anthropocene, (July 30, 2026).
• Russell Powell, Framing Religious Constitutionalism, (25 Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion 63 (2026)).
• Mark Edward Blankenship Jr., IP Portfolios Within the Biblical Timeline, (July 14, 2026).
• Travis Gilly, The Selection Criterion: Attenuated Design, Sequence Evidence, and What Deregulation Cannot Explain About Federal Civil Rights Policy, (July 24, 2026).
• Amy J. Sepinwall, The New Speech-Conduct Equivalence, (July 28, 2026).
• Russell Powell, Religious Approaches to Constitutionalism: Empirical Scholarship and Exceptionalism, (July 24, 2024).
• Jaime Levin, Reframing Parental Rights in the Wake of Skrmetti, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law (forthcoming 2026-2027).
• Christian Edmonds, Mark David Hall & S. Ernie Walton, History, Tradition, and the Right of Parents to Direct the Education and Moral Formation of Their Children (July 29, 2026).
• Joseph Griffith, Is the Right of Parents to Direct Their Children's Education "Deeply Rooted" in our "History and Tradition"? , (Texas Review of Law and Politics¸ Vol. 28, No 3. (Summer 2024), 795).

From SSRN (Legal Issues in Europe, Asia and the Middle East):

• Mohammed Rida Nour, Religion and Conflict in the Middle East : Competing Narratives, Political Legitimacy, and the Erosion of the Social Contract, (June 30, 2026).
• Rob Kahn, Reforming European Hate Speech Jurisprudence (Book Review)(reviewing Natalie Alkiviadou, Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights, Routledge 2025), (21 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review (forthcoming)).
• Arvind P. Bhanu, Niharika Julka & Sonia Sthapak, Human Rights and Reproductive Choice: Developments in India and The United States, (March 01, 2026).
• Gergely Dezideriu, The Dynamics of  "Hate Crimes” in the Ecosystem of Discrimination and the Factors Influencing the Investigation of Acts Motivated by Discrimination in the Logic of ECtHR Case Law and Academic Perspectives. Data Set No. 2:  "Violation”, (Noua Revista de Drepturile Omului (New Human Rights Journal), 22(1), 93-120 (2026).
• Bilal Saleem, Silence and Spectacle: A Content Analysis of Religious Minority Coverage in Pakistan's English and Urdu Press, (July 6, 2026).
• 
  

From SSRN (Non-Profit Organizations):

• Mustafa Batman & Timur Kuran, The State Waqfs of Ottoman Istanbul, 1453-1923, (July 20, 2026).
• Sushil K. Jain, In the Best Interests of the Nonprofit: A Fiduciary Framework for Litigation Decision-Making, (June 10, 2026).
• Scott Hodge, Closing the $2.8 Trillion Nonprofit Business Loophole: A Tax Reform Proposal for Congress, (August 5, 2026).

From SSRN (Denomination-Specific Subjects):

• Tayson DeLengocky, D.O., Pilgrimage Under Siege: The Complete Story of Thích Minh Tuệ, Part IV—The Economy of Trust: Value without Capture in the Age of Institutional Distrust;     (Part V): Religious Freedom, System-Generated Harm, and Non-Institutional Authority in the Digital Age—Thích Minh Tuệ, the Walk for Peace, and the Future of Transnational Religious Mobility, (July 21, 2026).
• Russell Powell, The Relevance of Catholic Social Thought for Law, (23 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 1 (2025)).
• Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho, Progressive Revelation and the Omission of Information in the Process of Joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: Information Omitted from Digital Religious Marketing and Door-to-Door Missionary Proselytism, Lack of Institutional Transparency, and Limited Access to Essential Information Prior to Religious Affiliation, (July 20, 2026).
• Yamin Salahi & Tanina Rostain, Brief of Amici Curiae 50 Jewish Scholars of Jewish Studies, Holocaust Studies, Middle East Studies, and Antisemitism in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Prichett v. Newsom, (N.D. Cal. San Jose Div. Dec. 9, 2025).
• Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Hindu Nationalism as Authoritarian Law, (Forthcoming, Oxford Handbook of Law and Authoritarianism (Cora Chan, Madhav Khosla, Benjamin L. Liebman, and Mark Tushnet, eds.).

