Court Refuses to Enjoin Coinage Containing "In God We Trust" Motto

In Clayman v. Bessent, (SD FL, Jan. 8, 2026), a Florida federal district court denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from designing or producing any coins or currency containing the "Divine Name" of God. Plaintiff contends that the national motto on coins and currency violates the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His complaint focuses on a proposed new coin that would carry the likeness of Donald Trump and the motto In God We Trust. The court said in part:

The United States of America will celebrate its 250th anniversary this year on July 4, 2026. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God." The Pledge of Allegiance refers to "one Nation under God." 4 U.S.C. § 4. The use of the word God on coins began in 1864 on the two-cent coin. "In God We Trust" began to appear on U.S. paper currency in 1957, as required by Public Law 84-140. By statute, all coins must contain the "in God we trust" language. See 31 U.S.C. § 5112. In light of this history, statutory authority, and case law, there is simply no basis for this Court to grant the broad injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff.

Supreme Court Review Sought by High School Pro-Life Group Over Free Speech Rights

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/28/2026). At issue in the case is a high school's refusal to permit a student pro-life group to post flyers in the school because of the political content of the flyers. The dispute eventually led to the suspension of the pro-life group for several months. The 7th Circuit upheld the school's action. The petition for review filed with the Supreme Court sets out the Question Presented in part as follows:

The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s censorship under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, ... on the theory that a “reasonable observer could easily conclude that the flyers reflected the school’s endorsement.”... In so doing, it exacerbated a deep, longstanding circuit split over when Hazelwood’s reduced speech protection applies. 

The question presented is: 

Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

4th Circuit: School Gender Identity Guidelines Do Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

 In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (4th Cir., Jan. 28, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a substitute teacher who objected on free speech and free exercise grounds to the school district's Guidelines for Student Gender Identity. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable and that they satisfy the rational basis standard. The majority said in part:

... Polk believes that gender is rigid, based on her understanding of Christianity.  And referring to her students by a gender that is not consistent with the student’s gender assigned at birth places a requirement on Polk, that she says is at odds with her faith....

Distilled to its core, the thrust of Polk’s appellate position is that, because persons who hold religious views are those most impacted by the Guidelines, they cannot be deemed “neutral.” But that logic turns the well-established neutrality analysis on its head.  As the court explained, the Complaint “alleges no facts from which the Court could infer religious animus.” ...  That a certain religious practice is incidentally burdened by the Guidelines is not sufficient. Rather, the Guidelines must be motivated by religious hostility....

The majority also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

 ... [W]e agree with the district court that the Guidelines’s mandate does not concern the speech of a private citizen, but establishes the official duties of a public-school teacher.  More pointedly, how a teacher addresses a particular student in a particular classroom — and whether a teacher communicates with a student’s parent — is merely a part of that teacher’s job description....

 ... And “[w]hen an employee engages in speech that is part of the employee’s job duties, the employee’s words are really the words of the employer.  The employee is effectively the employer’s spokesperson.” ...

Judge Wilkinson dissented, contending that the Guidelines violated plaintiff's free speech rights.  He said in part:

In holding instead that the Free Speech Clause does not provide even qualified protection to Ms. Polk’s speech, the majority leaves teachers completely vulnerable to becoming the unwilling mouthpieces of government messaging. Although transgender rights advocates may now cheer the majority opinion, they will find today’s cure in truth a poison when states enact legally indistinguishable policies preventing teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools. And because nothing prevents school systems from pushing this newfound control much further than mere pronoun usage, I respectfully dissent....

This case is, without question, about compelled speech—a detail to which the majority gives short shrift....

... My qualm with the majority is simply that we cannot categorically write all in-class speech out of the First Amendment. Garcetti has its place, but chiefly with regard to core curricular functions. Speech at the noncurricular margins of a teacher’s job should remain subject to the same standards that we have always applied. This is no jurisprudential revolution....

 Ms. Polk’s case is one of many plaguing our nation’s educational system. Across all levels of education—elementary to college—LGBT rights, DEI, antisemitism, systemic racism, and innumerable other issues have made our schools hotbeds of vehement sociopolitical debate. Silencing voices and compelling affirmations to government preferred messaging do nothing to temper the vitriol; on the contrary, such actions foster further hostility....

Texas AG Sues Out-of-State Mail Order Provider of Abortion Drugs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday filed a civil lawsuit against a Delaware-based nurse practitioner whose telehealth service called "Her Safe Harbor" ships abortion inducing medication to women nation-wide. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Lynch, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 1/27/2026), alleges that defendant is violating the Texas Human Life Protection Act which prohibits most abortions. It also contends that defendant is practicing medicine in Texas without a license. The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring defendant from violating Texas law.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit, Paxton said in part:

This lawsuit follows two tragic cases in Texas in which radical abortion activists and organizations facilitated men illegally purchasing abortion-inducing drugs. According to one lawsuit, a man used the drugs to secretly poison his girlfriend, causing the death of their unborn child, and sending the mother to the hospital....

