White House Posts Presidential Message Marking 419th Anniversary of the Cape Henry Cross

Yesterday, the White House posted a "Presidential Message on the Anniversary of the First Landing and the Raising of the Cape Henry Cross" (full text). In it, the President says in part:

On this day 419 years ago, America’s birthright of faith was anchored in the sand when a courageous group of adventurers, explorers, and settlers planted a glorious wooden cross at the crest of Cape Henry, Virginia—a consecration of the new frontier that laid the foundation for the greatest Republic in the history of the world.  Today, our Nation pays tribute to the heroes who landed at Cape Henry in the spring of 1607, and we pledge to pioneer a future that once again upholds our traditions, cherishes our values, and places our trust in Almighty God.

On April 26, 1607, 104 men completed a daring voyage across the Atlantic in search of opportunity in the Americas.  Commissioned by King James I and the Virginia Company of London, they were guided by a noble mission:  to extend Christendom’s dominion in the New World, secure their prosperity, and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ....

Supreme Court: Pregnancy Resource Center Has Standing to Challenge Subpoena for Donor Records

The Supreme Court today in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, (Sup. Ct., April 29, 2026), held that First Choice, a religious anti-abortion pregnancy counseling center, has Article III standing to challenge a subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General. The subpoena sought the names, addresses, phone numbers and places of employment of individuals who made donations to the center so that the state could contact a sample of donors to determine if they had been misled into thinking that the center provided abortions. New Jersey contended that the subpoena did not chill First Choice's associational rights. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court disagreed, saying in part:

Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s.  Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights.  Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments.  Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds....

Christian Post reported on the decision.

British Court Reverses Conviction of Christian for Sending Offensive Anti- Abortion Emails

In The King v. Skinner, (Crown Ct., April 24, 2026), a British Crown Court set aside a Magistrate Court's conviction under the Communications Act. Defendant was convicted of violating a provision of the Communications Act that prohibits sending "grossly offensive" messages by means of a public electronic communications network. Defendant, a Christian anti-abortion advocate, sent e-mails captioned "Reporting Mass Murder..." to two police officials. The emails contained pictures of aborted fetuses and made comments about "brutal killings". The emails also contained pictures of Nazi concentration camp victims. The court said in part:

First, the views expressed in the Letters (as supported by the Images) are political speech entitled to the highest form of protection. The abortion debate raises important matters of public interest where strong views are legitimately held and expressed, often in forceful terms, by persons on each side of the argument. ...

Second, an individual has the right to use images as a form of speech in a way which will shock and offend and indeed it is of often the power of an image which carries the message in its strongest terms....

Third, the intended recipients of the Letters were public officials....

In summary, the Crown has not satisfied us under the demanding standard applied to restrictions on political speech, that the conviction is a justifiable interference with Mr. Skinner’s Article 10(1) rights. On the facts, that restriction has not been demonstrated to be necessary in our modern democratic society

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

Apache Stronghold Sues Again to Prevent Transfer of Religious Site to Copper Mining Company

Last week, another suit was filed by the Native American organization, Apache Stronghold, challenging the transfer of 2500 acres of National Forest land that includes an Apache ceremonial religious ground to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. The complaint (full text), filed in an Arizona federal district court, in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, filed 4/22/2026), alleges in part:

3. The government admits the mine will destroy Oak Flat and that the Apaches will never again be able to access the site or perform sacred rituals there. The government also admits that it has ample alternative sources of copper, and that the copper beneath Oak Flat could be mined without disturbing Oak Flat’s surface. Yet the government declined to utilize these alternatives, or even consider them, because the mining company said they would reduce its profits. Thus, the government has authorized the complete physical destruction of an irreplaceable sacred site solely to increase the profits of a foreign-owned mining company. 

4. This wanton, intentional, and needless destruction of Oak Flat violates multiple federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution, the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe between the U.S. and Apaches, and the nation’s fiduciary duties to Western Apaches. Accordingly, this lawsuit seeks a declaration that the government’s actions are unlawful and an injunction preventing the destruction of Oak Flat and protecting the Apaches’ right to continue accessing and worshipping at Oak Flat. 

In 2024, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed by a vote of 6-5 the denial of a preliminary injunction against the land transfer sought by Apache Stronghold. (See prior posting). The Supreme Court, over the dissent of two justices, denied review. (See prior posting).  Also, last month the 9th Circuit in a suit brought by different plaintiffs again rejected challenges to the land transfer (see prior posting) and the Supreme Court denied petitioners' application for an injunction pending appeal.

