Dispute Over Access to A Rabbinical Court Lands on Supreme Court's Shadow Docket

Last week, an Emergency Application (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay pending appellate review in Strulovich v. Bain, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/17/2026). The case involves a dispute between business associates over whether their business issues should be decided by a rabbinical court or a civil court, and if the former, which rabbinical court. (See prior posting and decisions below).  The Emergency Application filed with Justice Sotomayor says in part:

A New York trial court has directly intruded on the free exercise of religion by ordering Applicant Samuel Strulovitch, who is a religious Jew, to refrain from trying to resolve a monetary dispute in a rabbinical court (Hebrew: “beis din”), as he sincerely believes he must. That alone would be extraordinary. But the trial court went further still by ordering Strulovitch to attempt to convince that same rabbinical court to reverse a religious determination that he agrees with.  

In this case, Strulovitch brought an underlying commercial dispute between two Jewish parties to a beis din, attempting to have the parties voluntarily agree to resolve it under Jewish law—as he sincerely believes he must. The beis din then issued a seruv (a religious censure of recalcitrance, with no civil consequences) against Respondent Moshe Bain for having previously sought and obtained an order enjoining Strulovitch from fulfilling his obligation under Jewish law to pursue his case in Jewish court. Strulovitch believes the beis din was right, as a matter of Jewish law, to issue the seruv.... The trial court nonetheless ordered him to cease his efforts before the beis din and “take all steps necessary” to undo the seruv, including withdrawing the proceeding altogether....  

That unconstitutional order squarely violates the First Amendment....

Justice Sotomayor ordered Bain to file a response to the petition by Sept. 23.

National Review reports on the case.

Homeschooling Parent Sues Over Discrimination Against Religious Homeschooling Materials

Oregon's Hillsboro School District has a Homeschooling Partnership program that, among other things, reimburses homeschooling parents for educational materials. However, the district will not reimburse parents for curricular materials that are embedded with a religious perspective. A homeschooling parent filed suit this week in an Oregon federal district court challenging this policy. The complaint (full text) in Bulzan v. Hillsboro School District, (D OR, filed 9/22/2026), contends that the district's refusal to reimburse plaintiff for Christian centered curricular materials violates plaintiff's rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments. The complaint alleges in part:

83. Through HSDHP, the District reimburses materials and experiences that promote a wide range of worldviews, including instruction that contradicts Christian beliefs and instruction with other spiritual themes....

130. District and HSDHP staff repeatedly declined Mrs. Bulzan’s reimbursement based only on the religious character of her homeschooling curriculum....

212. For Mrs. Bulzan, government school is premised on assumptions that are antithetical to her faith, and thus a government-school curriculum cannot educate her children consistent with her religious beliefs....

246. ... States cannot “discriminate[] against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit” based on “religious character.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S. at 462. 

247. ... Oregon does not have to subsidize homeschool materials, but once it “decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some [homeschool materials] solely because they are religious.”...

271. Because Defendants substantially interfered with Mrs. Bulzan’s religious upbringing of her children—an “unacceptable” burden on religious exercise—Defendants’ actions receive strict scrutiny regardless of whether the policy is neutral and generally applicable....

288. Mrs. Bulzan’s right to direct her children’s education and upbringing includes the right to homeschool, and specifically the right to use religious instruction in her homeschool....

307. Defendants’ actions implicate—and violate—the First Amendment because they put “restraints on the way” that Mrs. Bulzan can speak by refusing to provide otherwise available funds for that speech,...

322. Where, as here, the government’s differential treatment is based on religion, the Equal Protection Clause demands strict scrutiny....

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

Injunction Pending Appeal Denied in Challenge to Maine's Vaccination Requirement for School Children

As previously reported, earlier this month a Maine federal district court rejected free exercise and Establishment Clause challenges to Maine's compulsory vaccination law for school children (20-A M.R.S. § 6355). The next day, plaintiffs filed a motion asking for an injunction barring enforcement of the compulsory vaccination law pending appeal. In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Makin, (D ME, Sept., 22, 2026, the court denied the motion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs first argue the Court erred by assessing the “character” of the burden § 6355 imposes rather than its “degree.”... Plaintiffs essentially argue the Order rested on a “distinction between the kind of burden and its degree” that is not recognized by the relevant Supreme Court case law.... Plaintiffs assert that, absent this error, the Court should have applied a strict scrutiny analysis to § 6355, which they contend would not have survived that standard....