From SSRN (Religion and Technology):

• Lloyd George Banda, Digital Technology and Models of Demand for and Supply of Religion: Empirical Evidence from World Values Surveys, (Cambridge Politics and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Russell Powell, Skynet and the Holy See: Magnifica Humanitas and Legal Norms for the AI Revolution, (Indiana Law Journal Supplement (forthcoming)).
• Mulima Owen, The Singularity and the Sacred: Navigating Theological Frontiers in the Age of Superintelligence, (July 28, 2026).

From SSRN (Islamic Law and Thought):

• Syed Muaz Shah, The Objectives Resolution -An Unfulfilled Objective? An Analysis of Its Constitutional and Judicial Impact in Pakistan Since 1949, (Policy Perspectives, volume 23, issue 2 (2026)).
• Muhammad Irfan Haroon, Khula in Name, Nashuz in Substance: Dower Entitlement After Arslan v. Nisha Shahid (2026 LHC 4758), (July 23, 2026).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, Rationality, Qur'anic Thought, and Modern Secularization: A Critical and Analytical Review in the Light of International Scholars' Views, (July 22, 2026).
• Intisar A. Rabb, The Past and Future of Islamic Legal Canons, 7th-21st Century: A Storied History, An Emerging Field, (Cambridge Companion to Islamic Law, edited by Sohaira Siddiqui and Mariam Sheibani (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming)).
• Intisar A. Rabb, Testing Ordinary Meaning in Islamic Law, (August 01, 2026).
• Muhammad Sarim Tahir, Khutba No. 4 of Khutbaat-E-Bahawalpur "Islamic International Law: A Historical Analysis, Development and Systematic Codification", (September 12, 2025).
• Dr. Mohammad Tareque, Turning Qur'an 2:280 into Prudential Policy: Forbearance Rules for Non-Performing Islamic Financing, (July 28, 2026).
• Muhammad Abrar, The Concept of Torts in Islamic Jurisprudence and English Common Law: A Comparative Study of Convergence and Divergence, (July 05, 2026).
• Armine Saakyan, Definition and Meaning of Fatwa in Islamic Law, (III All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference, (2026)).

Sex Abuse Claimants May Sue to Access Parish and School Assets in Vermont Diocese Bankruptcy

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington Vermont, (Bkrptcy VT, July 28, 2026), a Vermont federal bankruptcy court issued an order allowing the Creditors Committee representing more than 100 sex abuse claimants to sue to attempt to recover assets of 70 Vermont parishes, Parish Trusts, schools and other Catholic-related social and community service organizations. The Committee claims that these organizations are not separate legal entities from the Diocese and that their assets should be available to satisfy creditors' judgments against the Diocese. The litigation authorized by the court will determine whether this claim is valid. The court warned however:

Regardless of its outcome, the proposed litigation will be expensive and time consuming. Unless settled, there may be years of litigation ahead and millions of dollars spent in attorneys’ fees and costs that could have been paid valid abuse claims. 

More clarity about the rights of the parties and what constitutes estate property could help the ongoing efforts to reach a global settlement in this case. For that reason, some litigation is necessary. Its cost may eventually outweigh the benefit if no settlement is reached and as one Court has recognized, “Debtor, the parishes and the abuse victims will be the poorer for it.” 

AP reports on the court's decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Seeks Religious Accommodation to Obtain Environmentally Friendly 401(k) Option

 A suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court by an employee of Thermo Fisher Scientific alleging that the company is required under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law to provide plaintiff an investment option in the company's 401(k) plan that is consistent with plaintiff's religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Hartley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., (WD NY, filed 8/4/2026) alleges in part:

4. Dr. Hartley sincerely holds the belief that investing his money in fossil fuels is morally wrong and in violation of his religious convictions.