In a press release, Becket Fund, which represents Apache Stronghold, explained the new lawsuit in part as follows:

After the Supreme Court’s denial, Apache Stronghold’s case returned to the lower courts, while three other emergency appeals were still pending to protect Oak Flat. But before those appeals could be resolved, the government earlier this year illegally transferred the sacred site overnight, moving Resolution Copper one step closer to permanently destroying Oak Flat. Apache Stronghold is now back in district court seeking to reverse that illegal transfer before Oak Flat is destroyed forever.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in Falun Gong Practitioners' Alien Tort Statute Suit

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Falun Gong victims of human rights abuses carried out by China can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity by Falun Gong members. (See prior posting.)  The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the questions of whether the Alien Tort Statute and/or the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

All pleadings and briefs in the case are available from the Docket sheet on the Supreme Court's website. Audio of the oral arguments will be streamed live here by the Court beginning at 10:00 A.M. A recording and a written transcript of the arguments will be posted by the Court here later today. SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's arguments.

UPDATE: Links to audio and a written transcript of the oral arguments can be found here. The New York Times, reporting on the oral arguments, said in part: "A majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of a lawsuit by Falun Gong members who claim that an American tech company helped the Chinese government to target them for torture."

Released-Time Provider Must Get Equal Treatment with Secular Organizations

 In LifeWise, Inc. v. Everett Public School District, (WD WA, April 24, 2026), LifeWise, an organization that provides off-premise released-time religious instruction to public school students, was granted a preliminary injunction requiring the Everett, Washington School District to grant it treatment equal to that given to secular organizations. The injunction issued by a Washington federal district court requires the district to allow LifeWise to participate in district community resource fairs and display printed flyers in schools to the same extent as permitted for secular organizations. The court also ordered the school to simplify the permission slip procedure for students attending the released time program. Finally, because some parents complained that those attending the released time program were pressuring other students to attend by providing them with materials received during their released time, the school had required students to keep sealed in their backpacks material received during their released-time instruction. A parent who was one of the plaintiffs contended that this prevented her child from being able to read the Bible during free time. The court agreed and ordered that this plaintiff's children be permitted to read LifeWise reading materials during times of the school day when students are allowed to read other non-scholastic materials.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Avishai Akiva Dos-Lobitos, The Condition of the Mother: Partus Sequitur Ventrem and the Construction of Hereditary Status in Colonial America, (April 21, 2026).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Articles of Association as Covenants, (April 15, 2026).
• Shima Baradaran Baughman, A Justice Index, (April 16, 2026).
• Ian Klein,  In Bad Faith: The Binding of the Establishment Clause on the Altar of Free Exercise, (March 20, 2026).
• Antony Kolenc, Is God Pro-Choice as a Matter of Law? The Establishment Clause and State Abortion Bans, (December 01, 2025).
• Angela Cargill, The Domestic Urban Cult: Immigration Exploitation, Coercive Control, and Multi-State Criminal Networks in a U.S.-Based High-Control Group, (April 12, 2026).
• Seth Cook, The Role of Moral Language in Death Penalty Advocacy, (October 11, 2025).
• Isaac Barnes May, Progressive Religious Liberty: Countering Conservative Free Exercise Doctrine, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Volume 31, forthcoming 2027).
• Patrick E. Reidy, C.S.C., YIGBY Laws, (February 28, 2026).
• William Bouviet, Religion and Political Power: Historical Intersections and Structures of Influence, (March 03, 2026).
• Simon Brake, Are Religious Nondiscrimination Clauses Religion-Neutral?, (January 31, 2026).
• Jesse Burnett, De Valore Vitae in Bello: On the Value of Life in War, (March 24, 2026).
• Chagit Schiff Blass & Netta Barak Corren, When Science Disagrees: How Courts Should Navigate Empirical Contradictions In Constitutional Law, (February 10, 2026).