 “No one, regardless of where they live, will be freely allowed to aid in the murder of unborn children in Texas.” 

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Organization Releases 2026 Report on Christian Persecution Worldwide

Last week, the Christian advocacy organization Open Doors released its report World Watch List 2026 which assesses the persecution of Christians around the world. The report covers the period from October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025 (methodology). The Report focuses on the 50 countries where persecution of Christians is highest. North Korea leads the list. Zeale reports on the data.

President Trump Issues Message on International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The White House today posted a Presidential Message on International Holocaust Remembrance Day (full text) which reads in part:

Today, we pay respect to the blessed memories of the millions of Jewish people, who were murdered at the hands of the Nazi Regime and its collaborators during the Holocaust— as well as the Slavs and the Roma, people with disabilities, religious leaders, persons targeted based on their sexual orientation, and political prisoners who were also targeted for systematic slaughter.  We renew our resolve that freedom, justice, and the dignity of the human person will always conquer the forces of evil, tyranny, and oppression....

... After I took office as the 47th President of the United States, I proudly made it this administration’s priority directing the Federal Government to use all appropriate legal tools to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism.  My Administration will remain a steadfast and unequivocal champion for Jewish Americans and the God-given right of every American to practice their faith freely, openly, and without fear....

Florida Church Seeks Stay of Trial Court's Injunction Barring Use of Its Strip Mall Unit for Religious Services

Yesterday, a Florida church filed an emergency motion with a Florida state trial court asking it to stay a temporary injunction that it issued on January 23 while the church files an appeal. The emergency motion and the memorandum in support of it in Flagler Square-JAX, Inc. v. Palmer, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 1/26/2026) (full text) says in part:

The Order constitutes a prior restraint in speech, assembly, and religious exercise, prohibiting Defendant and Coastal Family Church from holding religious services. The Order has already prevented Defendant form hosting in-person religious services on Sunday, January 25, 2026. Each additional Sunday that passes inflicts continuing irreparable harm upon Defendant, the Church, and its congregants.

An October press release from Liberty Counsel provides background:

In July 2025, Pastor Roderick Palmer purchased a unit in the Flagler Square strip mall to serve as the home for Coastal Family Church. However, after the church began holding services, Flagler Square – JAX, Inc, the condominium association that oversees the mall’s four units, sued Pastor Palmer for holding “public assemblies” that allegedly violate a “condominium declaration” which prohibits such assemblies. In the complaint, the association claims the church’s services “would overwhelm available parking at all times” despite Sunday services leaving more than 160 parking spots available....

A January 26 Liberty Counsel press release summarizes the Church's arguments on appeal.

3rd Circuit Hears Arguments in Yeshiva's Zoning Dispute

Last Thursday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio and transcript of full oral arguments) in Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston, (3d Cir., argued 1/22/2026). In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to an Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva whose property was condemned.  The Borough of Kingston contended that the property was being used for a school and dormitory in violation of zoning ordinances. The district court concluded that plaintiff was not suffering irreparable harm, and that it was not likely that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its challenge to the relevant zoning ordinance. (See prior posting.)  On appeal, the Yeshiva claimed violations of RLUIPA and of the due process clause.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lael Daniel Weinberger & Branton Nestor, Church Autonomy and Interlocutory Appeals, (January 14, 2026).
• Michael A. Helfand, Mapping Carson: New Frontiers of Religious Exclusion in Government Programs, (Notre Dame Law Review, forthcoming).
• Ekaterina Ryzhkova, The Influence of the Islamic Legal Tradition on the Institution of Public Finance in the Countries of the East, (December 06, 2025).
• Dennis Wieboldt, "Shall We Settle for Anything Less Than Complete Equality?" Catholic Power and the First National Fight for Parental Rights in Education, 1947-1962, (34 Rel. & Am. Cul. __ (2026)).
• Oruj Ismayilov, Was Adam the First Biological Human? A Qur'anic Account of Human Origins as a Metaphysical Turning Point, (December 28, 2025).
• Pranav Ankush Jadhav SP, The Hindu Minority Crisis: Understanding Recent India-Bangladesh Tensions, (December 26, 2025).
• Zahir Khan, Application of Islamic Law of Tort in Pakistan's Legal System: A Critical and Comparative Analysis, (December 29, 2025).
• John M. Bickers, A Tale Told in Reverse: Military Retirees and the Benefit of Clergy, (January 09, 2026).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Andrew T. Hayashi & Allen Calhoun (eds.), Justice in Taxation: Christian Perspectives, (Routledge, June 2026).
• Konrad Dyda, The Legal System of the Vatican City State: Between Secular and Canon Law, (Routledge, October 2025).
• Jonathan Crowe, Constance Youngwon Lee & Joshua Neoh, Jurisprudence and Theology: The Australian School, (Routledge, November 2025).
• Brandon Vaidyanathan, Sara Perla and Stephen White, Rebuilding Trust: Clergy Morale in the Wake of the Abuse Crisis, (Catholic University Press, Nov. 2025).