5. Dr. Hartley believes his Christian faith commands him to care for and steward the earth, and that actively investing in and profiting from fossil fuel companies whose work directly harms the earth and its inhabitants violates his religious obligations. 

6. Because each of Thermo Fisher’s current equity-based retirement plan options maintains significant investments in fossil-fuel companies, Dr. Hartley is forced to either compromise his religious beliefs or forego a significant component of his employer-provided benefit. 

7. To remedy this conflict, Dr. Hartley requested that his employer provide him with an accommodation that would allow him to partake of the benefits of his 401(k) plan in a manner consistent with his faith....

44. Defendant Thermo Fisher’s failure to provide the accommodation sought (a retirement fund option that allows Dr. Hartley to invest in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs) violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

The complaint also contends that the company's refusal to provide the investment option sought by plaintiff amounts to religious discrimination.

ClientEarth announced the filing of the lawsuit. HR Dive reports on the lawsuit.

Montana Supreme Court: Parenting Plan May Restrict Mother from Exposing Children to Cultic Religious Beliefs

In In re the Marriage of Acacia Jensen and Timothy Jensen, (MT Sup. Ct., Aug. 4, 2026), the Montana Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision upheld a trial court's order modifying a parenting plan for a divorced couple's three children. The mother objected to various provisions in the modified plan, including a provision that the children not to be influenced by Liana Shanti or the Lemurian Mystery School. According to the court, Liana Shanti is an online based spiritual teacher and mentor who promotes the recovery of suppressed memories, and who leads the Lemurian Mystery School that believe they can recover memories of their previous lives on the lost continent of Lemuria. The modified Plan also prohibits the use of Lemurian Mystery School nicknames for the children. The court said in part:

We turn now to the claim that the nickname restriction violated Alihana’s First Amendment and fundamental parenting rights....

The evidence in the record makes it clear that Liana Shanti and her group are known to encourage followers to discover and act upon false “repressed memories” of abuse.  Once these false abusive memories are uncovered, followers are encouraged to sever ties with family and friends and become more closely involved in the group.  Here, a preponderance of evidence shows that Alihana has engaged in embracing false memories of abuse.  She has repeatedly accused Tim and her parents of abusive behavior for which no evidence exists....

... While it is a constitutional right of a parent to provide spiritual education and teaching to their child, it is not the right of a parent to inflict abusive memories upon their child, be those memories fictional or actual.  This Court ... cannot hold, then, that it is the constitutional right of a parent to expose their children to fictionalized sexual abuse....

Chief Justice Swanson, joined by Justice Shea dissented, saying in part:

... This limitation, which precludes exposure to the teachings of the Lemurian Mystery School,effectively prevents Alihana from practicing the tenets of her faith in front of her children and therefore prevents her from freely exercising her faith for days at a time....

It is worth noting the parenting plan singles out a particular faith as offensive and forbidden, thus discriminating against that religion.  Although the Lemurian Mystery school is not a mainstream religion and appears to be controversial, Alihana’s right to practice her religion is no less protected.  Had the District Court imposed equivalent restrictions on a parental adherent to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity, we would likely not be having this conversation.  An obscure minority faith—even or perhaps especially with abnormal beliefs—deserves the same legal protections as those mainstream systems of belief....

This parenting plan ... unduly burdens Alihana’s right to educate her children concerning her religion. ...

... [T]he Opinion spends pages reciting Alihana’s harmful conduct toward the children, Tim, and other family members, and documenting the harmful conduct of Lemurian Mystery School or Liana Shanti followers.  That proves my point.  If Alihana is engaged in such harmful conduct, then the District Court should restrict the conduct.  If it is impossible to prohibit the harmful conduct while still awarding Alihanapartial unsupervised custody, then the District Court must fashion a parenting plan in the best interests of the children, which may mean awarding full custody to Tim....