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

• M, Muktha, Ambedkar's Constitutional Morality in Modern Indian Governance, (February 22, 2026).
• Natia Nakashidze, Divorce as a Dual Legal Reality: The Intersection of Civil and Ecclesiastical Orders and Its Property and Status Implications in Georgia, (April 13, 2026).
• Saif Ali, Beyond the Gender Binary: An Intersectional Analysis of Law and the Recognition of Transgender People in Pakistan, (April 14, 2025).
• Simran Kaur, "The Economics of Belief: Religion, Behavioral Change and Public Policy Interventions", (April 25, 2025).
• Matías I. Rizzone, The Constitution That Was Never There, (March 19, 2026).
• Robert C. Blitt, Recognizing and Responding to Religious Support for Illegal War: The Russian Orthodox Church's Role in Russia's Aggression Against Ukraine, (April 16, 2026).

From SSRN (Judaism and Jewish Law):

• Hershey H. Friedman, The Most Cherished of Virtues: Human Dignity (Kvod Habriyot) in Jewish Law from the Talmud to the Digital Age (March 30, 2026).
• Hershey H. Friedman, The Good Life: Talmudic Wisdom on Ethics, Character, and Human Flourishing, (April 15, 2026).
• Jacob Goldman, First English Translation of the Kesef Mishneh on Hilchot Mamrim by Rabbi Yosef Karo (March 22, 2026).

From SSRN (Religious Issues in Africa):

• Anthony S. Aladekomo, Scientific and Historical Proofs That All Races Descended from A Common Ancestor in Africa, (April 18, 2026).
• Faith Afolabi, The Architecture of Ecclesiastical Malfeasance: A Comprehensive Analysis of Institutional Corruption and Covert Operations within the Christian Association of Nigeria and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, (April 23, 2026).
• Daniel Clement Unachukwu, A Study of Matthew 20:20–28 in Relation to Pentecostal Churches Leadership in Nigeria, (May 10, 2024).

From SSRN (Islam and Islamic Law):

• Nasrullah Qureshi & Bibi Saima Amanullah, An Analysis of Empirical Analogies of Quran for Resurrection: A Case Study of Surah Ar Rum, (September 19, 2025).
• Oruj Ismayilov, Striving or Fighting? Jihād in the Qur'an, (April 04, 2026).

From SSRN (Religious Philosophy):

• Edgar A. Fernandez-Lopez, Self-Identification and Human Experience in Liquid Times How Labels Shape the Way We Understand Our Lives, (April 22, 2026).
• Roman Petrov, Lead-Related Indicators and Cross-National Variation in the Belief That Morality Requires God: An Exploratory Ecological Sensitivity Analysis, (April 10, 2026).
• Hendrik Gommer, From Grotius to Biology: The Evolution of Natural Law, (May 10, 2025).
• Shamsaddin Amanov, Jurisdictional Sovereignty: A Consent-Based Critique of Divine Authority, (March 01, 2026).
• William Bouviet, Digital Faith: The Transformation of Religious Experience in Algorithmic Environments, (March 06, 2026).

New York City Law Providing Police Perimeters During Demonstrations Around Houses of Worship Goes into Effect

As reported by JNS, last week New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that he would not veto a law protecting houses of worship during protests and demonstrations. The law, Int. 1-B (full text), passed last month by New York City Council, calls for police to create a plan for security perimeters around places of worship. The new law provides in part:

... [T]he police commissioner shall submit to the mayor and the speaker of the council a proposed plan to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation, and interference, while preserving and protecting the rights to free speech, assembly, and protest, at places of religious worship through the use of security perimeters, in accordance with subdivision d, at entrances to, and exits from, such places of religious worship, including parking lots or driveways of such places of religious worship....

d. The proposed and final plans shall include considerations to be used by the police department in connection with: 1. Deciding whether and when to use a security perimeter at entrances to, and exits from, a place of religious worship...; 2. Determining the extent of such a security perimeter... 3. Implementing such a security perimeter, including steps taken by the police department to ensure that such a perimeter neither curtails rights to free speech, assembly, or protest nor impedes emergency access to, or egress from, a place of religious worship....4. Engaging and communicating with clergy and administrators of a place of religious worship ... in order to understand their relevant needs and concerns; and 5. Engaging and communicating with the public and individuals seeking to assemble or protest at, or to enter and exit from, places of religious worship ... in order to understand their relevant needs and concerns....