As this Court’s prior Order recognized, Yoder, Mahmoud, and Mirabelli each involved a school itself acting directly toward a child to compete with the parents for the child’s own beliefs—conduct that § 6355 does not involve.... Further, the character of the burden on Mr. Childs’ sincere religious beliefs is not of the kind contemplated in the Yoder line of cases....  

... The Order ... applied the standard Tandon and Fulton prescribe: it identified Maine’s asserted interest in the vaccine mandate and asked whether each exemption undermines that interest to the same degree a religious exemption would.... Plaintiffs’ motion does not identify any exemption the Order failed to analyze under that standard....

Whose Rule Governs Clergy-Communicant Privilege When the Communication Was Made in Another State?

In Campbell v. State of Texas, (TX Ct. Cr. App., Sept. 17, 2026), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal cases) refused to grant review in a case posing the question of which state's rule on clergy-communicant privilege applies when the communication takes place in a different state from the one in which defendant is being tried. The majority did not issue an opinion along with its order denying review. However, Judge Yeary filed a dissenting opinion explaining the case and urging review. He said in part:

Appellant was charged, in Harris County, Texas, with murdering his girlfriend. His girlfriend was killed in Texas. And then Appellant went to his mother's home in North Carolina.

While he was in North Carolina, Appellant's mother urged Appellant to speak with a bishop on the telephone. While he was on the phone with the bishop, and allegedly with his mother still in the room, Appellant made a statement admitting that he killed his girlfriend. During trial, the bishop was called to testify as a witness about the contents of Appellant's statement.

Appellant had asked the trial court to suppress the statements he made to the bishop in accordance with our Texas Rule of Evidence addressing the clergy-communicant privilege. But the trial court overruled his motion. The bishop's testimony about Appellant's statements was admitted into evidence at Appellant's trial and he was ultimately convicted. The First Court of Appeals then affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the bishop's testimony, concluding that the North Carolina clergy-communicant privilege applies, rather than the Texas rule....

The Restatement urges state courts to use the "most significant relationship test" when determining which state's law applies. However, the Restatement is not the law of this state....

Applying a different state's law or rule can have a massive impact on the outcome of cases.... In this case, Appellant's mother appears to have been present during the call between Appellant and the bishop when Appellant made the statements at issue. Under Texas Rule of Evidence Rule 505(a)(3), Appellant's mother's presence might not serve to preclude Appellant from asserting the clergy-communicant privilege. It is therefore conceivable that, if the Texas Rule had been applied, Appellant might have been able to prevent the bishop from testifying....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

8th Circuit Hears Arguments on Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Samantha Stinson v. State of Arkansas, (Docket No. 26-1722, argued 9/22/2026). In the case, an Arkansas federal district court, finding both Establishment clause and Free Exercise clause problems with the law, issued a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing Arkansas' statute that requires the posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) Arkansas Advocate reports on the oral arguments.

Trump Urged to Press Xi on Religious Freedom Issues at Tomorrow's Summit

Tomorrow President Trump meets with China's leader President Xi Jinping who arrives today on a state visit to Washington. Last week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release that reads in part:

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has reported for years that China’s violations of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) have been too numerous to count and too heinous to ignore. USCIRF asks President Donald J. Trump to directly raise with President Xi Jinping China’s systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of FoRB during the U.S.-China summit in Washington, D.C. on September 24, 2026....

Sam Brownback who was ambassador at large for International Religious Freedom from 2018-2021 and who is now co-chair of the International Religious Freedom Summit published an op-ed on Fox News similarly urging the President to raise religious freedom issued with President XI. Brownbacck said in part:

The CCP is increasingly waging a campaign of harassment, disinformation and lawfare — called transnational repression — against religious and political dissidents in the United States. Falun Gong practitioners alone have suffered nearly 300 bomb and death threats. Not to mention the persecution of them still raging within China itself....

Just days ago, Anthropic reported disrupting China-based intelligence operations using its Claude AI platform to build surveillance dossiers on overseas dissidents and Tibetan Buddhist, Falun Gong, Christian and Uyghur communities, including the U.S....

Americans will not accept Beijing’s meddling when it follows people across borders and tries to stifle, silence or punish them for choosing both faith and freedom.

When Xi arrives in Washington, President Trump should make that clear.

EEOC Sues Frozen Snack Manufacturer Over Firing of Jewish Employee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the Texas-based Bell Creameries, Inc. charging it with religious discrimination against a Jewish employee who was a body shop technician.  The EEOC's press release announcing the lawsuit said in part:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Blue Bell fired the employee in March 2025, less than a month after he refused to shave his beard due to his religious beliefs. The EEOC said that Blue Bell’s stated reason for firing the longtime employee, a timekeeping violation, was a pretext for religious discrimination and retaliation, and claimed that other workers routinely engaged in the same conduct without repercussion. The lawsuit also said a supervisor baselessly questioned the sincerity of the worker’s religious beliefs on multiple occasions.

WBRC News reporting on the lawsuit said in part:

According to the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the employee worked as a body shop technician refurbishing fiberglass vehicle parts. The company says that role requires a fully sealing respirator, which it claims is incompatible with certain facial hair.

Blue Bell held a respirator training and mask fit test for the department on Feb. 10, 2025. The employee was on leave and did not attend. The lawsuit alleges that none of the coworkers who did attend were required to shave their beards afterward, including some who had similar beards and did similar work requiring a respirator.

President Trump Sends Yom Kippur Greetings

Yom Kippur begins at sundown this evening. Today the White House posted a" Presidential Message on Yom Kippur" (full text) which reads:

On the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, I send my best wishes to the entire Jewish community for a blessed Yom Kippur.

As it is referred to in the Torah as the “Sabbath of Sabbaths,” Yom Kippur empowers those of the Jewish faith to renew their unwavering relationship with the Creator through fasting, prayer, and charity.  As the High Holy Days come to a close, and the fate of the year ahead is inscribed and sealed, my Administration is resolved to defend every American’s sacred right to freedom of religion.

May the Almighty bless you all with renewed strength and abundant faith on this holy day, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

RLUIPA Does Not Apply to Addiction Treatment Center Imposed as Alternative to Criminal Sentence

In Bryson v. Page, (SD GA, September 17, 2026), a Georgia federal district court dismissed RLUIPA, Establishment Clause and free exercise claims brought against Augusta-Richmond County and against Crystal Page, Coordinator for the Richmond County Accountability Court. Georgia's Accountability Court program facilitates treatment for drug and alcohol offenders and allows for reduced criminal sentences. Plaintiff Ivan Bryson who is Jewish was forced to participate in Christian based activities at a treatment center (Penfield) for three months until he was transferred to another facility.

Rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, the court held that RLUIPA by its terms only applies to persons confined in a "jail, prison, or other correctional facility" and Penfield does not fall within that definition. The court said in part:

The Court finds the evidence does not support that Penfield was a jail, prison, or correctional facility under RLUIPA based on the Accountability Court DUI program and nature of the facility.... As referenced in RLUIPA, the plain meaning of the word "correctional facility" refers to a prison....

Although few courts have addressed this issue, courts generally have declined to apply RLUIPA in facilities beyond jails, prisons, or pretrial detention facilities....  Here, Plaintiff underwent treatment at a rehabilitation center following an alcohol offense as part of the Accountability Court program....  The Court refrains from broadening the meaning of an institution under RLUIPA....

The court rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, finding that county funds were given to Penfield for a secular purpose. It rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

... [N]ot only did Defendant Page lack authority to move Plaintiff upon his initial request, but she was also unaware that Penfield would impose religious programing. As such, the Court finds that Defendant Page, in her individual capacity, did not substantially burden Plaintiff's practice of religion.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Chagai Schlesinger, Autonomy Of Dependent Institutions: Church Autonomy After Carson V. Makin, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming Spring 2027).
• LaDonna Humphrey, Faith, Authority, and the Duty to Protect Medical Neglect in the Church of the Firstborn and Comparable Religious Communities, (September 08, 2026).
• Lynne Marie Kohm, "There is no Mama": Protecting the Best Interests of the Child and Deterring their Commodification with a State Preference for Marriage, (August 01, 2026).
• Michel Rosenfeld, Constitutional Justice for Minority Religions in Liberal Secular Democracies, (Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2026-23 (2026)).
• Abbey Stemler & Jamie Darin Prenkert, The EEOC's Identity Crisis: Considering the Commission's Future in the Absence of Independence, (June 01, 2026).
• Diana Kasdan, Amanda Barrow & Melissa Goodman, The California Reproductive Freedom Amendment: A New Constitutional Standard, (UCLA Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Lynne Marie Kohm, Inherit the Wind: Magnified Female Reproductive Vulnerability Post-Dobbs,  (September 01, 2026).
• Randy E. Barnett & Josh Blackman, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections: Bringing Clarity To The Necessary and Proper Clause, (50 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy __ (2027)).

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

• Sushil K Jain, The Boardroom Battleground: Landmark Disputes Where Internal Non-Profit Conflicts Triggered Catastrophic Legal Consequences: The Insolvency Fallout — Negligence, Fraud, and Audit Disasters, (September 18, 2026).
• Hein Htet Kyaw, Manufacturing Orthodoxy: From State Coercion to Democratization-- A Political Sociology of the Burmese Vinicchaya System, (September 12, 2026).
• Mehak Mustafa Bajwa, Legal Reforms on Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan, (April 01, 2025).
• Muhammad Kashif Irshad, Islamic Banking and the Sabbath Pond Test: A Re-Evaluation through Classical Islamic Economic Sources, (IrshadOS, Sabbath Pond Test series, 2026).

Trump Lists 250 Pro-Faith Accomplishments

Yesterday the White House posted a press release (full text) titled President Trump’s Top 250 Victories For People of Faith. The Release says in part: 

Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has made history again and again for the faith community. Since the founding of our nation, nobody has fought harder or gained more for believers, reversing the catastrophic policies of the previous administration while building on the winning legacy of his first term.

...  As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday this year, here are 250 reasons why President Trump is the most pro-faith, pro-life, and pro-religious liberty president in American history.

The Release then lists the 250 accomplishments under the following categories:

Protected Religious Liberty; Defended Houses of Worship; Secured Conscience Rights; Ended the Weaponization of Government; Promoted Free Speech; Fought Anti-Semitism; Protected Faith-Based Organizations; Expanded School Choice & Promoted Wholesome Education; Upheld Parental Rights; Saved Women's Sports; Protected Children From Harmful Procedures and Ideology; Restored Biological Truth; Strengthened Families and Safeguarded Children; Defended Life Through Your Tax Dollars; Valued Life; Empowered & Supported Mothers; Strengthened Our Military; Restored Fairness For All Americans and Ended DEI; Protected The Courts; Advanced International Religious Freedom; Affirmed Life And Biological Truth Internationally; Supported Israel; Promoted American Values; Partnered With The Faith Community; Honored America's Faith Legacy; Affirmed Faith In America; Honored Religious Days of Remembrance.

Iowa Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Religious Exemption from Required Covid Vaccine

This week, the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Perry v. Dordt University, (IA Sup. Ct., argued 9/15/2026). (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, nursing student Andrew Perry sued Dordt University under the Iowa Civil Rights Act for refusing to grant him a religious exemption from the requirement that he receive the Covid vaccine in order to participate in required clinical rotations. The trial court held that Perry failed to show that he had a sincere religious belief opposing the vaccine. Sioux County Radio reporting on the oral arguments said in part:

... [A]ttorneys for Andrew Perry and the Sioux Center university disagreed over how closely courts may examine religious sincerity, the role of family pressure in Perry’s vaccination objection, and Dordt’s process for considering religious exemptions.

Justices questioned both sides, pressing Perry’s attorney about conflicting evidence and Dordt’s attorney about whether the university’s exemption criteria risked religious discrimination.

Links to appellate briefs in the case are available here.

Journalist Sues Dearborn for Favoring Muslims Over Christians and Jews

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by a journalist who is a resident of Dearborn, Michigan, alleging that the city of Dearborn has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments by favoring Muslims over Christian and Jewish residents of the city. The complaint describes a number of incidents but particularly focuses on the city's placing of Ramadan banners on city property in 2025, and its refusal to hang similar banners for Easter or Passover. The complaint (full text) in Cleveland v. City of Dearborn, Michigan, (ED MI, filed 9/17/2026), alleges in part:

107. ... Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of her right to freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment.....  

108. Plaintiff engaged in multiple activities protected by the First Amendment, including her reporting at The Federalist and her work as a journalist; her public comments on X criticizing Defendant Hammoud for excusing and justifying terrorism and for discriminating against Christians and Jews.... 

109. Defendant Hammoud, acting under color of state law, took adverse action against Plaintiff because of that protected activity, including the following: authorizing the additional installation of lighted Ramadan signs as a direct affront to Plaintiff’s request for Christian and Jewish displays..... 

111. Defendant Hammoud’s actions as set forth in this Complaint were retaliatory and intended to discourage Plaintiff from speaking and thus exercising her rights to free speech, including her right to petition her government for the redress of grievances, protected by the First Amendment....

121. By retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment based the content and viewpoint of her speech, which Defendants disfavor, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law....

127. Defendant City of Dearborn ,... sponsored, funded, and promoted religious displays, banners, symbols, and religious events for the Islamic faith, including Ramadan, on City property and through City resources, while providing no comparable sponsorship, funding, or promotion for Christian or Jewish observances, including Easter and Passover, despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests to do so. 

128. The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that the government may not officially prefer one religion, religious denomination, or faith tradition over another. 

129. By selectively permitting and promoting religious expression for Muslims but denying similar expression for Christians and Jews, ... Defendants have conveyed and effected governmental preference for one faith tradition over another.

American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Planned Parenthood Challenges Wisconsin's Abortion Access Restrictions

Suit was filed last week in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging Wisconsin laws which require abortions to be performed only by physicians, and not by qualified advance practice clinicians. The suit also challenges Wisconsin's 24-hour waiting period after examination and consultation with a physician before an abortion can be performed. The complaint (full text) in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Ozanne, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 9/10/2026), alleges in part:

10. Each of these Access Restrictions substantially curtails the availability of abortion care within the State of Wisconsin ... with no adequate justification for doing so. Each provision, therefore, violates the rights of Wisconsin women to liberty and bodily autonomy under Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which encompasses the right to decide when and whether to carry a pregnancy to term.   

11. The Access Restrictions also infringe on providers’ right to liberty under Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which encompasses the fundamental right to practice their chosen profession to the fullest extent of their education, training, and skill.  

12. In addition, the Access Restrictions infringe on patients’ equal protection rights under Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Access Restrictions treat women differently from men and treat people seeking abortion differently from people seeking other pregnancy-related health care.  

13. Similarly, the Access Restrictions infringe on providers’ equal protection rights under Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution by preventing providers from caring for their patients to the fullest extent of their education, training, and skill for the sole reason that their patients are overwhelmingly women and choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Britain's New Law Requiring Reporting of Child Sex Abuse Will Apply to Clergy

The United Kingdom's Crime and Policing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on April 29, 2026. Section 85 of the Act requires persons engaged in various activities to notify police "if, in the course of engaging in a relevant activity in England, they are given reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed (at any time)." The law in Sec. 85(12) provides and elaborate definition of "relevant activity." The effective date of Section 85 must still be established by further regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, a member of Parliament submitted a written question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked whether the mandatory reporting requirements will apply to information heard during religious confession. 

On September 7, the Home Office responded:

This Government remains firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse. The new mandatory reporting duty we are working to implement will be a vital step in safeguarding children more effectively across a range of institutions and settings.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 does not provide any exemption from mandatory reporting on the basis of religious practice, or the setting in which information is received. In defining who is subject to the duty, the Act makes specific provision for those providing religious instruction to children beyond the regulated activity framework in Schedule 12. The Act also makes clear how the duty interacts with any wider expectations of confidentiality that a reporter may be subject to. Section 85 makes clear that submitting a report under the mandatory reporting duty does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the report. This ensures that individuals who are subject to the duty can make reports as required by law.

We will continue to engage across government and with stakeholders to help manage the implementation of the new duty to ensure readiness and compliance for when the duty comes into effect in 2027.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Today Is Constitution Day

Today is Constitution Day, the 239th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. President Trump yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week. The President's Proclamation reads in part:

Guided by the most righteous political document ever conceived, America remains the greatest force for good in the history of the world.  Americans enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal justice under the law, and the Second Amendment — among other unalienable rights — hard won by the selfless men and women who have fought, bled, and died across the generations to preserve them for citizens of every race, religion, color, and creed.... 

These values now face a new threat:  a rise in anti-American rhetoric from communists and far-left radicals, who seek to divide our communities, rob our children of their futures, and poison the minds of our citizens through slanderous fabrications of our great American story.  Where our Constitution recognizes rights as gifts of Almighty God that no earthly power may take away, socialism and communism treat them as favors of the State to be rationed and revoked, demanding total submission to a movement that is only capable of bringing poverty, persecution, and ruin wherever it has been tried.  These failed ideologies do not make life more affordable or prosperous — they destroy opportunity, create hardship, and leave working families with less.  That same contempt for our Constitution took root at home under the previous administration, which turned its power against the very citizens it was sworn to serve and let our institutions rewrite the very story of America itself.

On my watch, the weaponization of Government has ended, and America is once again upholding its constitutional principles enshrined at the founding of our Republic....

Lincoln Memorial University Settles DOJ's Religious Discrimination Charges

The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announced in a press release yesterday that it has entered a voluntary settlement agreement with Lincoln Memorial University, resolving complaints of discriminatory treatment of Jewish students. The private university is located in Harrogate, Tennessee. The press release says in part:

... [D]uring the 2025-26 school year, LMU’s DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine (LMU-DCOM) denied requests by Jewish students to reschedule classes, exams, and other academic assignments so they could celebrate or observe their religious holidays, but granted requests by non-Jewish students who sought the same accommodations. In January 2026 — after Jewish students challenged LMU-DCOM’s double standard — DCOM adopted a policy that it would not accommodate any religious observance requests, but would permit excused absences for “professional student leadership obligations” and other non-religious reasons. In February 2026, DOJ and HHS opened their joint investigation.

Under the settlement agreement, LMU-DCOM will revise its absence policy to allow excused absences for religious reasons on the same basis as non-religious reasons. When an excused absence is approved, the student will not suffer any penalties because of the absence....

Indiana Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Religious Right to Abortion

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, (IN Sup. Ct., 9/10/2026). In the case, an Indiana state trial court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Indiana's abortion ban against individuals whose religious exercise would be substantially burdened by the ban. A state appellate court had already decided that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.) The state Supreme Court agreed to hear a direct appeal from the trial court's decision. WORLD reports on the oral arguments.

Christian Doctors Challenge Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court contending that the 1st and 14th Amendment rights of Christian doctors are being violated by applying to them the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's Anti-Discrimination Act. In Boe v. Children's Hospital Colorado, (CO Sup. Ct., May 18, 2026), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a children's hospital was violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by complying with a federal effort to end gender-affirming care for minors. The Department of Health and Human Services threatened to cut off federal health care payments to medical providers that continued to offer such services. Now, the 87-page complaint (full text) in Christian Medical & Dental Associations v. Sullivan, (D CO, filed 9/9/2026), alleges in part:

1. Colorado is once again at war with common sense, sound science, and religious freedom. After a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, state law now forces doctors to medically transition their patients—including children—even when doing so violates their conscience and medical judgment. That’s bad for doctors and patients alike. It’s also unconstitutional. Colorado is not allowed to conscript those who have sworn to do no harm into harming the very children and adults entrusted to their care. The First Amendment trumps Colorado’s mandate to embrace the lie of gender ideology.... 

6. CMDA members and Button Family Practice also want to explain their medical services policies and position on pronoun usage by sharing their beliefs about identity to the public. But Colorado makes that illegal, too. If they publish their policies, they could be liable for indicating that they would deny service to someone because of sex, disability, or gender identity or expression—even though they serve people within their scope of practice, no matter a person’s status. To avoid that result, the providers have refrained from posting those statements.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of last week's lawsuit.