Florida AG Tells Catholic Schools to Grant Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Requirements [Corrected]

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier last week sent a letter (full text) to Florida's Conference of Catholic Bishops complaining that some Catholic schools in Florida may be adopting what Uthmeier describes as the position of the National Catholic Bioethics Center that "Catholic schools ... cannot grant an exemption from vaccination on religious grounds since the Catholic Church does not teach that the use of vaccinations produced in cell lines derived from tissue from an aborted fetus is intrinsically evil."

The Attorney General's letter stated in part:

Of course, a religious school may itself be able to claim an exemption from the requirement to grant religious exemptions if granting such an exemption would violate the religious tenets of the school. But as a Catholic, I am confident that the teachings of the Catholic Church do not require Catholic schools to compel students to take vaccines derived from the tissue of aborted children against the sincerely held religious objections of their parents....

Because Church teaching obligates the Church to respect the right of conscience of persons who, for moral or religious reasons, object to the use of abortion-derived vaccines, there is no religious basis on which to reject a person's claim of religious conscience for refusing to take such vaccines.... I therefor urge Catholic schools to comply with Florida law and grant religious exemptions to school vaccine policies. Failure to comply could jeopardize eligibility for state educational scholarship programs. If the Conference nevertheless refuses to comply with Florida law, then please state clearly the religious grounds on which Catholic schools may force persons to take vaccines derived from abortions against their deeply held moral and religious objections.

Please provide a response in writing no later than August 7, 2026.

OSV News. reports on Notre Dame Professor Rick Garnett's criticism of Uthmeier's letter. It also says that documents on the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s website do not appear to take the position that Uthmeier attributes to it.

[Corrected. An earlier version of this post named the Florida Attorney General incorrectly, transposing his name with that of the Executive Director of Florida's Conference of Catholic Bishops].

Report Details Data on Antisemitic Incidents in United Kingdom

In Britain, Community Security Trust today released a Report on Antisemitic Incidents in the United Kingdom during the first half of 2026. (Full text of report.) The 39-page report says in part:

CST recorded 1,926 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first six months of 2026, the second highest total ever reported to CST in the January-to-June period of any year. This figure constitutes an increase of 21% from the 1,598 antisemitic incidents recorded in the first half of 2025. CST received a record 2,019 reports of anti-Jewish hate in the first six months of 2024, 965 in the first half of 2023, and 823 from January to June 2022.

Antisemitism Complaint Against George Washington University Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

 In Soffer v. George Washington University, (D DC, July 31, 2026), a D.C. federal district court dismissed without prejudice on procedural grounds a complaint filed by two former George Wasington University students and a student organization. The complaint alleges pervasive and severe antisemitic harassment of students at the university and failure of the university to respond to antisemitic discrimination. The court concluded that the complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) which requires the complaint to contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim. The court, however, said that plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that complies with pleading rules.  The court said in part:

The Complaint before the Court describes a multi-year pattern of unaddressed antisemitism at GWU that came to a head with the Hamas terrorist attacks in October 2023 and worsened in following months....

A complaint may offend Rule 8 in more ways than one.  “[E]xcessively long” and “rambling” complaints that are “full of irrelevant and confusing material” violate its requirements....

... Plaintiff’s Complaint flouts these requirements.  Recall that Plaintiffs’ allegations span nearly two hundred pages and over one thousand paragraphs.... And much of its length stems from excessive narrative....

The Court recognizes the serious nature of allegations at issue.  It emphasizes that it dismisses only the Complaint without prejudice rather than dismissing the lawsuit.  The difference renders the Court’s order non-appealable. .. The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order....  

JNS reports on the decision.

Oklahoma City Sued Over Denial of Zoning Approval for Mosque; DOJ Investigates City's Practices

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oklahoma federal district court by the Islamic Society of Tulsa challenging as a violation of RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment the denial of zoning approval for a mosque in a suburb of Tulsa. The complaint (full text) in The Islamic Society of Tulsa v. City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, (ND OK, filed 8/3/2026), alleges in part:

3. ... [A]fter almost 30 years of growth, the spiritual needs of Muslims in Broken Arrow cannot be served by the community’s Tulsa house of worship alone. The mosque in Tulsa is too small, and the Muslims in Broken Arrow are too numerous and too far spread.  

