2025 Report on Religious Liberty Protections by Each State Is Released

Yesterday, First Liberty Institute released its report Religious Liberty in the States 2025 (full text) (Report website). According to the 16-page report:

Now in its fourth annual edition, RLS considers forty-seven distinct legal protections that states have adopted to protect religious liberty. These legal protections, which we refer to as “items,” are aggregated into twenty “safeguards,” which we average to produce one index score per state. The index allows us to rank states and to track changes in religious liberty protections over time.... Source data, including hyperlinked citations to state statutes, are published online at religiouslibertyinthestates.com.... 

Florida is an exemplar for how state legislators can improve their state’s protection of religious liberty. When we began the project, Florida protected a respectable 58 percent of the eleven safeguards we considered in 2022 and was ranked sixth in the nation. Today, it protects 75 percent of the twenty safeguards we consider and ranks first. Most of its improvement derived from legislation strengthening its medical conscience protections in 2023 and legislation protecting houses of worship from discriminatory treatment during pandemics and other emergencies in 2022....

Ministerial Exception Applies to Most Claims by Unitarian Minister

In Rohde v. Unitarian Universalist Association, (ED PA, July 11, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception grounds a retired Unitarian minister's claims of defamation, false light, tortious interference with contract claims as well as her claim that her contract was breached by defendant's decision to remove her from Fellowship and revoke her ministerial credentials. According to the court:

In April 2021, three other Unitarian Universalist ministers filed a complaint against Rev. Rohde with the Association and claimed that she had committed “ministerial misconduct” based on social media interactions the three ministers had with her.... The ministers’ complaint alleged that Rev. Rohde “engaged in ‘defamation’ of colleagues, breaking of ‘confidentiality,’ and other unspecified ‘professional conduct’ violations.”... 

The Committee’s “Executive Committee” determined that Rev. Rohde had committed “ministerial misconduct” and recommended that the full Committee remove her from Fellowship and revoke her ministerial credentials.... After a hearing on October 2, 2022, the Committee voted to remove Rev. Rohde from Fellowship and to revoke her ministerial credentials....

The question of whether Rev. Rohde in fact committed ministerial misconduct and violated ministerial ethics would involve the Court in measuring Rev. Rohde’s conduct against church doctrine and second-guessing the Association’s disciplinary processes for ministers.   The First Amendment prohibits the Court from weighing in on such issues....

However, the court held that the ministerial exception doctrine did not bar plaintiff's claim for payment of her retirement benefits, saying in part:

... [T]he Court can resolve both Rev. Rohde’s breach of contract claim and promissory estoppel claim without analyzing doctrine or impacting the Association’s ability to choose its ministers.  Rev. Rohde does not allege—and the Association’s bylaws and the Committee’s rules and policies do not show—that she was required to remain in Fellowship after retiring to continue receiving her “past earned” benefits.... Therefore, the ministerial exception does not bar Rev. Rohde’s breach of contract or promissory estoppel claims against the Pension Society at this stage.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Isaac Ephraim, The Israel-Iran-USA Conflict: Legal, Theocratic, and Strategic Dimensions of a Modern Proxy War, (June 26, 2025).
• Jack Kieffaber, Kimo Gandall, Steven Foster, Jr. & Kenny McLaren, LLMs are Bad Judges. So use Our Classifier Instead. (June 30, 2025).
• Steven Douglas Smith, The Collapse of Consent, (Lisbon Law Review 2025.2 (forthcoming)).
• Penelope Andrews, Human Rights And Foreign Policy: South Africa's Genocide Complaint Against Israel At The International Court Of Justice, (May 01, 2025).
• Scott Howe, Suicide's Shadow: The Evolution of a Ghost Crime, (90 Mo. L. Rev. 325 (2025)).
• David D. Cole, "Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses": A Hearing Before the House Committee on Education and Workforce , 119th Cong., May 7, 2025, (Georgetown University Law Center Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Nadia Naim & Noor suhaida Kasri, Intellectual Property and Islamic Finance: Opportunities and Challenges for a New Islamic Intellectual Property Finance Framework, (Thunderbird International Business Review, volume 67, issue 3, 2025).
• James Toomey, Personhood as Participation, (in Legal Personhood in Private Law (Cambridge University Press, Christopher Essert, Eva Micheler & Paul B. Miller, eds. (2025)).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Gender Therapy False Equivalency, (103 Denver Law Review (forthcoming)).
• Samantha Barbas, How American Civil Rights Groups Defeated Hate Speech Laws, (Journal of Free Speech Law, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2025)).
• Robert Diab, Intrinsic Human Equality: A Critical Overview of Recent and Historical Theory, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, Vol. 39 (2025)).
• Marc Edelman & Amanda Siegrist, Exploring the Transgender Question in U.S. Sex-Segregated Sports and the Future of Title IX, (February 02, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark Corad, Stopping the Spread of the World's Oldest Hatred—What U.S. Sports Stakeholders Can Do to Combat Antisemitism, 35 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 392-443 (2025).
• Keith R. Eakins, Sex, Drugs, and Rottin' Souls: Confrontational Campus Preachers and the Fighting Words Doctrine, 49 Vermont Law Review 47-87 (2024).
• Vania Blaiklock, Race without Racism: Religious School Curricula and the Race-Neutral Legacy of Brown, 66 William & Mary Law Review 883-915 (2025).

