Librarian Fired for Displaying Trans Friendly Book Alleges Religious Discrimination

 A lawsuit claiming religious, racial and sex discrimination as well as free speech, due process and equal protection violations was filed last month in a Georgia federal district court by the former manager of a public library in Pierce County, Georgia. Plaintiff, a black woman, was removed from her position because she included in a book display a children's book about a transgender family. The complaint (full text) in Moore v. Three Rivers Regional Library System, (SD GA, filed 10/26/2026), alleges in part:

19. The theme for the State of Georgia’s statewide summer reading program in 2025 was “Color Our World.” 

20. As the library manager in Pierce County, Moore invited local families, parents and children, to select books from within the library with colorful book covers to put on display in celebration of the Color Our World theme.... A family whom Moore considers to be gender fluid selected the children’s book, When Aidan Became a Brother....

23. Moore did not censor the family’s selection and allowed the book to be displayed in the Pierce County library as part of a larger selection of books selected for Color Our World.

24. The book display was posted on social media....

26.  In an email to [the County] Commissioners ... local resident Crystal Winn, who has a history of anti-LGBTQ activism and is affiliated with the Alliance for Faith and Family, stated in part, “[T]his kind of mental manipulation (also known today as mental rape) of children where adults get children to focus on their sexuality and confuse them, teaching them God made them incorrectly is immensely harmful!”...

35. Pierce County directed Three Rivers to terminate Moore’s employment, and Three Rivers complied on June 18, 2025....

38. Three Rivers replaced Moore with a white woman as the library manager in Pierce County and retained a white, gay man in a leadership position....

41. Title VII prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because of her religious beliefs. 

42. Defendants terminated Moore because, consistent with her beliefs, she associated with a gender fluid family and allowed that family to select and display a book in the library about a trans child....

Metro Weekly reports on the lawsuit.

Claim Against School District for Student-on-Student Antisemitic Bullying Moves Ahead

In Harris v. General Brown Central School District, (ND NY, Nov. 19, 2926), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims under 42 USC §1983 brought against a school district by parents as guardians of their son, a junior-high-school student, who suffered extensive antisemitic bullying and harassment by fellow classmates. Plaintiffs claim that school administrators took no steps to prevent the bullying. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that C.H. suffered a physical assault by a student who called him a “fucking Jew,” stated “he wanted to put C.H. in an oven,” and proceeded to send him images of Hitler, Nazi flags, and the Star of David.... Students later told C.H. that “being Jewish is a disgrace to society,”...; that “Hitler should have been successful,” ...; and used antisemitic slurs in reference to C.H. ... The comments directed at C.H. frequently referenced violence and included “deplorable insults about the Holocaust, one of the worst tragedies in history and an understandable area of sensitivity for the Jewish community in particular.”...

Plaintiffs also assert that supervisory personnel such as Principal Ramie and Assistant Principal Folino “were aware of the ongoing harassment but continually failed to take appropriate action to stop it.” ... Assistant Principal Folino referred to a student’s statement that “Hitler should have been successful” as mere “rude comments,” and administrators did not take any steps to enforce their antidiscrimination policies following the incident. 

Defendants argue the incidents alleged by Plaintiffs are too “sporadic[]” to support a widespread and persistent practice theory. ... However, ... the allegations plausibly show a pattern of persistent failures by school officials to respond to antisemitic harassment... Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants failed to discipline students involved in antisemitic incidents despite the Harrises’ repeated complaints is sufficient to allege a widespread practice from which officials’ constructive acquiescence to the conduct can be inferred....

... [T]he Court finds Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for municipal liability under the third Monell theory....

The court however dismissed Title VI claims by the parents on their own behalf because they had alleged only violations of their son's rights and not violations of their own rights.