4. Realizing this problem, IST purchased land in Broken Arrow with the hope of expanding. The land they purchased was right next to another church, located in the vicinity of several more, and suitable in every way for the construction and operation of a house of worship.  

5. The City’s own professional staff recommended approval of IST’s project. So did the City’s Planning Commission. However, after a wave of bigoted opposition from members of the community and local politicians, the City Council voted to deny IST’s applications.   

6. The City Council’s decision was a stark departure from the norm. The City regularly approves nearly identical applications for churches..... The City also grants similar requests for non-religious entities, even those with massive commercial footprints....  

7. However, when Muslims in Broken Arrow sought to do the same, the City Council denied them. And the latest media reports containing the email correspondence between constituents and council members reveal why: animosity towards Muslims and an irrational fear of Islam.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Broken Arrow Sentinel reports on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice in a July 17 letter to the city said it has initiated an investigation pursuant to RLUIPA into the city's land use practices. the city issued a press release last week announcing the investigation.

Clergyman Loses Attempt to Access Prison to Conduct Religious Services

In Brooks v. Smith, (ED TN, July 30, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court refused to set aside its previous dismissal of a suit brought by a clergyman who contends that he was being prevented from participating in religious services for prisoners. He wants to participate in Holy Communion and in anointment for healing and deliverance with inmates. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants have prohibited him from practicing Holy Communion or anointment altogether. Rather, he challenges restrictions on conducting Holy Communion and anointment within a correctional facility.... That distinction matters.... [T]he Free Exercise Clause does not guarantee unfettered access to practice one’s religion in any manner or location one chooses. Indeed, courts have recognized that outside clergy and chaplains do not possess a constitutional right to enter correctional institutions to administer religious services or sacraments. ...

Plaintiffs pointed to Coalition for Spiritual v. Noem, a 2026 federal district court case that held ICE agents violated RFRA when they denied a religious group entry into an ICE facility to minister to detainees. Distinguishing that case, the court said in part:

... RFRA ... has no application to Plaintiff’s claims because it does not apply to state or local governments.... Furthermore, while an individual may have a valid cause of action against the federal government under RFRA, it does not necessarily follow that the same conduct by a state government is cognizable under the Free Exercise Clause. This is because RFRA provides broader protections for religious exercise and imposes a far more demanding standard on government action than the Free Exercise Clause itself....

The court also rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause argument. 

Code Enforcement Against Jewish Nursery School Does Not Violate Free Exercise Clause or RLUIPA

In Dreskin v. Borough of Bogota, (D NJ, July 31, 2026), a New Jersey federal district court rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA to enforcement of building, fire and health code provisions against a small Jewish nursery school. The court said in part:

On their face and as applied, the Building, Fire, and Health Code provisions at issue are content neutral, and Plaintiff does not identify any specific provision that targets religious conduct.  Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to support her claim of disparate treatment with evidence of similarly situated secular comparators who were treated more favorably....

... [A] plaintiff must show more than a mere inconvenience to establish a “substantial burden” under the RLUIPA; the burden must render religious exercise “effectively impracticable” but does not require a showing of discriminatory governmental conduct....

The Borough’s enforcement actions have not rendered Plaintiff’s religious exercise “effectively impracticable”—Plaintiff remains free to practice her faith in other ways, and the enforcement regime does not permanently prohibit PLAYfully from operating or expanding in the future. Rather, the Borough is seeking to enforce the Building, Fire, and Health Codes based on Plaintiff’s prior noncompliance.  Once Plaintiff achieves compliance and resolves any penalties from past violations, her ability to provide religious instruction through the program is not foreclosed on the same grounds.  Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial burden under the RLUIPA.    

Plaintiff’s claim under the Equal Terms provision likewise fails, as she has failed to identify a secular comparator that is similarly situated in the context of the regulation....