NIH Ends Funding of Research Using Human Fetal Tissue from Elective Abortions

On Thursday, the National Institute of Health announced (press release) that it will no longer fund research involving human fetal tissue from elective abortions, saying in part:

“This decision is about advancing science by investing in breakthrough technologies more capable of modeling human health and disease. Under President Trump’s leadership, taxpayer-funded research must reflect the best science of today and the values of the American people.”

NIH-supported research using human fetal tissue has declined steadily since 2019, with only 77 projects funded in Fiscal Year 2024. At the same time, advances in organoids, tissue chips, computational biology, and other cutting-edge platforms have created robust alternatives that can drive discovery while reducing ethical concerns. The updated policy ensures that limited public resources are directed toward research approaches that offer the greatest potential to improve health outcomes for all Americans.

Catholic Vote reports on the NIH announcement.

HHS Says Illinois Right to Conscience Act Violates Federal Law

On January 21, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights sent a Notice of Violation (full text) to the state of Illinois. The Notice informs the state that HHS has found that the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act violates federal bans on discrimination against pro-life health care entities that do not refer patients elsewhere for abortions. The Illinois law generally provides a shield from liability to health care personnel that refuse on conscience grounds to perform abortions, but only if the objecting provider either refers or transfers the patient elsewhere or at least furnishes the patient written information about other health care providers who likely offer abortion services. In its Notice of Violation, HHS takes the position that discriminating against entities that do not "refer" out for abortions includes denying legal defenses to entities that do not either transfer patients to another provider or give patents written information about alternative providers. ADF issued a press release discussing HHS's action.

Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Counselor Loses Challenge to City's Sign Ordinance

In Hamann v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, (SD IL, Jan. 21, 2026), an Illinois federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin the city of Carbondale's sign ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits plaintiff, a Christian minister, from temporarily placing his anti-abortion signs in the ground on public property near an abortion clinic while he is attempting to persuade women not to have an abortion. Under the Ordinance, he can carry or wear the signs but cannot place them into the ground. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and violates his free speech rights. It concluded that the Ordinance is a permissible time, place and manner regulation of speech in a public forum. The court went on in part:

Hamman’s final argument advances a theory of viewpoint discrimination based on the City’s “policy of inaction” towards signs that share messages other than his.... He submitted photos of three temporary signs he found throughout Carbondale which, he believes, were placed in the public right of way and not removed the way his were. From there, he contends that the City engaged in a “targeted campaign of enforcement” against his signs based on their anti-abortion messages....

Hamman acknowledges that he does not know how long these signs had been in the public right of way when he photographed them. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the City had not had time to remove them—something that, Lenzini explained, can happen from time to time. Surely, if these signs had been placed in the public right of way with the City’s permission, or been left there after the City became aware of them, such evidence would support Hamman’s claim of selective enforcement. But the record reveals no such evidence....

Pope Leo Is Invited to Join Trump's Board of Peace

Speaking to the press on Wednesday, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin confirmed that Pope Leo XIV has been invited by President Donald Trump to join the Board of Peace for Gaza.  According to Vatican News:

Turning to the topic of the Board of Peace for Gaza, the Cardinal reflected on how President Trump is inviting a number of countries to participate.

“I believe I read in the newspaper this morning that Italy, too, is considering whether or not to join,” he continued, “We also received the invitation to the Board of Peace for Gaza; the Pope has received it, and we are considering what to do.”

He argued, “It is an issue that requires some time to be properly assessed and to provide a response.”

Speaking about the Board of Peace for Gaza, the Cardinal said that the Holy See would not take part financially, noting, “We are not even in a position to do so.”

However, he pointed out that the Vatican is in a different situation from other countries, and therefore the analysis will be different. But, the Cardinal said, “I believe the request will not be for economic participation.”

Samoa's Prime Minister Suggests Restricting Religious Liberty for Non-Christians

 Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported this week that in the Southern Pacific island nation of Samoa, with a population of 220,000, religious liberty is being threatened. According to ABC's report:

... [T]he country's prime minister has thrown the future of its religious minorities into doubt after flagging potential restrictions on non-Christian faiths last month.

Laaulialemalietoa Polataivao Fosi Schmidt said he wanted to stop Samoa encountering the same religious divisions as "neighbouring countries", and in the Middle East.

"It may not be happening now, but there will come a time when a large number could gather under a non-Christian religion in Samoa. Then we will face what we do not wish to see," he said....

Laaulialemalietoa has asked the nation's peak Christian body, the Samoa Council of Churches, to advise him on the country's religious freedom laws....

"I am prepared to take the necessary actions on what Samoa decides — perhaps through a referendum or national discussion — to consider amending the constitution regarding the freedom of religion," he said.