Florida Grand Jury Indicts Man for Mailing Threatening Antisemitic Letters to Organizations and Individuals

 On Monday, the Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida has indicted 58-year-old Brian Charles, alleging that he mailed antisemitic letters threatening violence to Jewish organizations and to individuals under federal Secret Service protection. According to allegations in the Criminal Complaint filed against him, Charles sent his victims a printed letter captioned "The Punishment Of My Wicked Jews In The American Government" and signed "Your God has spoken, amen!" The letters went to the Holocaust Memorial Miami Beach, American Jewish Committee Palm Beach, an executive of AIPAC, and two other individual who are Secret Service protectees. The indictment charges Charles with violating 18 U.S.C. §876(c), mailing threatening communications. In 2018, Charles had plead guilty to similar charges in New Mexico.

Trinidad and Tobago's Criminalization of "Buggery" Struck Down by Privy Council

Britain's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest appellate authority for certain territories and former territories of Great Britain, including the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago.  In Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Jones, (UK PC, Nov. 10, 2026), the Privy Council held that Trinidad and Tobago's criminalization of "buggery", i.e. anal intercourse, and its criminalization of similar conduct as acts of "serious indecency", violate fundamental rights protections of Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution. Trinidad and Tobago's High Court had reached a similar conclusion, and as a remedy modified the statutory ban so that it would not apply to consensual activity between adults and also reduced the maximum penalties to imprisonment for 5 years. The challenged legislation had imposed penalties ranging from 5 years to life in prison. The Privy Council provisionally adopted this remedy but gave the parties the opportunity to file further arguments on this point.

The Privy Council also posted a Press Summary of the decision. Links to pleadings in the case and to videos of the oral arguments are available here.

Trump Nominates Matthew Zandi To EEOC

Yesterday the White House announced that President Trump has sent to the Senate the nomination of Matthew Zandi to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a term ending July 1, 2031. Zandi, if confirmed, will fill the position formerly held by Jocelyn Samuels who had been appointed by President Trump for a term ending in July 2026, but who was removed from her position by Trump in January 2025 along with Charlotte Burrows (Background). Zandi currently serves as chief of staff and special counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Initial reaction to Zandi's nomination suggests that he will face at least some opposition. The EEOC enforces federal laws barring discrimination in employment, including religious discrimination.

Court Says Indictment of Church Leaders on Forced Labor Charges Does Not Violate 1st Amendment or RLUIPA

In United States v. Taylor, (ED MI, Nov. 9, 2026), a Michigan federal district court rejected free exercise and RFRA defenses to indictments charging multiple counts of forced labor and a count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendant Taylor was the leader of the Kingdom of God Global Church. He created call centers to raise money for the Church and recruited individuals to work at them without pay. He set unreasonable goals for the solicitors, used them for other services and coerced them into furnishing sexually explicit photos and videos. He isolated them from family and friends and housed them at church facilities. The court said in part:

If workers attempted to leave KOGGC, Taylor told them they would suffer “consequences including sickness, accidents, death, and eternal damnation.”...  When workers “disobeyed an order or failed to follow a rule,” Defendants imposed punishments, including “physical assault, additional work, sleep deprivation, food restrictions, loss of shelter, psychological abuse, and threats of spiritual damnation.”...  Defendants also oversaw lengthy meetings where workers who had displeased them were humiliated and rebuked in front of other workers....

Taylor argues that his free-exercise rights extend beyond beliefs and shield his religious conduct from prosecution.... He also argues that the Government’s prosecution of him is premised on the view that he is a “false prophet.” This, he argues, improperly turns theological disapproval into a crime, because a jury must conclude that his beliefs are false to find him guilty.....

Even if these actions were religiously motivated, they are all actions. In turn, this allegedly criminal conduct is subject to regulation for the protection of society, even if Taylor committed it under the guise of religion. ....

The more difficult question is whether Taylor’s use of religious threats is actionable conduct. For example, the Indictment alleges that if KOGGC workers “disobeyed an order or failed to follow a rule,” Defendants would “claim the laborer was defying God and would suffer in hell.”... These allegations arguably straddle the border between conduct—speaking threats—and simply stating beliefs allegedly shared by Taylor and KOGGC members. This Court finds that these threats are actionable conduct, rather than unprosecutable religious beliefs....

RFRA provides broader protections than the First Amendment....

This Court finds that the prosecution is a substantial burden, meaning Taylor has established a prima facie case....