Clergy Duties Do Not Excuse Compliance With Forum Selection Clause In Employment Agreement

In Luzingu v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., (D ME, July 31, 2026), a Maine federal district court rejected a claim by a Christian pastor that in a civil rights action under Title VII and state statutes against his former employer, Abbott Laboratories, he should be able to ignore a forum selection clause in his employment agreement that requires any litigation against his employer be brought in state or federal court in northern Illinois. Plaintiff worked in an Abbott Lab facility in the state of Maine beginning in 2016 when he came to the United States from Angola because of persecution in his home country. His Abbott employment was terminated in 2022. He now is employed as a Christian pastor and is pursuing a master's degree online. He filed suit against Abbott in a Maine federal district court. According to the court:

Plaintiff argues that transfer [of the case to Illinois] would be unfair, unjust, and against public policies that favor the free exercise of religion and nondiscrimination.... Plaintiff is “the sole pastor at his church” and “leads three services per week.” ...  Because of his religious calling and his duties, he maintains, “[t]raveling to Illinois for a deposition or trial would make it far more difficult for him to fulfill his pastoral duties than if the deposition or trial occurred in Maine.”...  

I am not persuaded that Plaintiff’s religious practices and duties as a pastor justify giving him a special dispensation to avoid application of the Forum-Selection Clause....  And as for the burden itself, assuming that a special dispensation might be appropriate based on individual needs pertaining to the inconvenience of a particular forum, the Defendant has indicated that Plaintiff’s deposition will take place in Maine.  Moreover, Defendant fairly observes that a trial in Illinois should take only a few days and that telecommunications technology enables Plaintiff to remain connected to his parishioners when court is not in session.  I agree with Defendant that the limited time required to conduct a trial of this case in Illinois will not unduly disrupt Plaintiff’s religious observance, even if religious observance is a proper basis to nullify the consequences of a forum-selection clause. 

... [I]t is unreasonable to suspect that Defendant is enforcing the Forum-Selection Clause against Plaintiff in a selective manner based on the burden that litigation in Illinois would impose on his pastoral duties.  Defendant has similarly moved to enforce its forum-selection clause in cases brought by plaintiffs who do not point to their religious practice as cause to avoid the consequences of the Forum-Selection Clause....

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Yuanlou Lin, Shut in Caves and Sealed in Jars: The Danielic Influence on the Long-Term Preservation of the Qumran Scrolls (July 09, 2026).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, History, Hegemony, and Intellectual Opium: A Comparison of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Worlds, (July 09, 2026).
• David McGinley, Manifesting The Imago Dei Through Private Property: Promoting Justice And Guarding Against Anti-Image Systems Of Distortion, (January 07, 2026).
• Christina M. Sautter, Ricci Gramitto & Alberto Sergio , The Incorporation Ritual, (in The Nature of Corporations (Jonathan Hardman, Steve Kourabas, Billie Lythberg, Christoph Van der Elst & Susan Watson eds., Edinburgh Univ. Press forthcoming 2027).
• Thomas A. Smith, The Office of Citizen: A Reoccupation in Plain Sight, (July 28, 2026).
• Osama S. Qatrani, Beyond Arab-Jewish Reductionism: Broken Kinship, Political Visibility, and Exclusive Sovereignty in Palestine and Israel, (July 13, 2026).
• Richard Moon, The Limits of State Neutrality in Religious Matters. (May 19, 2026).
• Scott Altman, The Unexpected Case for Public School Opt-Outs, (July 30, 2026).
• Christine Bartholomew & Allen P. Grunes, From Rerum Novarum to Magnifica Humanitas: Antitrust Law and Catholic Social Teaching in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, (Concurrences 7-2026 (Insights)).
• Paul McLaughlin, The Imperative to Protect All Children from Genital Cutting: The Ethical, Legal, and Policy Reasons Why Laws to Prohibit Infant Male Circumcision Must Be Passed, (January 07, 2026).
• Margaret E. Johnson, Maryland Reproductive Freedom and the Full Personhood of Pregnant People, (The Harbinger| Vol. 53, 2026).
• James R. Campbell, Thomistic Forfeiture and the Rehabilitation of Defensive Abortion, Part II, (International Journal of Applied Philosophy, volume 38, issue 1, 2024).
• Zebaa Huq, HIJAB On The Job,(Drexel Law Review, Volume 18, Issue 4, Pp. 1005-1090 (2026)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Muhammad Irfan Haroon this week has posted a number of articles written in July 2026: Nushuz and Daraba: Alleged Marital Misconduct and Physical and Mental Abuse of Women;  Maal or Mirage? Mufti Taqi Usmani's Fatwa on Cryptocurrency and the Future of Digital Assets in Islamic Jurisprudence;  Ṣulḥ Revisited: Islamic Reconciliation and the Making of Modern Alternative Dispute Resolution;  The RIBA Trap: A Structural and Jurisprudential Analysis of Interest's Grip on Pakistan's Economy;  Beyond the Label: Re-examining the Structural Distinctiveness of Islamic Banking in the Context of Pakistan's Constitutional Transition to a Riba-free Economy.
• Muhammad Irfan Haroon & Nikah Mushkil Zina Asan, The Commercialisation of Marriage in Pakistan, the Inverted Cost of Halal and Haram, and the Case for a Return to Nikah's Original Simplicity, (July 12, 2026).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, A Critical, Selective Study of the Narrators of Tafasir al-Quranm, (July 04, 2026).
• Iqrq Naz, Alternative Dispute Resolution Islamic Principles and Modern Practice, (December 10, 2025).
• Armine Saakyan, Inheritance in Muslim Law, (June 06, 2026).
• Yaoharee Lahtee, The Architecture of Faqr, (July 19, 2026).
• Ingrid Dingelstad-Frankova, The Institutionalisation and Investigation of Zakat as a Revenue Instrument: The Islamic State, 2014-2017, (July 23, 2026)

From SmartCILP:

• Haoyuan Ding & Chang Xue & Yu Zhang, Blessing from the Sage: Guan Yu Worship and Financial Development in China.  69 Journal of Law & Economics 21-52 (2026).
• Salwa Tabassum Hoque, Rethinking Marriage: Blurring the "Legal" and the "Social", 51 Law & Social Inquiry 142-179 (2025).

[Updated]

Synagogue Challenges Firearms Ordinance

An Orthodox Jewish synagogue and its rabbi filed suit last week in a Maryland federal district court challenging a recently adopted Montgomery County, Maryland Ordinance that, among other things, prohibits possessing a firearm within 100 yards of a place of worship unless one is a law enforcement officer or licensed security guard. One effect of this is to prevent the synagogue from using its own trained security team for protection. The complaint alleges the Jewish law favors reliance on volunteer members of the community, rather than outsourcing protection of the community.

The complaint (full text) in Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, filed 7/30/2026), alleges in part:

5. Luckily, the Constitution protects religious rights and the right to self-defense. Residents of Montgomery County have a constitutionally protected right to exercise their faith, including faiths, like Plaintiffs’, whose religious codes require providing for their own and communal self-defense, including by bearing arms when necessary. In violation of clear, binding Supreme Court precedent, Montgomery County’s law, which singles out houses of worship to their detriment, is not neutral and generally applicable and cannot survive the strict scrutiny to which the First Amendment subjects such intrusions on the free exercise of religion and religious autonomy.  

6. The Second Amendment violation is also clear. EB23-26 forbids conduct that falls squarely within the “plain text” of the Second Amendment, rendering it presumptively unconstitutional....

The Ordinance also prohibits carrying a firearm within 100 yards of schools, libraries, hospitals, parks and various other places of public assembly. The complaint goes on to allege in part:

On the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, Rabbi Shapiro’s sincerely held religious beliefs require that he walk to the synagogue for communal prayer.... The only path between his home and his synagogue requires him to walk within 100 yards of two public schools, two private schools, two parks, and three other houses of worship—each one a “place of public assembly” subject to the Ban. 

JNS reports on the lawsuit.