The prime minister, who has gained a loyal voting base with his devout Christian public persona, is moving quickly to stamp his religious agenda on other parts of Samoan society since his August election victory.

His government has made weekly fasting and prayer mandatory for public servants. ...

And as the prime minister raised the potential restrictions on non-Christian faiths last month, he announced a ban on construction work on Sundays....

5th Circuit En Banc Hears Challenges To 2 States' Laws Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in two cases raising the question of the constitutionality of state laws requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. (Audio of full oral arguments.)   Roake v. Brumley challenges the Louisiana statute.  In that case a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, after which the 5th Circuit granted en banc review. In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. On appeal, the 5th Circuit consolidated it for argument with the previously granted en banc hearing on the Louisiana law without a prior 3-judge panel hearing the appeal. NOLA reports on the cases.

Certiorari Denied in Chabad's Suit Against the Russian Federation

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-909, certiorari denied 1/20/2026) (Order List). The case is part of the long-running attempt by Chasidei Chabad of the United States to force Russia to return two collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts which it expropriated decades ago. In 2010, Chabad obtained a default judgment against the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) In 2013, the D.C. federal district court held the Russian Federation in contempt for failing to comply with the order to return the books and imposed $50,000 per day sanctions on the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) Those sanctions have now accrued to over $175 million. Most recently, Chabad has attempted to collect these amounts by attaching the property of three companies it claims are owned and controlled by the Russian Federation. In a 2024 opinion (full text), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Russian Federation had sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that the default judgment entered in 2010 was invalid. Without a valid judgement, according to the D.C. Circuit "there is no predicate for Chabad to attach the property of companies the Federation allegedly owns and controls." It is this decision that the Supreme Court today refused to review.

This may not end the case, however, because the D.C. Circuit said that it was not reversing the district court's finding of jurisdiction over the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archive which currently hold the book collections. The D.C. Circuit also said that Chabad may be able to sue the Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications.

Media Report U.S. Is Considering Offering Asylum to British Jews

Media in Britain, the U.S. and Israel are reporting that the U.S. State Department is considering offering asylum to British Jews because of antisemitism present in Britain. The reports are based on an interview by The Telegraph with Donald Trump's personal lawyer, British-born Robert Garson. As reported by The Guardian in part::

Discussions are reportedly under way within Donald Trump’s administration about the US possibly granting asylum to Jewish people from the UK, according to the Telegraph, citing the US president’s personal lawyer.

Trump lawyer Robert Garson told the newspaper that he has held conversations with the US state department about offering refuge to British Jews who are leaving the UK citing rising antisemitism....

Garson, 49, said he felt the UK was “no longer a safe place for Jews”. He added that recent events – namely an Islamist attack on a synagogue in Manchester and what he described as widespread antisemitism following the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 – had led him to believe that British Jews should be given the option of sanctuary in the US....

Garson said he raised the idea of the US acting as a refuge for British Jews with Trump’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, Yehuda Kaploun....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• L. Joe Dunman, Religion in the Law: An Open Access Casebook (2d Ed.), (January 04, 2026).
• Richard Yuan, Reverse-Hostage Strategies: Self-Subordination and Elite Politics in Premodern States, (December 01, 2025).
• Caleb Bastian, Sociality in Tribes, (December 25, 2025).
• Melissa Murray & Katherine Shaw, Skrmetti, Trump, and the Coming Sex Equality Realignment,  (Supreme Court Review, forthcoming 2026).
• Vaishnavi Shinde, Casteism and Reservation in Modern India: Rethinking Reservation and Equality (2025), (December 13, 2025).
• Paul Benjamin Linton, Transporting Abortifacients Across State Lines: Prospects for Indictment and Extradition, (December 01, 2025).
• The following are Forthcoming in  Eric Heinze, Natalie Alkiviadou, Tom Herrenberg, Sejal Parmar and Ioanna Tourkochoriti (eds), The Oxford Handbook on Hate Speech (Oxford University Press, 2026)): Eric Heinze, The Multifaceted Regulation of Online Hate Speech;  Eric Heinze & Ashutosh A. Bhaagwat, Do Hate Speech Bans Undermine Liberal Values?;   Eric Heinze, Do Hate Speech Bans Undermine Democratic Values?.

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Arafat Rahman Akram, Qisas and International Human Rights Law: An Issue of Justice and Human Dignity, (January 04, 2026).
• Abdullah Muzammil, An Islamic Jurisprudential Inquiry into the Conditional Permissibility of Modern Sports Betting, (December 14, 2025).
• Syed Muhammad Bilal Zaidi, When "Principal" Loses Meaning: Ribā, Fiat Money, and the Ethics of Obligation, (December 30, 2025).
• Zulfa Latifah Hanum, Science (Ontology) in Islamic and Western Perspectives, (December 14, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• J. Steven Svoboda, Protection of Male and Female Sexed Children from Genital Cutting: Making Sense of Recent Legal Developments.31 Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice 307-358 (2025).
• Mairead Enright, "Up with the Brave": Gender, Transgression and Judges' Use of Catholic Convents in England and Ireland, 1930–1959, 43 Law & History Review 149-174 (2025).
• Jennifer M. Kinsley, Speak Now: A New Paradigm for Assessing Wedding Vendors' First Amendment Objections to Same-Sex Weddings, 52 Northern Kentucky Law Review 89-106 (2025).
• Ryan Thoreson, Obergefell and the Domestication (Or Not) of LGBTQ Intimacy. 52 Northern Kentucky Law Review 107-174 (2025).
• William E. Thro, Pierce and the American Proposition, 50 University of. Dayton Law Review 381-396 (2025).
  