Candidate's Antisemitic Statements Are Included in California's Official Election Guide

California's Secretary of State this week began sending to voters and posted online its Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2 Primary Election (full text). Every candidate who accepts California's voluntary campaign spending limits is permitted to buy space for a candidate statement in the Guide. Thirty-one candidates for Governor are listed in the Guide. One candidate-- Don J. Grundmann-- posted a virulently antisemitic Candidate Statement. It is the only Candidate Statement in the Guide that is accompanied by a disclaimer that reads: "The views and opinions expressed by the candidates are their own and do not represent the views and opinions of the Secretary of State’s office." Grundmann's Statement reads in part:

Kirk murdered by shaped-charge bomb Israel used. Government knows.... Israel “art students” wired Twin Towers for 9/11.controlled demolition. Planes did NOT destroy towers. Israel did. 3,000 murdered to create new “Pearl Harbor” to justify fghting wars for Israel.... Government knows. Israel (our greatest enemy), NOT Iran, will suitcase nuke U S. via “Samson Option”—false fag attack to blame on Iran/Russia and permanently end our nation.... They call Palestinians AND Christians AND America “Amalek”—their sworn forever enemy. We are “goyim” (less than human animals/cattle) that they will enslave. We are stupid chumps. Israel rules our conquered Republic. Talmud—their Bible—says Christ boiling in in Israel allowed/planned/promoted Hamas attack (they murdered their own people) to justify genocide and steal billion$ in Gaza oil/gas rights. Christian Zionism = soul poison. Talmudic “Judeo-Christian values” don’t exist....

Times of Israel reports on the California publication.

Challenge To Louisiana's Required Classroom Posting of 10 Commandments Dismissed on Ripeness Grounds

In Dier v. Landry, (ED LA, April 22, 2026), a Louisiana federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a school teacher's challenge to Louisiana's requirement that a copy of the Ten Commandments be posted in every public-school classroom.  The court said in part:

... [N]either this Court nor the parties can determine at this time how any particular school governing authority will implement its H.B. 71 displays. Lacking the facts and context of the implemented displays, the Court cannot, on the present record, determine whether any display would violate the Establishment Clause. Second, Plaintiff’s attempt to frame his suit as a facial challenge does not obviate the need for a well-developed factual record.....

... In Roake, the Fifth Circuit noted that the Ten Commandments’ “dual character” of having both religious and historical significance “forecloses any categorical rule against their display on public property” and that the constitutionality of such a display “turns on ‘the context of the display’ and ‘how the text is used.’...

Whether a particular teacher will be required to physically post, display, or otherwise interact with an H.B. 71 display, or whether that task will fall to administrators or other staff, is left fully to the discretion of each governing authority.... Here, Plaintiff faces no statutory obligation of any kind, and his alleged injury from being personally “required to display” the Ten Commandments rests on a chain of assumptions about how Benjamin Franklin High School’s governing authority will choose to implement the Act....

This also renders Plaintiff’s compelled-speech theory especially speculative at this point.

1st Amendment Challenges to State's Foster Care Licensing Policy Move Ahead

In DeGross v. Hunter, (WD WA, April 22, 2026), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss free speech and free exercise claims against the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families brought by a Christian couple who object to the Department's policy on sexual orientation and gender identity. The state requires prospective foster parents to agree to support a foster child's sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE), including using their preferred pronouns and chosen name. The DeGrosses were granted only a limited foster care license because they would not agree to fully implement the state's policy. The court said in part:

The DeGrosses have plausible alleged that Policy § 1520 draws distinctions based on the message the speaker conveys....  Policy § 1520 restricts certain speech by prospective parents on the topic of SOGIE, while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective.... 

In essence, the Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE, and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions.   

The DeGrosses have carried their burden to show that the Department’s enforcement of Policy § 1520 plausibly constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.  Thus, the DeGrosses alleged sufficient facts to show a First Amendment violation unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny....

... [T]he DeGrosses plausibly allege the Department’s policy at issue here puts the DeGrosses in an unfair predicament: they may obtain an unrestricted foster care license but only if they disavow their religious beliefs.... "[S]uch a policy imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny." ...

... “A law is not generally applicable if it ‘invites’ the government to consider the particular reasons for a person’s conduct by providing ‘a mechanism for individualized exemptions.’”... 

... [T]he DeGrosses have carried their burden, at the motion to dismiss stage, to show that § 1520 is neither neutral nor generally applicable.  Thus, the DeGrosses alleged sufficient facts to show a First Amendment violation of freedom of religion unless Defendants can satisfy strict scrutiny.  Based on the limited record before it, the Court is unable to determine at this time whether Defendants can satisfy strict scrutiny.  Thus, the DeGrosses’ freedom of religion claim survives the motion to dismiss.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim.