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. 

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today on Exclusion of Religious Schools from General State Programs

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, (Docket No. 25-581). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the nondiscrimination requirements of Colorado's Universal Preschool Program do not violate the free exercise or expressive association rights of Catholic schools that are excluded from the program because they insist on considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of a student and their parents in making decisions on who will be admitted. (See prior posting.)

The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on two questions: 1. Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct. 2. Whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions. The Court denied review on whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled. (See prior posting.)

Live audio of the oral arguments, which begin at 10:00 AM, will be available at the Supreme Court's website. The SCOTUSblog case page contains links to all the briefs filed in the case. A written transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will become available Tuesday afternoon. This posting will be updated with links to both.

UPDATE: A written transcript and an audio recording of the oral arguments in the case can be accessed at this link.  SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

Military Launches Chaplain-in-Service Procurement Program

Last Friday, in a video posted on the Department of War's YouTube channel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the launch of the Chaplain-In-Service Procurement Program. As reported by AL.com:

The military will fund service members who want to pursue theological training and return as military chaplains, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday.

“Today, we launch the Chaplain in Service Procurement program,” Hegseth said in a video message. “And here’s how it works: You’re on active duty and you’ve got your bachelor’s, you get to stay in uniform and earn your graduate theological degree.”

Those who participate would keep their pay, allowances and benefits, with their service branch covering tuition.

“And then we get you back as a chaplain,” he added.

Before now, he said, a service member “who felt called to the chaplaincy had only one option: take off the uniform, pay for seminary yourself, and then hope you can find and fight your way back in.”

The program was authorized last year in the Fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. The section authorizing this new program was codified as 10 U.S.C. § 2004c.

TRO Bars Issuance of Eagle-Taking Permit to New Mexico Tribe in Suit by Two Other Tribes

In Pueblo of Santa Clara v. National Park Service, (D NM, Oct. 28, 2026), a New Mexico federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring the National Park Service from issuing a Special Use Permit to Jemez Pueblo that would allow its members to conduct eagle take activities within the Valles Caldera National Preserve. Two other Pueblos objected to the grant of the Special Use Permit because the Preserve is a place of cultural and religious importance to them. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that granting the Special Use Permit violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In issuing the TRO, the court said in part:

The NPS permit exists contemporaneously to a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), which allows Jemez Pueblo to take up to eight golden or bald eagles from within Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Miguel, and Santa Fe counties.... Valles Caldera—part of Sandoval County—is encompassed by this area. Because Valles Caldera is under the authority of NPS, the USFWS permit alone does not give Jemez Pueblo authority to take eagles from Valles Caldera.....

Plaintiffs’ religious exercise is substantially burdened by the taking of even one golden or bald eagle from Valles Caldera. And there is a less restrictive means available to the government—permitting Jemez Pueblo to take golden and bald eagles from every location open to them under the USFWS eagle take for Indian religious practices permit except for Valles Caldera....

Here, the NPS permit balances the government’s interest in allowing the Jemez Pueblo to take eagles with Plaintiffs’ interest in preserving eagles by limiting the number of eagles Jemez Pueblo can take to one.... However, on this record, that is not the least burdensome way of balancing these competing interests. The least burdensome way of balancing the interests is to prevent Jemez Pueblo from taking any eagles from Valles Caldera. That’s because the government’s compelling interest is satisfied by allowing Jemez Pueblo to take eagles from every other location open to them under the USFWS permit. While taking eagles is a core religious practice for Jemez Pueblo, nothing in the record suggests that this practice must be exercised within Valles Caldera....

The complaint (full text) filed Oct. 26 had alleged that issuance of the Special Use Permit violated both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. It also reported on the initial filing of the complaint.

[Thaks to Frank Buono for the lead.]

President Issues Messages on Reformation Day and All Saints' Day

Last week, President Trump issued Presidential Messages focusing on two Christian holidays. On October 31, he issued a Presidential Message on Reformation Day, saying in part:

From the earliest days of our Republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness.  This Reformation Day, I send my best wishes to the countless Christians across our country commemorating the Protestant Reformation and its enduring message of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.....

Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my Administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our Republic for generations.  As President, I will always support citizens of faith and defend their place in the public square, honoring the enduring role of our churches in strengthening families, serving communities, and preserving the core values that have anchored us across the centuries....

On November 1, he issued a Presidential Message on All Saints' Day, saying in part:

On All Saints’ Day, I join Christians across our Nation in honoring the men and women through the centuries whose extraordinary lives of faithfulness reveal the great goodness and love to which human beings can aspire.

Every generation of Americans has understood the profound power of the example of a heroic and holy life, which is why the names of saints are so interwoven throughout the American landscape....  From Santa Monica, California, to St. Augustine, Florida, saints greet us on maps and road signs across the country.