• Isaac Amon, "Forced Worship Stinks in God's Nostrils": The Inquisition, Sepharad, and the American Experiment, 40 Touro Law Review 71 (2025).
• Paul Finkelman & Lance J. Sussman, Defeating Antisemitism in the World's First Democratic Republic: The American Revolution and Jewish Legal and Political Equality, 40 Touro Law Review 121 (2025).
• Marc A. Greendorfer, Trading Places: The Intersection of LGBTQ Rights and Zionist Rights under Federal Civil Rights, 40 Touro Law Review 173 (2025).
• Jonathan Hasson, Odod Mudrikm & Abraham Tennenbaum, Command and Consequence: Reassessing King David's Military Decisions in the Uriah Affair—A Legal and Ethical Analysis in the Context of Modern Legal Theory, 40 Touro Law Review 197 (2025).

2025 Religious Freedom Index Released

Last Friday, Becket released the 7th edition of its Religious Freedom Index reflecting a poll of 1002 respondents surveyed between Sept. 29 and Oct. 7, 2025 (press release, summary, full report). The 121-page report is titled 2025 Religious Freedom Index: American Perspectives on the First Amendment.  According to Becket's press release:

This year’s findings reveal three key trends: increased support for Americans’ freedom to bring their faith into the public square, continued backing for parents’ rights to guide their children’s education, and broad approval of Supreme Court decisions that protect religious freedom.

Today Is National Religious Freedom Day

Today is National Religious Freedom Day, the 240th anniversary of the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Generally, the Day is marked by a Proclamation from the President and sometimes from state Governors. So far this morning, the Proclamation by the Governor of Virginia has been posted online. Links to past Presidential Proclamations for the Day are at this link.

UPDATE: President Trump on January 16 issued the Religious Freedom Day 2026 Proclamation (full text). The Proclamation reads in part:

For 250 years, our Nation and our people have abided by a simple truth:  Every person is born with the God-given right to practice their faith, follow their conscience, and worship their God freely and without fear.  This Religious Freedom Day, we honor America’s distinct place in the halls of history as the only Republic ever founded upon this sacred principle — and we renew our commitment to upholding our proud legacy as one glorious Nation under God....

7th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Loses RLUIPA Challenge to Ramadan Meal Policy

In Smith v. Pugh, (7th Cir., Jan, 15, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim inmate's rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were not violated when prison authorities refused to provide him hot meal bags or a way to warm his meal bags during Ramadan. The court said in part:

According to Smith, the temperature of the meal bags provided to accommodate his Ramadan fasts aggravated his symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. He argued that the prison’s refusal to provide hot meal bags burdened his right to freely exercise his religion by pressuring him to break his fast....

... Smith attests that his IBS symptoms coincided with Ramadan fasting. And he contends that after the prison allowed him to warm his meal bags starting in 2019, his symptoms disappeared, suggesting that the meal bags’ temperature caused his symptoms.

As an initial matter, Smith’s medical records undermine his argument: even after he was permitted to warm his meal bags, Smith continued to report IBS symptoms during and after his fasts. Moreover, Smith, who lacks specialized medical or scientific knowledge, cannot rely solely on his own assertions. While his testimony may suggest a correlation between meal temperature and the onset of his symptoms, lay testimony alone cannot establish causation of a medical condition...

Parents Seek Emergency Order from SCOTUS Reinstating Trial Court's Voiding of School Policy on Disclosure of Students' Gender Transition

As previously reported, last December in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. On January 5, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction. Now plaintiffs in the case have filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to vacate the 9th Circuit's stay. (Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup.Ct., filed 1/8/2026). (Full text of 9th Circuit's stay order and Application to Supreme Court).

Education Week reports on these developments.

DHS Eases Requirements for Renewal of Foreign Religious Workers' Visas

The Department of Homeland Security yesterday issued a Release titled Improving Continuity for Religious Organizations and their Employees (full text). The Release announces the adoption of an Interim Final Rule in order to ease the shortage of foreign religious workers in the United States. The Rule, which will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register on January 16, eliminates the requirement that a holder of a 5-year R-1 Religious Worker visa remain outside the country for a full one year after the visa expires before applying for a new R-1 visa. Under the new rule, there is no minimum period of time that the religious worker must remain outside of the United States after his or her visa expires before seeking readmission as an R-1 non-immigrant.

According to a Release by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

This modification gives relief to religious workers and the communities they serve while the religious workers await legal permanent residency (commonly referred to as a “green card”). The wait time for a green card for religious workers has grown to several decades long.

The USCCB Release also urged Congress to pass the Religious Workforce Protection Act. 

EWTN News reports on the new rule.

Trump Appoints State Department Global Religious Freedom Advisor

 As previously reported, last April, President Trump nominated Mark Walker, a former Baptist minister and former congressman, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. However, the Senate failed to hold a hearing on his nomination. Apparently, his confirmation was blocked by North Carolina Senator Tedd Budd who defeated Walker in the 2022 Republican primary for U.S. Senate. So now, according to a January 8 statement (full text) by Walker, he has withdrawn his name from consideration for the ambassadorship and instead has accepted an appointment by President Trump as Principal Advisor on Global Religious Freedom to the State Department.  This appointment does not require Senate confirmation. In his statement, Walker said in part:

I look forward to working closely with Secretary Rubio, President Trump and the entire Administration to advance America's leadership in confronting religious persecution, exposing human rights violations, and advocating for people of faith around the globe.

Religious freedom remains under assault in far too many corners of the world, and I am committed to supporting the Trump Administration's bold efforts to defend this fundamental right. I thank President Trump, Secretary Rubio and the entire team for their trust and confidence.

JNS reports on these developments.

European Court Protects Journalist Who Wrote Article on Schools That Promote Islamist Teachings

In Tafzi El Hadri and El Idrissi Mouch v. Spain, (ECHR, Jan 8, 2026), the European Court of Human Rights rejected claims by two educators employed by the C.V.  residential center for minors in Barcelona that Spanish courts had failed to protect their right to their reputation protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the courts ruled in favor of a journalist who published an article that criticized them. The article in question said in part:

"Many educators, who have been employed solely because they are able to speak a Moroccan dialect, preach non-integration to teenagers.

Some centres for minors that take in many Muslim boys have become hotbeds for training Islamists.... However, [these authorities] are powerless to tackle a problem that feeds into a failure of social integration....

The situation at the [C.V.] centre for minors in Barcelona is also of great concern, as recognised by the centre's management..... Of the 26 Maghrebi minors currently housed in this centre, 24 are from Tangier and many of them have known each other since their childhood because they lived in the same neighbourhood. They communicate with their educators in the Dariya dialect. One of [the educators is] Omar El Idrisi who, according to sources at the centre ..., indoctrinates the pupils in Islamist fundamentalism.... He takes his pupils to pray at the Tariq Ibu Ziyad Mosque, [which is] named after the Berber general who led the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Another educator at the centre is Khaliltafzi [sic.] El Hadri, a member of Justice and Charity ..., one of the most radical strands of Islam.... When [the minors turn] 18, they are recruited to work in establishments run by Islamists, where they continue their [radicalisation].

The Court said in part: 

97.  ... Although some of the statements in the ABC article could be seen as controversial and the journalist's choice of terms ... was strong, the Court observes that the publication concerned a specific and clearly defined issue: the methods allegedly used in some centres for minors in order to accommodate unaccompanied minor immigrants, particularly staff selection policies and, in the absence of sufficient administrative oversight, the employment of staff who allegedly preached radical Islamism. The article highlighted the vulnerability of the foreign minors concerned, which made them especially susceptible to manipulation and indoctrination. It further exposed the potential risks to the integration of those minors that might lead to their subsequently being recruited into radical Islamism. The Court therefore agrees with the domestic courts that the journalist and the newspaper could clearly rely on their right to freedom of expression....

109.  In sum, the Court sees no reason to depart from the domestic courts' findings that the journalist displayed the required diligence in checking the information concerning the applicants before publishing it.... The Court reiterates that if the national courts apply an overly rigorous approach to the assessment of journalists' professional conduct, journalists could be unduly deterred from discharging their function of keeping the public informed....

114.  In the light of the above, the Court finds that the domestic courts acted within their margin of appreciation when seeking to establish a balance between the applicants' rights under Article 8 and the newspaper's opposing right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The Court considers that the national courts conducted the required balancing exercise between the competing rights at stake.... By dismissing the applicants' claim, the domestic courts did not fail to comply with the positive obligation incumbent on the domestic authorities to protect the applicants' rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

Australian Prime Minister Creates Commission on Antisemitism

Last week (Jan. 8), Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that in response to the December terrorist attack in Bondi, he is establishing a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. He said in part:

The Royal Commission will cover four key areas, as set out in the Letters Patent.

Tackling antisemitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation.

Making recommendations that will assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to tackle antisemitism...

Examining the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack....

Making any other recommendations ... for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia....

When Parliament returns the Government will also introduce new laws to criminalise hate speech and hate preachers, as well as deliver tougher gun laws....