Justice Department Sues California Over Its Gender Identity Policy in School Sports

Last week, the Department of Justice sued California, alleging that it violates Title IX by permitting transgender girls to compete in girls' interscholastic athletics. The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Interscholastic Federation, (CD CA, filed 7/9/2025), alleges in part:

1. Across the State of California, girls must compete against boys in various sports pursuant to policies enforced by the California Department of Education (“CDE”) and the California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”).  These discriminatory policies and practices ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous “gender identity.”  The results of these illegal policies are stark: girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards, and miss out on critical visibility for college scholarships and recognition.  In the words of the Governor of California, it is “deeply unfair” for girls to compete against boys. 

2. This discrimination is not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signaling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.  It erodes the integrity of girls’ sports, diminishes their competitive experience, and undermines the very purpose of Title IX: to provide equal access to educational benefits, including interscholastic athletics.  Despite warnings from the United States Department of Education, Defendants continue to require California schools to allow boys to compete against girls.  The United States accordingly files this action to stop Defendants’ illegal sex discrimination against female student athletes....

26. Title IX and the Implementing Regulations use the term “sex” to mean biological sex; the term “sex” thus does not mean “gender identity.”...

47. The California Sex Equity in Education Act, Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5(f), referenced in the CDE’s “Gender Equity/Title IX” guidance, states in part:  “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”  Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Bishops Excuse Those Who Fear ICE Raids from Attending Mass

This week, the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of San Bernadino issued a Decree (full text) formally dispensing from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass "all members of the faithful in the Diocese of San Bernadino who, due to genuine fear of immigration enforcement actions, are unable to attend...." The Decree encourages those excused from attending Mass to engage in other spiritual practices to maintain their spiritual connection to Christ and His Church. It also suggests that individuals participate in televised or online Masses.

In May, the Diocese of Nashville issued a similar lifting of the obligation to attend Mass by those who are concerned about possibly being confronted or detained.

Axios reports on these developments.

Arresting Person for Praying with Others Violates European Convention on Human Rights

In Rafiyev v. Azerbaijan, (ECHR, July 8, 2025), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that it violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights to hold a person in violation of law for praying together with others. The court said in part:

1.  The case concerns the arrest and subsequent conviction of the applicant, a follower of the Nurism teachings of Islam, for the administrative offence of holding an unauthorised religious meeting on private premises....

6.  On 4 March 2017 the applicant went to Guba to attend a funeral ceremony. Afterwards, the applicant, together with others, visited their friend, T.A., at his private house. At around 1 p.m. several police officers raided the premises and took the applicant and twenty-one other individuals to the Guba District Police Office.

7.  ... An administrative-offence report ... stated that ... the applicant had violated the rules on holding religious meetings ... and that he had committed an administrative offence under Article 515.0.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences ("the CAO")....

59.  Moreover, as is clear from the meaning of Article 515.0.2 of the CAO, in order to fall under its scope, an administrative offence had to be committed by an individual who either established a religious organisation or operated one. Given that the applicant was not the owner of the private residence at which he was arrested and was merely in attendance there with his friends, it is unclear how he could have been regarded as having committed an administrative offence under Article 515.0.2 of the CAO....

60.  In any event, even assuming that the private residence where the applicant assembled with others was used as a place of religious worship as argued by the Government, the Court finds it necessary to reiterate that, while States can put in place a requirement that religious denominations be registered in a manner compatible with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, it does not follow that sanctioning an individual member of an unregistered religious organisation for praying or otherwise manifesting his or her religious belief is compatible with the Convention.... To accept the contrary would amount to the exclusion of minority religious beliefs which are not formally registered with the State, and consequently would amount to admitting that a State can dictate what a person can or cannot believe....

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

New Missouri Laws Require Recognition of Religious Student Groups by Colleges; Allow Public Schools to Employ Chaplains

On July 9, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed S.B. 160. The new law (full text) (legislative history) provides in part:

173.1556.  1.  (1)  No public institution of higher learning shall take any adverse action against a belief- based student association or an applicant to be recognized as such:

(a)  Because such association is political, ideological, or religious;

(b)  On the basis of such association's viewpoint or expression of the viewpoint by the association or the association's members; or

(c)  Based on such association's requirement that the association's leaders be committed to furthering the association's mission or that the association's leaders adhere to the association's sincerely held beliefs, sincere practice requirements, or sincere standards of conduct....

3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a belief-based student association if there is substantial evidence that such association's viewpoint or expression of the viewpoint by the association or the association's members would cause a material and substantial disruption to the educational environment or interfere with the rights of others on campus, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).

St Louis Public Radio reports on the bill. 

The Governor also signed SB 49 (full text) (legislative history) which allows school districts and charter schools to employ chaplains or accept chaplains as screened volunteers to provide support, services, or programs for students. Missouri Independent reports on the new law.

6th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Suit by Christian School's Principal

In Pulsifer v. Westshore Christian Academy, (6th Cir., July 9, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception doctrine required dismissal of an employment discrimination suit brought by the Dean of Students/ Assistant Principal of a Christian elementary school in Muskegon Heights, Michigan. The court said in part:

No one disputes that the Academy is the type of religious entity that can avail itself of the exception.... The Academy sees its role in inculcating the Christian faith as essential to its students’ salvation, and its “mission of Christian ministry and teaching” marks the school with “clear [and] obvious religious characteristics.”...

The question, then, is whether Pulsifer was the type of employee covered by the exception.  We hold that he was.  Pulsifer played an important role in furthering the school’s mission to provide for the religious education and formation of students.  Judicial review of the way in which the Academy chooses who should fill that type of role “would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”,,,

... Pulsifer played a role in teaching the faith.  He was tasked with leading the staff in religious devotions each morning and also led devotions at each meeting of the school’s board.  Pulsifer also played an important role in conducting communal prayer with staff and board members....  And by implementing and leading two religious youth programs, he played a public-facing “role in conveying” the school’s religious “message,”,,,  

... Put simply, an employee can fall within the ministerial exception even when “[m]ost” of their “work [is] secular in nature,” ...  so long as the employee, like Pulsifer, also performs the types of religious duties we outline above.  Accordingly, the district court properly granted the Academy’s motion for summary judgment.

Planned Parenthood Fights New Medicaid Funding Cutoff

Planned Parenthood filed suit this week in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging Section 71113 of H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act which denies federal Medicaid funds for non-abortion services for one year to any non-profit that provides abortions, and which received in 2023 Medicaid funds exceeding $800,000. (Use of Medicaid funds for abortions is already prohibited under other laws.) The complaint (full text) in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, filed 7/7/2025), alleges that the provision was drafted to target and retaliate against Planned Parenthood. The complaint reads in part:

10. There is no legitimate justification for the statute; rather, the true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion and (if Planned Parenthood’s Members are treated collectively) is the only nationwide abortion provider. Supporters of the Defund Provision, including President Trump and members of Congress, have made this point unmistakably clear. 

11. For these reasons, the Defund Provision’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood Members from a program designed to provide high-quality medical care to the Nation’s neediest patients—care that Planned Parenthood Members have delivered for decades—is unconstitutional as to all Planned Parenthood Members as a Bill of Attainder and it also violates Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and First Amendment rights.

On the day the complaint was filed, the court issued a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order (full text) requiring that Medicaid funding continue to be furnished to plaintiffs. After the government responds, the court will decide whether to issue a temporary injunction in the case. Jurist and The Hill report on these developments.

Barnard College Settles Lawsuit Charging Antisemitism

As previously reported, in March 2024 Jewish and Israeli students sued both Columbia University and Barnard College (which is affiliated with Columbia but is a separate institution) alleging pervasive antisemitism that violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as state and local civil rights laws. On Monday, plaintiffs in the case and Barnard College announced a settlement agreement that will resolve plaintiffs' claims against Barnard College. The settlement apparently does not resolve claims against Columbia University. According to the announcement, Barnard will appoint a Title VI Coordinator who will assure compliance with the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VI. According to the announcement:

When enforcing Title VI, the Title VI Coordinator will review and implement all applicable regulations consistent with guidance from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), including OCR’s 2021 and 2024 guidance which directs schools to “consider” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and its accompanying examples “to the extent that” any such “examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.”...