Saints are just as present in the institutions we know and trust.  Families turn to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital when a child is gravely ill.  Young Americans study at Saint John’s University, Saint Louis University....

Even our professional sports carry this legacy.  When New Orleans received its National Football League franchise on November 1, 1966, the date was no accident:  It was All Saints’ Day.  A local businessman championed the name “Saints,” inspired by the city’s celebrated jazz anthem, “When the Saints Go Marching In.”...

In the United States, we especially honor Saint Junípero Serra, who carried the Christian faith through the missions of California; Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, who helped build Catholic education in America; Saint Katharine Drexel, who devoted her fortune and her life to educating and serving poor and impoverished communities; and Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, who established schools, orphanages, and hospitals, putting Christian charity into action and bringing the hope of Jesus to those most in need....

All Saints’ Day proclaims a truth at the heart of the Christian faith:  Death does not have the final word.  Christians believe that through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the grave has been conquered and eternal life has been opened to all who believe in Him.  The saints are witnesses to that promise....

9th Circuit Allows Enforcement of Idaho's Near-Total Abortion Ban While Apppeal On Health-Threating Abortions Moves Forward

As previously reported, in August an Idaho federal district court held that the right to a health-preserving abortion is protected by the Due Process Clause. It also held that Idaho may not criminalize abortions that are necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman from self-harm. The district court narrowed its injunction enforcing this holding while an appeal is pending so that enforcement of Idaho's abortion law was only prohibited against the plaintiff in the case until appellate courts ruled. Idaho's attorney general however appealed to the 9th Circuit asking for a stay of this narrowed injunction.

In Seyb v. Members of the Idaho Board of Medicine, (9th Cir., Oct. 30, 2026), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision stayed the district court's injunction while an appeal moves forward, thus allowing enforcement against anyone of Idaho's broad abortion ban containing only rape, incest and life-of-the-mother exceptions, while the appeal is heard. The majority opinion said in part:

Defendants have made a strong showing of likely success on the merits.  The district court reviewed the history and tradition concerning abortions and concluded that “legal tradition has consistently shielded health-preserving abortions from prosecution.”  However, the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ... plowed the same ground and held that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”...  We think it unlikely that Dr. Seyb will be able to square the district court’s perspective on the history and tradition concerning abortions with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Dobbs....

Defendants’ showings of likelihood of success and irreparable injury are even stronger where the proffered reason for the abortion is the possibility of the woman committing suicide.  There are other methods for preventing suicide, and Idaho’s “profound interest” in preserving fetal life reasonably supports the use of those means over the termination of pregnancy....

Judge Wardlaw filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

...  Dobbs excoriated the reasoning of Roe and Casey and explicitly overruled them, thus closing the door on finding any constitutional right to an abortion—particularly one as vague and ill-defined as the right pressed here....

Judge Berzon dissented, saying that Dobbs dealt only with abortion-on-demand, and not with abortions to save a mother's life or health. He said in part:

I cannot read Dobbs’s pronouncement that “Roe and Casey must be overruled” as all-comprehensive..., and so as reaching the separate Roe/Casey ruling regarding abortions performed to preserve the life or health of the mother. Were that so, Dobbs would have overruled Roe and Casey even for abortions necessary to preserve the life of the woman....

Dobbs did establish the required methodology — history and tradition. The panel majority does not conduct any such inquiry. The majority regards Dobbs as having decided — without any separate history-and-tradition inquiry — that health-preserving abortions trigger no heightened constitutional protection....

There is a second, independent reason why I would not grant a stay of the district court’s injunction: Idaho has not shown it will be irreparably injured during the pendency of this appeal....

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Statewide Ballot Measures of Interest in Tuesday's Election

A number of statewide ballot measures will face voters on Tuesday, November 3. The following may be of particular interest to Religion Clause readers:

• Alabama Amendment 3: Require Pledge of Allegiance and Allow Student-Led Prayer in Public Schools Amendment.
• Idaho Proposition 1: Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative.
• Missouri Amendment 3: Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment.
• Nevada Question 6: Right to Abortion Initiative.
• Vermont Proposal 4. Equal Protection of Law Amendment.
• Virginia Question 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.
• Virginia Question 2: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment.
• Wisconsin Question 2: Prohibit Government Closure of Places of Worship During Emergencies Amendment.

Ballotpedia has a full listing of items on state ballots.