In this case, there is no way for the Government to enforce its interest in protecting KOGGC’s victims without enforcing § 1589 via criminal prosecution.... The Government has shown that there are no adequate, less restrictive options. 

Tennessee's Exclusion of Religious Charter Schools Violates 1st Amendment

In Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville v. Knox County Board of Education, (ED TN, Nov. 6, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court held that the provision in Tennessee law that requires state-funded charter schools to be nonsectarian and nonreligious violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part: 

... Tennessee charter schools are operated by private actors that contract with State. While it is certainly commendable that Tennessee wants to “[e]ncourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods,” it cannot do so by opening the door to private participants just to discriminate against them on the basis of religion.....

Because the Nonsectarian Requirement works to “disqualify some private schools from funding solely because [of their] religious [use],” it must be subjected to “the strictest scrutiny.”...

... Although the State may ultimately approve a charter school application, it certainly does not establish a church or other religious institution.... It merely contracts with the private institution to operate a charter school. The ... argument that State-established religious institutions are unconstitutional, therefore, does not apply.  

As to the antiestablishment interest in preventing the funding of religious education, it too fails. There does not exist any “historic and substantial” tradition to support Tennessee’s “decision to disqualify religious schools from government aid.”...  And if the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise precedent tell us anything, it is this: Neutrally administering a state education program in which funds reach religious schools does not offend the Establishment Clause because it neither favors nor disfavors religion....

... [S]tates have a long history of supporting religious education through public funding.... Tennessee’s charter school funding mechanism is consistent with that tradition. Like the programs at issue in Espinoza [v. Montana Department of Revenue] and Carson [v. Makin], Tennessee distributes funding on a per-pupil basis, meaning that public funds follow students to the schools their families choose.... Families are free to select a charter school or pursue other educational options, and the State’s role is to provide funding to the school in which a student enrolls.....  That the funds ultimately reach a religious institution—approved to operate a charter school—does not transform the State’s support for a generally available educational benefit into an establishment of religion....

Knox News reports on the decision.

Australia Releases Updated Plan to Combat Antisemitism

On October 30, Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism released a 40-page update to Australia's national plan for combatting antisemitism. The document titled Combatting Antisemitism: Special Envoy's Priorities (full text), explains the sources, drivers and facilitators of antisemitism as well as discussing in depth the next steps to be taken. The press release announcing the new report says that the report "builds on the Plan the Australian Government adopted in full after the Bondi terror attack and responds to further signs that Australia’s social fabric is fraying." The press release concisely summarizes priorities for the next phase as follows:

• Education, codes of conduct and complaints. Governments, businesses, community groups, sporting bodies, arts organisations and universities to educate their people and to adapt their codes of conduct and complaints processes to incorporate antisemitism.
• Public money. Taxpayer-funded organisations and grants must not be used to promote, facilitate or accept antisemitism, across the arts, sport and university research, backed by enforceable funding conditions.
• Public service. Continued collaboration on training for public servants.
• Universities. Every university to adopt and operationalise a definition of antisemitism in line with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) and TEQSA’s Statement of Regulatory Expectations.
• Schools. A fully funded national roll-out of the UNESCO program for teachers and students, following evaluation of the current trial.
• Health. A national Healthcare Antisemitism Taskforce and continued engagement with Ahpra, so every patient can trust their care and Jewish practitioners are protected from harassment and vexatious complaints.
• Arts. Cultural institutions to adopt codes of conduct to make cultural spaces safe for all and for initiatives to be trialled to re-engage doxxed or otherwise excluded Jewish creatives and artists into the broader Australian arts sector.
• The law. Continual review and reform by Commonwealth, state and territory governments of gaps in the legislative framework, and measures to ensure the laws are contemporary and effectively enforced.
• Media. An independent ombudsman for Australia’s public broadcasters to ensure they are held accountable to their own stated standards of accuracy and impartiality.