Barnard will also require all students, faculty, and staff to complete training on the Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment, which will address recognizing, combating, and reporting antisemitism.  Beginning in the 2025 fall semester, the Office of the President will communicate to Barnard students, faculty, and staff an annual message conveying the College’s “zero tolerance” for discrimination and harassment based on all protected traits, including Jewish and Israeli identity.... Barnard will also expand its existing relationship with the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), so that beginning in the 2025 fall semester, courses at the JTS will be available to all Barnard students at no cost....

...  Barnard will maintain policies limiting the time, place, and manner of demonstrations and prohibiting the use of face masks and other personal disguises to intimidate or interfere with the enforcement of the College’s policies.... [T]he College and its senior leaders ... will not recognize, meet, or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, any of its successor or spin-off organizations.... Finally, the College reaffirms that its endowment is intended to maintain intergenerational equity and to ensure the stability of Barnard’s financial position; it is not a vehicle for expressing political positions, which includes taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.... 

IRS Says Houses of Worship Can Endorse Political Candidates

In a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Judgment (full text) filed on Monday with a Texas federal district court in National Religious Broadcasters v. Long, (ED TX, 7/7/2025), the Internal Revenue Service agreed that houses of worship can endorse political candidates without violating Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3). (See prior related posting.)

Section 501(c)(3) bars tax exempt non-profits from "participat[ing] in or interven[ing] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The Motion from both parties seeking entry of a Consent Judgment reads in part as follows:

7. When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign.... Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted. 

8. This interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is in keeping with the IRS’s treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice. As recounted in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the IRS generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services....

11. Accordingly, the Parties request this Court enter the attached proposed order enjoining Defendants ... from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against Plaintiff Churches based on speech by a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.

New York Times reports on the IRS's action.

Virginia Enters Consent Decree Permitting Religiously Motivated Talk Therapy to Change Minors' Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

In a press release last week, Founding Freedoms Law Center announced that the Virginia Department of Health Professions and the Virginia Board of Counseling last month entered into a consent decree (full text) in Raymond v. Virgnia Department of Health Professions, (Cir. Ct., June 4, 2025). The decree enjoins defendants from enforcing Virginia's ban on conversion therapy for minors against plaintiffs and all similarly situated counselors insofar as they are engaging only in religiously motivated "talk therapy" aimed at aligning a minor's gender identity or romantic attractions with the client's biological sex. The decree provides in part:

11. Plaintiffs are Christians and integrate their religious faith in their counseling of clients through talk therapy, which consists of voluntary conversations, prayer, and sharing of written materials such as Scripture, between an individual counselor and an individual client....

22, ...[T]he parties consider that enforcing the Challenged Provisions with respect to talk therapy between a licensed professional and a client that is motivated or informed by religious beliefs and desired by the client would violate Article I, §§ 11 and 16 of the Virginia Constitution, as well as the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Virginia Mercury reports on the consent decree. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Suit Between Unification Church Factions

In Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Hyun Jin Moon, (DC Ct. App., July 3, 2025), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final dismissal of a lawsuit surrounding a schism and succession dispute in the Unification Church.  The dispute has been in litigation for 14 years and has been before the Court of Appeals three times previously. (See prior posting.) Among the numerous issues dealt with in the Court's 59-page opinion was whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to the dispute. The Court said in part:

... [A]ppellants argue that the trial court erred by (1) finding that resolution of the contract claims required determining questions of disputed religious doctrine; and (2) after making that finding, failing to apply the fraud or collusion exception to nonetheless permit review of the contract claims....

At bottom, appellants have yet to provide a clear, spelled-out answer as to how a court or jury might parse their contract and quasi-contract claims through neutral principles of law.  Pointing us to any and all potential contract conditions in the record does not cure the underlying problem we identified in Moon III—which was reiterated by the trial court on remand—that any path of decision-making analysis would require deciding actual, disputed questions of religious doctrine or leadership.  This necessarily results from the combination of (1) the use of extraordinarily broad, religious language in the purported contract terms and (2) an intrachurch dispute about the meaning of that language.  The contract-related claims therefore must fail under the baseline religious abstention doctrine....

Preston has only fraudulently donated UCI’s assets if he is not the true leader of the Unification Church and he knows it.  We cannot say the first thing without running afoul of the abstention doctrine, as we made clear in Moon III, and if bare allegations of fraud or collusion could get us around that, then the courts would be thrust right back into resolving core theological disputes about religious doctrine, hierarchy, and succession.  “No thanks” to that—that runs afoul of the abstention doctrine’s central animating principles.  And it is well established that we cannot apply any fraud or collusion exception in a way that violates the existing Supreme Court precedent on religious abstention....

The trial court acted well within its discretion to put an end to this decade-old case rather than breathing new life into it on its deathbed years after appellants could have gone after the discovery they now belatedly seek.