12 Indicted for Threats Aimed at Forcing University of Michigan to Sever Ties with Israel

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan announced yesterday that a 64-page superseding indictment (full text) has been unsealed, now charging 12 defendants with conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate and foreign commerce, as well as witness tampering. Defendants used vandalism and intimidation against their targets. According to the indictment:

The defendants are a group of individuals associated with the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. After the October 7,2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the defendants and unindicted conspirators orchestrated detailed plans to threaten University of Michigan leaders, law enforcement, and businesses with coordinated criminal acts. Their goal included forcing the University of Michigan and other businesses to sever all perceived ties with the State of Israel.

To accomplish this goal, the defendants and their unindicted conspirators ... used encrypted messages, social media, and overseas collaboration platforms to research, target, and attack their victims. Then, they posted pictures of their attacks on social media, along with additional threats and warnings. Their criminal activity included spray painting threats, breaking windows, and throwing glass jars filled with noxious chemicals into family homes. They marked their victims with threatening symbols used by Hamas, including red inverted triangles and red handprints. They used the internet and social media to broadcast their message to ensure their threats and commitment to continuing criminal activity were heard by their victims and others who support Israel....

From approximately October 2023 through and including April 2025, the defendants and unindicted conspirators targeted individuals and businesses in the Eastern District of Michigan and elsewhere, including: The University of Michigan's President, Chief Investment Officer, Provost, and members of the Board of Regents and their businesses; a University of Michigan police officer; Rolls Royce Solutions America, Inc.; Maersk, Inc.; and the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit....

JNS reports on the indictment.

Suit Contends That Vermont's Limits on Tuition Reimbursement Violate 1st and 14th Amendments

Suit was filed this week in a Vermont federal district court alleging that Vermont's Act 73, enacted last year, while apparently neutral is in fact a disguised attempt to exclude religious schools from the state's Town Tuition and Dual Enrollment programs. Prior 2nd Circuit decisions had held that explicit exclusion of religious schools from these programs was unconstitutional. The complaint (full text) in Bishop v. Saunders, (D VT, filed 10/27/2026), alleges in part:

6. Eligibility for Dual Enrollment is contingent on Town Tuition: a student must either be in a public school or receiving Town Tuition funding at a private school to be eligible....

15. Section 21 of Act 73 excludes all religious schools through more subtle, yet no less unconstitutional, criteria that create a religious gerrymander....

17. Under Act 73, to be eligible for Town Tuition, some—but not all— private schools must: (1) be located in a school district ... that does not operate a public school; (2) have had at least 25% of its enrollment composed of publicly funded students during the 2023–2024 school year; and (3) comply with minimum class-size requirements regardless of school size. 

18. Together, these three requirements create a de facto religious exclusion that cuts out all religious schools from the Town Tuition Program.

The complaint alleges that Act 73 disqualified all 15 of the religious schools that were previously eligible for funding, but only 15 of the 61 secular private schools that were previously eligible. The complaint goes on to contend that Act 73 violates the Free Exercise Clause, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause and its protection of parents' right to control the upbringing of their children.

ADF issued a press release explaining the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Business' Free-Speech Rights Are Infringed by Ban on Mandatory Employee Meetings Promoting Religion

In California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, (9th Cir., Oct. 29, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California federal district court's injunction that bars California from enforcing against businesses Senate Bill 399 which prohibits employers from threatening or taking adverse action against an employee who chooses not to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or receive employer-sponsored communications where the purpose is to communicate the employer's views on political or religious matters. The court said in part:

[T]he relevant question is whether SB 399 is a constitutionally permissible limitation on the industry groups’ free speech right....

... California, “acting as censor, undert[ook] selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others.”...  The Supreme Court has said that “[s]uch selective restrictions have been upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home, or the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling . . . auditor to avoid exposure.”... In such circumstances, California’s ability to limit “discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is . . . dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.”... 

California fails to identify a single case where a content based restriction has been upheld because employees were deemed a captive audience or had their substantial privacy interests invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.  Instead, the State points to cases upholding speech limitations on public transit, at healthcare facilities, and on school premises, which referred to commuters, patients, and students as captive audiences....  California contends that employees are equally captive because they are economically dependent on their employer and risk losing their job, with its pay and benefits, should they refuse to listen to their employer’s speech....

California’s argument goes too far.  Both the Supreme Court and our Court have referred to “captive audiences” only when the government acts as a proprietor or in the context of content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.  Neither court has relied on a “captive audience” theory to identify a compelling interest sufficient to uphold content-based restrictions on nongovernmental speech in a nongovernmental setting.... 

San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision.