President Sends Diwali Greetings

Yesterday was the main day of the 5-day festival of Diwali. The White House yesterday posted a Presidential Message on Diwali. It reads in part:

Today, I send my warmest greetings to Americans across our great Nation celebrating Diwali—the Festival of Lights.

During this special time, families gather around flickering diyas, homes shine with the warmth of ancient traditions, and countless communities glow with the beauty of a celebration thousands of years in the making.  This Diwali, we observe light’s enduring triumph over the forces of darkness and honor the goodness that lives within each and every one of us—timeless values that have long enriched the great story of America....

American Bazaar reports:that in Seattle Washington, a Diwali cultural festival was disrupted on Saturday by protesters carrying anti-Hindu and anti-Indian signs.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Achmad Shiva'ul Haq Asjach, Arinal Muna & Hilma Luthfia, Islamic Religious Counselors in the Modern Era: A Critical Analysis of Challenges, Role Transformation, and Strategies for Strengthening Professionalism, (September 07, 2026).
• Ian Kano, The Forbidden: AI, Robots and the Breaking of Belief, Love and Law, (October 27, 2026).
• Krishna Jamo & Ruchit Yadav, The Wall of Places of Worship Act, 1991, (December 09, 2025).
• Musab Abbas Sani, Beyond Halal and Haram: A Comparative Jurisprudential Analysis of Forex and Cryptocurrency Trading in Islamic Law, (November 07, 2025).
• Phil Kline, Constitutionalizing an Enforcement Vacuum: Virginia House Joint Resolution 1 and the Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse, (Liberty University Law Review, forthcoming Spring 2027).

From SmartCILP:

• Dru Brenner-Beck, Combatant Immunity—Much Ado about ... Something, 58 Texas Tech Law Review 363-434 (2026).
• Carolyn L. Wheeler, Impact of Contemporary "Culture Wars" on Religious Discrimination Claims and Defenses, (Abstract), 39 A.B.A. Journal of Labor & Employment Law 1-39 (2026).
• JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION, Vol. 40 Issue 1, Vol. 40 Issue 2, Vol. 40 Issue 3.

11th Circuit Rejects Hebrew-Israelite Inmate's Complaints About Diet Accommodations

In Robinson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., Nov. 4, 2026), the U.S.11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Hebrew Israelite prisoner who claims his free exercise rights were infringed when he was denied religiously compliant food for two religious holidays and when he was not permitted to reenroll in the prison's alternative meals program because he had not demonstrated the sincerity of his religious exercise.  The court said in part:

Robinson argues that Chaplain Gault had a duty to correspond with FDOC’s food service department on his behalf, but he presented no evidence below to establish that the chaplain had this affirmative duty.  Instead, the unrefuted evidence indicated the opposite -- that Robinson himself needed to contact food services to receive unleavened meals during Passover and failed to do so.... [This] did not “effectively” deprive Robinson of the means by which he could practice his religion and amounted to, at most, a mere “inconvenience to [Robinson’s] religious practice.”...

Nor did the court err in granting summary judgment on Robinson’s claim that he had not received a double-portion bagged lunch to break his fast at the end of the Day of Atonement in ... 2020.  Robinson concedes that he was offered meal trays at breakfast, lunch, and dinner on that day....  [H]e could have retained one or all of these meals and consumed them after sundown to break his fast.  On this record, we cannot say that the FDOC’s actions amounted to a substantial burden on Robinson’s religious exercise.   

Robinson also challenges Chaplain Martinez’s decision to deny his reenrollment in the RDP in December 2020 -- after he had removed himself from the RDP in 2013 or 2014....  However, Chaplain Martinez’s decision did not amount to a First Amendment violation because, based on the undisputed record, it was made in accordance with FDOC’s reasonable policy for assessing admittance to the program. ...

... [T]here is a rational relationship between FDOC’s policy of assessing the sincerity of inmates’ religious beliefs and the neutral need to limit the cost and administrative burden of providing alternative meal options to inmates....  Robinson did not argue, and the evidence does not suggest, that the sole means of Robinson’s Hebrew Israelite religious expression was the receipt of a religiously-compliant diet.  Rather, the FDOC Chaplaincy Services guide lists many other forms of exercise for the Hebrew Israelite faith, involving work proscription days, clothing, and worship.

WV Supreme Court Construes Fraud Exception to Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In State of West Virginia  ex rel. Trustees of the West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Wills, (WV Sup. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2026), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the fraud exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was not applicable to statements that merely misinterpreted Church law. In 2019, amidst objections from numerous local churches to the increasing acceptance of same sex marriage and ordination of homosexual clergy, the United Methodist Church set up a procedure by which local congregations could disaffiliate and retain their church property. However, congregations had only until December 31, 2023, to disaffiliate under this provision. In West Virginia, local churches postponed disaffiliating until after that date in reliance on incorrect information given to them by representatives of the parent General Conference. The Supreme Court said in part:

The Local Churches’ claims arise from the Church’s rules governing disaffiliation and the disposition of church property. Adjudicating those claims would require the circuit court to determine what the Discipline permitted, what procedures it made available to congregations seeking to disaffiliate, and whether the Conference properly interpreted and applied the Church’s governing law. Those are questions of ecclesiastical law committed exclusively to the Church’s own governing structure....

... The Local Churches alleged that in 2022, Conference representatives advised them that ¶ 2553 did not permit disaffiliation because the General Conference had not made any changes necessary to trigger the provision.... [T]hey contend that it constitutes a false statement that induced them to delay disaffiliation. However, whether that interpretation was correct or not is a question of Church law beyond the review of the civil courts. 

Characterizing a difference of opinion over the meaning of the Discipline’s provisions as a false statement does not confer jurisdiction upon a secular court to decide the underlying ecclesiastical question.

The same is true of the Local Churches’ allegations concerning ¶ 2549. They allege that Conference representatives promised that they could use that provision’s closure procedure to disaffiliate after the 2024 General Conference despite knowing when they made the representation that it was false... [In 2024, the] Judicial Council ... [held] that ¶ 2549 did not provide a means of disaffiliation. The Local Churches do not allege that this decision was procured by fraud, nor do they allege that Conference representatives colluded with the Judicial Council.... To adjudicate their claims ... the circuit court would necessarily have to determine whether the Conference’s interpretation of the Discipline was correct. That question implicates the Church’s interpretation and application of its own ecclesiastical law and therefore cannot be independently determined by the Circuit Court of Mercer County.

The Local Churches contend that their allegations of fraud and collusion act as an exception to the constitutional constraint on civil courts’ authority to adjudicate ecclesiastical matters and require the court to consider their claims. We decline to apply the exception so broadly. ...

... [T]he exception does not encompass alleged misconduct that did not procure the final decision; accompanied an interpretation of church law by a church authority not empowered to issue binding interpretations; or otherwise contributed to the underlying dispute....

Court Refuses to Dismiss Ohio AG's Suit Challenging Closing of Hebrew Union College

In Wilson v. Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, (OH Com. Pl., Oct. 30, 2026), an Ohio state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by Ohio's Attorney General that seeks to prevent Hebrew Union College (HUC) from closing its 150-year-old Cincinnati rabbinical school. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

Defendant HUC argued that the Complaint fails on three independent constitutional grounds: (l ) the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine divests this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Complaint centers on purely ecclesiastical issues about where and how to train rabbinical candidates; (2) the Complaint violates the Free Exercise Clause by coercing a religious institution' s exercise of a central tenet of its faith; and (3) the Complaint violates the Establishment Clause by excessively entangling the government and HUC's religious affairs....

At this early stage of litigation, the Court finds that dismissal on constitutional grounds is premature.... The AG challenges HUC's actions as an Ohio charitable trust and nonprofit corporation. Although HUC argued that the decision to close the rabbinical school was "purely ecclesiastical," the allegations of the Complaint do not indicate that the Attorney General brought this case purely because of the decision to close the rabbinical school.

The Attorney General alleged (1) that HUC's 1950 Consolidation Agreement required HUC to permanently maintain a rabbinical school in Cincinnati, Ohio; (2) that Ohio donors have HUC millions of dollars in reliance on the commitment to maintaining a permanent rabbinical school in Cincinnati, Ohio; (3) that HUC then voted to delete to permanence requirement and close the rabbinical school; and (4) that HIC redistributed the Ohio charitable assets to New York, Los Angeles, and Jerusalem.

... [T]he central issue that appears at this time is not Jewish theology, religious doctrine, or ecclesiastical governance. Same issue could arise whether or not the defendant was a religious institution. Further, certain remedies sought by the Attorney General appear facially neutral....

The Attorney General alleged that HUC owes specific fiduciary duties to donors and beneficiaries, and that HUC breached those duties....

... [T]the burden is on the Attorney General to support the assertion that many of the donations to HUC would not have been given without the assurance of a "permanent" rabbinical school in Cincinnati. But HUC presumably keeps records of donations as the recipient of such donations, not the Attorney General....

JNS reports on the decision.

Islamic Center May Move Ahead with Challenge to Cease-and-Desist Order from Texas Funeral Services Commission

In East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) v. Texas Funeral Services Commission, (WD TX, Sept. 9, 2026), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a suit challenging a cease-and-desist order issued by the Texas Funeral Services Commission. The court said in part:

Islamic religious law calls for prompt ritual cleansing, shrouding, prayer, and burial in which the integrity and dignity of the decedent’s remains are scrupulously maintained.  (Id.)  To that end, EPIC offers traditional, non-commercial, Muslim funeral rites; especially for Muslim families unable to afford the services.  (Id.)  EPIC assists Muslim families by arranging and facilitating religious funeral rites (washing, shrouding, and performing the Janaza prayer) in partnership with, and under the supervision of, licensed funeral providers....

On March 26, 2025, the Commission issued a cease-and-desist letter to EPIC....  It ordered EPIC to immediately halt what the Commission alleged were unlicensed funeral service operations....

To comply with the cease-and-desist letter, EPIC reports that it ceased performing religious funeral rites, which resulted in at least eleven congregants being buried without receiving the Janaza prayer at their mosque....  

EPIC contends that the Agency Defendants violated both state and federal constitutional and statutory protections for religious exercise, and it claims the Commission exceeded its statutory authority under Texas law..... 

EPIC points to the Commission’s prior affirmations that religious organizations could perform burial-related rites so long as they were not doing so for profit....  These allegations, it posits, support its claim that “hysteria” and “religious animus” concerning a planned commercial development in Josephine, Texas, motivated Agency Defendants’ cease-and-desist letter (and the State officials’ comments, generally) rather than any legitimate regulatory concern about EPIC’s not-for-profit performance of sacred Muslim funeral rites....

On July 2, 2025, EPIC filed its Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction in the 250th District Court of Travis County....  The Agency Defendants then removed the suit from state court to this Court....

In allowing plaintiffs to move forward with their claims, the court held that the state's removal of the case to federal court waived any claims of sovereign immunity that it would have had in state court. It also held that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded standing and ripeness. The court noted earlier in its opinion:

In the days and weeks before the cease-and-desist letter, EPIC’s Complaint pleads a bevy of public statements attributed to certain State officials that amplified unsubstantiated theories about EPIC’s ties to Sharia law and peddled in Islamophobic tropes.... 

The court concluded its opinion as follows:

In closing, the Court observes the strong likelihood that James Madison and others who realized their vision for a pluralistic Republic in the federal Constitution would be gravely troubled by the allegations in EPIC’s complaint.  At the dawn of the new federal Constitution, Madison’s warning about governments that “employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy” applies equally to those who, as EPIC alleges here, employ religion as an engine of civil regulatory and criminal enforcement....  And like Madison warned and as EPIC now alleges, such conduct amounts to “an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.”...

1st Circuit Denies Injunction Pending Appeal of Maine's School Vaccination Requirement

In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Childs, (1st Cir., Nov. 3, 2026), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, refused to enjoin while an appeal is pending enforcement against plaintiffs of Maine's vaccination requirement for school children. Plaintiffs have religious objections to the requirement. The majority said in part:

It is not obvious that Yoder, Mahmoud, and Mirabelli govern the situation we face given that Maine's vaccination law does not appear to require a student's submission to school-facilitated instruction....