The president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow In Transgender Athlete Cases

Tomorrow (Tuesday), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving alleged illegal discrimination against transgender women athletes. At issue in Little v. Hecox is whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Act prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women's sports teams in public elementary schools, high schools and public colleges. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Idaho's ban. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the question is whether West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it does.  The law bans transgender girls and women from participating on girls'/ women's sports teams in public high schools or state colleges where team members are chosen on the basis of competitive skills or in contact sports. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

Audio of the oral arguments in the cases will be streamed live by the Court beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. Transcript and recording of the oral arguments will become available later in the day at this link.

1st Circuit Upholds Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine

In Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, (1st Cir., Jan. 9, 2026), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment free exercise claims by 12 employees of a Massachusetts state government board. Th employees sought religious exemptions from the Authority's vaccination policy. The court agreed with the trial court that the vaccination policy was neutral and generally applicable, so that it is subject only to rational basis review.  Appellants had argued that the policy was not generally applicable because it prohibits religious conduct while permitting comparable secular conduct. The court said in part:

The question is not whether the risks associated with one individual who for religious reasons is unvaccinated are comparable to those associated with an individual who remains unvaccinated due to health concerns.... Rather, the Supreme Court instructs that we consider and compare the risks presented by groups of different sizes in different settings..

... [T]he district court did not err in finding that the two exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes. 

First, unlike the religious exemption, the medical exemption furthers the Authority's asserted interest in protecting the health and safety of its employees and customers. ...

Second, not only does the medical exemption further the Authority's asserted interests while the religious exemption does not, but also the risks associated with each exemption are not comparable to one another.  We have previously observed that "medical exemptions are likely to be rarer, more time limited, or more geographically diffuse than religious exemptions, such that the two exemptions would not have comparable public health effects."...

Having not persuaded us that the Policy fails rational basis review, the appellants have not established that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and we need not address the remaining preliminary injunction factors....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• David Eliot Bernstein, Title VI Hostile Environment Law in the Shadow of Antisemitic Violence, (Journal of Free Speech Law, Forthcoming).
• Geoffrey Swenson, Symbolic Rule of Law Promotion, (December 12, 2025). Law & Social Inquiry, First View pp. 1-32 (2025).
• Zachary D. Fasman & Samuel Estreicher, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism and Title VI: College and University Responsibility for Campus Harassment of Jewish Students, (January 09, 2026).
• Peter K. Yu, Monastic Scribes, Disruptive Technology, Proto-Copyright Regimes, and Their Twenty-First Century Lessons, (Intellectual Property and Religion: Cross-Cultural Intersections of Faith and the Law, Enrico Bonadio, Bryan Khan, and Nicola Lucchi, eds., Hart Publishing, 2026, Forthcoming).
• Ofer Raban, The First Amendment and the Suspension of an Extremist Anti-Zionist Law Professor, (January 05, 2026).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Seyyed Abdol Hojjat Moghadas Nian, Ebrahim Qasemi, Seyyed Mohammad Ali Moghadas Nian, & SeyedMehdi AlizadehMousavi, Pioneering Jurisprudential Convergence: A KPI-Based Framework for Shia-Hanafi Rapprochement in Islamic Law, (April 19, 2025).
• Olivia Abu Danyal, Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Waqf Administration: Policy Options for Nigeria, (November 30, 2025).
• Marroun Bader & Amuda Ghazali, Legal and Regulatory Challenges in Waqf Administration in Nigeria, (November 28, 2025).
• Marroun Bader & Aliyu Islam, The Role of Waqf Institutions in Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria, (November 28, 2025).
• Shahid Mahmood, The Islamic Governance and Secular State (Philosophical Tensions and Practical Possibilities), (November 15, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Sarah Ghabrial, Emergency by Design: The "Native Repressive Tribunals" and the Normalization of Exception in Colonial Algeria, 1858–1904. 42 Law & History Review 665-690 (2024).
• Yar Furstenberg, Rabbinic Evidence for the Spread of Roman Legal Education in the Provinces, 42 Law & History Review 713-734 (2024).
• Chagai Schlesinger, Weber in Jerusalem: The Rabbinical Debate over the Establishment of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals, 1918–1921,42 Law & History Review 869-892 (2024).

Supreme Court Grants Review of Falun Gong Members' Suit Against U.S. Company for Aiding Chinese Surveillance

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-856. cert. granted 1/9/2026) (Order List.). 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 of 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 allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

The SCOTUblog case page contains links to all the pleadings filed in the case. Reuters reports on the Court's action.

7th Circuit: Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana's Ban on Telehealth Abortion [CORRECTED]

 In Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that The Satanic Temple lacks standing to bring suit claiming that Indiana's ban on telehealth prescribing of abortion medications violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Satanic Temple's beliefs are described by the court:

Members of the Satanic Temple adhere to Seven Tenets.... Tenet III establishes the belief that one’s body is inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone.  Another, Tenet V, establishes that individual beliefs should conform to an individual’s “best scientific understanding of the world” and that each person “should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s own belief.” The Satanic Temple says these Tenets support what it calls the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” a meditative ritual intended to “cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a medically safe and legal abortion.”...