Humanist Teacher Sues Over Prayer at School Staff Meetings

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by a former middle school teacher who is a Humanist contending that the Texas school at which he formerly taught violated the Establishment, Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment through sectarian prayer at mandatory district-wide staff meetings and in other ways. The complaint (full text) in Castillo v. Rio Hondo Independent School District. (SD TX, filed 10/28/2026), alleges in part:

13. Without giving staff any advance notice that the mandatory meetings would include religious observances, Superintendent Trevino and President Guerra took turns opening each meeting with an explicitly evangelical Christian prayer. One or the Other commenced each meeting by calling everyone present to rise. Once staff members were standing, Superintendent Trevino or President Guerra instructed them to bow their heads and join in prayer. The group prayer began immediately, with no opportunity for any staff member to excuse themselves from the room. A second prayer, also without advance notice or an opportunity to opt out, often followed later in the meeting. These prayers put staff who did not wish to participate in an untenable situation. Leaving the room once the prayers had begun, or even remaining seated, would have been conspicuous and drawn the attention of colleagues and the very employers leading the prayers. Staff members like Mr. Castillo were thus forced to choose between violating their own religious conscience and being singled out and subjected to retribution....

20. As a result of Rio Hondo ISD's failure to adequately train its leadership and its indifference to the rights and concerns of its staff, Mr. Castillo was subjected to further instances of school-sponsored Christian religious expression and denominational discrimination, beyond the nine district-wide meetings he was required to attend.

21. ... Rio Hondo Middle School prominently displayed two unsigned posters on school walls, each citing Jeremiah 29: 11 and bearing [in full or in part] the quotations "as long as God keeps waking you up He still has a Plan For you".... The posters were displayed in the same space the school ordinarily uses for announcements, rules, mottos, and other official messages....

American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

School Bus Driver Distributing Religious Candy Was Not Engaged In Private Speech

In Robinson v. Mattawan Consolidated School District, (WD MI, Oct. 22, 2026), a Michigan federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a former school bus driver who was fired for repeatedly distributing candy with religious messages to students as they were exiting her bus.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff’s claim ... rests on the premise that she was engaged in “private religious expression,” “not government speech,” because her “nonverbal speech and religious expression occurred after the bus had stopped when the bus driver was a private citizen who was permitted to engage in speech on matters of faith”....  Even accepting as true the factual portion of Plaintiff’s allegations—that she “at all times” distributed candy only after stopping the school bus ...— her alleged facts do not support the legal conclusion that her conduct falls within the realm of protected “private” religious expression.... 

The operational duties of bus drivers have been evaluated in the Sixth Circuit under constitutional standards applicable to state actors, not private citizens. ...

A school bus driver does not transform from a state actor into a private citizen simply because she stopped her bus to let off a child.  Rather, the driver’s status as a public-school employee and the scope of her duties are intact throughout the stop.  Indeed, even though the bus is stationary, this phase of its operation—the loading and unloading of children—implicates significant job duties....

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to accommodate proselytizing—“the ability to express her faith respectfully” ... The Court again assumes that proselytizing is her sincerely held religious practice....  But the Court cannot overlook the complete lack of factual content about any accommodation request.... 

AlterNet reports on the decision.

Court Again Refuses to Enjoin Ban That Prevents Rabbi from Carrying Firearm to His Synagogue

In Silver Spring Jewish Community Center v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, Oct. 27, 2026), a Maryland federal district court denied a motion to amend a prior judgment in the case or alternatively to grant an injunction pending appeal in 2nd Amendment and Free Exercise challenges to a Montgomery County firearms law. The prior decision, while enjoining enforcement of a ban on firearms in plaintiffs' synagogue, refused to enjoin a provision that prevents the synagogue's rabbi who walks to synagogue on the Sabbath for religious reasons from carrying a firearm to the synagogue. His walk takes him past other places of public assembly. If he were driving to his synagogue, the law would permit carrying a firearm in the car even if it passed close to a place of public assembly. (See prior posting.) Again rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Unlike their robust arguments about their sincerely held religious beliefs to carry a firearm within their places of worship, SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro provided much less about walking while armed through the 100-yard buffer zones to get there.... Their preliminary relief briefing ...  seems to emphasize how Jewish law obligates Rabbi Shapiro to walk to synagogue on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays but does not clearly articulate a religious mandate to do so while armed....  And in their complaint, each of the religious texts SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro provide seem to have been framed as supporting their desire to carry firearms as part of their Security Team within their place of worship, not carry firearms to such places....   

But even if the 100-yard buffers incidentally burden religion, such laws “are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.”... The 100-yard buffer provision is neutral because it does not discriminate on its face—it does not mention religion....  It is also neutral because it was not enacted “because of,” but instead “in spite” its effect on religion....

The 100-yard buffer provision is also generally applicable. A law is not generally applicable if it “prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government’s asserted interests in a similar way.”... SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro contend that the court should have evaluated the vehicle exemption ... as a comparable secular activity....  But the court did not do so because the vehicle exemption does not undermine the Code’s asserted interests “in a similar way” as non-secular carry by foot....