Relatedly, Yoder itself recognized that prior Supreme Court authority allows States to impose the kind of broad public health initiative that underlies this appeal....

Plaintiffs do not adequately demonstrate that the more recent authority on which they rely clearly shows that the Yoder line of cases applies to a vaccination requirement, especially where the ability of States to impose such a requirement is entrenched in other Supreme Court authority.  At this stage of the appeal, plaintiffs have shown only that there is emerging law in this area.  But showing the existence of emerging law that may be distinguishable is not enough to warrant the extraordinary relief of an injunction pending appeal.

Judge Dunlap filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The Supreme Court has rejected narrow readings of its free exercise precedents on parental rights... which the district court here did by limiting strict scrutiny to instances in which a school directly inculcates values contrary to the parents' beliefs.  Applying Yoder and its progeny, strict scrutiny applies because Childs' religious beliefs regarding vaccination and the upbringing of his children are sincere and substantially burdened by the vaccination requirement....

... There is no dispute that, because of the vaccination requirement, Childs' son has been deprived of the opportunity to attend public school.  Absent a showing that the vaccine requirement survives strict scrutiny, this is a substantial and irreparable harm.... Because the State already permits certain students a grace period to vaccinate and because the vaccination requirement does not apply to certain students who previously invoked a religious objection, it does not appear that allowing Childs' son and the children of other WTP members (if any) in Maine to attend school for the short period of this appeal would cause significant harm.

Election Results on Ballot Measures of Interest

Here are the results of some of the ballot measures facing voters in yesterday's elections:

• Alabama Amendment 3: Require Pledge of Allegiance and Allow Student-Led Prayer in Public Schools Amendment. Yes 63.11%, No 36.89%
• Idaho Proposition 1: Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative. Yes 44.69%, No 55.31%
• Missouri Amendment 3: Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment. Yes 44.77%, No 55.23% 
• Nevada Question 6: Right to Abortion Initiative. Yes 63.29%, No 36.71%
• Vermont Proposal 4. Equal Protection of Law Amendment. Yes 78.74%, No 21.26%
• Virginia Question 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. Yes 60.95%, No 39.05%
• Virginia Question 2: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment. Yes 56.24%, No 43.76%
• Wisconsin Question 2: Prohibit Government Closure of Places of Worship During Emergencies Amendment. Yes 48.03%, No 51.97%

President Signs Legislation Extending Life of U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

Yesterday, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1744, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026 (full text), which extends the life and authorizes appropriations for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The law amends 22 USC 6435(a) to now provide an appropriation of $3,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2027 and 2028 and for the period beginning on October 1, 2028, and ending on December 31, 2028. It also amends 22 USC 6436 to extend the life of the Commission until December 31, 2028.

Court Says Iowa Must Allow Satanic Temple to Hold Event in Capitol Rotunda

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Campbell, (SD IA, Nov. 2, 2026), an Iowa federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Iowa officials to issue a permit to The Satanic Temple for it to hold its annual holiday event on December 12, 2026, in the Iowa Capitol Rotunda. For three years Capitol authorities had denied TST's application primarily because the event would include a costume contest featuring Krampus, a figure from European folklore, who is usually portrayed with a bundle of sticks in his hand.  Officials feared that the presence of sticks with the costumed participants would harm children. The court said in part:

The concern Director Campbell described rests on what the Krampus character means and whether it might frighten children, which is not a permissible basis for excluding speech.  And to the extent the concern rests on the sticks carried as part of the costumes, it cannot justify denying the entire event....

... A State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, “but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”...

Excluding Krampus costumes because they might frighten children, while admitting the season’s celebratory displays, targets a perspective on the holiday rather than the holiday itself.  The Supreme Court has held that disfavoring expression because it offends, or because officials judge it immoral or scandalous, is viewpoint discrimination.... Excluding a costume because officials find it frightening rests on the same kind of judgment....

ACLU Iowa issued a press release announcing the decision.