The court concluded that The Satanic Temple had not show any injury in fact to it or any of its members, saying in part: 

Instead of identifying an individual member who has suffered an injury, the Satanic Temple relies on statistical probability to show it has some unnamed members who might be injured....

... [W]e are left with a simple estimate of women who may be involuntarily pregnant, and there is no evidence that any one of them would want to obtain an abortion. Simply put, missing here is evidence that any member of the Satanic Temple has “personally … suffered some actual or threatened injury.”...

As a backstop argument, the Satanic Temple claims “Indiana[’s] Abortion Ban” has caused all of its members to “suffer the stigma of being evil people because they do not believe a human being comes into existence at conception nor do they believe abortion is homicide.” ...  But, other than merely saying so, the Satanic Temple provides no evidence that its members have actually suffered stigmatic injury. ...

The Satanic Temple argues the threat of prosecution ... “if” it prescribes abortifacients via telehealth appointments in Indiana is enough to show an injury to support its pre-enforcement challenge. There is no evidence, however, that the Satanic Temple will knowingly or intentionally prescribe abortifacients in violation of § 16-34-2-1 to face the prospect of prosecution. Indeed, it has not provided affidavits, declarations, or other evidence describing any specific, concrete plans of doing so.

Catholic Vote reports on the decision.

[Post was corrected to indicate that the decision was from the 7th Circuit, not the 6th Circuit.]

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Church's Standing to Challenge Health Insurance Mandate

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kuderer (video of full oral arguments). In March 2025, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the Assembly of God Church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacked standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church had been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff filed a petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit (full text). In July 2025, the 9th Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion and ordered the new oral argument which took place yesterday. ADF issued a press release containing further background on the case and links to some of the pleadings in the case.

Ukrainian Catholic Church Sues Over Zoning Restrictions

Suit was filed this week in a Pennsylvania federal district court by a Ukrainian Catholic Church alleging that a Pennsylvania Township violated the church's rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment through zoning ordinances that prevent the church from constructing a chapel and related facilities on a 41-acre site that it owns. Part of the land is currently used by the Church for a cemetery.  The complaint (full text) in Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church v. Collier Township, (WD PA, filed 1/7/2026) alleges in part:

To begin, the Township’s zoning ordinances deny any church the right to construct a church building anywhere without obtaining a conditional use approval. Yet, the Township permits numerous other property uses as of right, including kennels, motels, business or professional offices, horticulture, pet services, and car washes. So the Church applied for rezoning and a conditional use approval; the Township refused to approve anything but a shadow of the Church’s plans for its own Property. In fact, the Township attached to its “approval” a list of bizarre and unlawful restrictions on the Church’s worship, including how long and when the Church could ring bells and for whom the Church could hold memorial services. The Township made no effort to identify any compelling governmental interests motivating its micromanagement of the Church’s liturgical life, nor do any exist....

The Township has blatantly violated RLUIPA and the U.S. Constitution here. First, the Township’s zoning ordinances facially discriminate against religious land use by denying the Church the right to construct a church building anywhere within the Township as of right. Next, in rejecting the Church’s proposals and attaching strict conditions to the Church’s use of its Property, the Township has used zoning ordinances to impose a substantial burden on the Church’s religious exercise.... The Township failed to identify any compelling governmental interest—or any interest at all—in denying the Chruch’s plans for use of its own Property. And it failed to calibrate the use restrictions it did impose in any way, much less ensure they were the least restrictive means available.....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Review Sought In Church Autonomy Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/6/2026). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, held that the church autonomy doctrine bars civil courts from adjudicating tortious interference, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims by a Baptist minister who was fired from his position as Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/ Delaware. The certiorari petition frames the Question Presented as follows:

In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit held that the “church autonomy doctrine” provides a defendant “immunity” from claims by a plaintiff who never worked for the defendant, never served as a minister for the defendant, and never submitted to the authority of the defendant with respect to any ecclesiastical or secular matter.   

The Question Presented is:  Does the church autonomy doctrine apply to, and foreclose, civil law claims which are not disputes about the internal affairs or self-governance of a religious institution?

[Thanks to Scott Gant for the lead.]

Divorce Action Should Be Dismissed Because Couple Were Never Validly Married in the Coptic Church

In Funti v. Andrews, (NY App., Jan. 6, 2026), a New York state appellate court held that a divorce action should be dismissed because the parties, who had not taken out a marriage license, were never validly married in the first place. New York Domestic Relations Law provides parties are validly married even when they did not take out a marriage license if the marriage has been "solemnized in the manner heretofore used and practiced in their respective societies or denominations...." The trial court had concluded that the parties were married after analyzing the Coptic ceremony they were part of on the day their child was baptized. (See prior posting.) The appeals court held, however, that the court instead should have relied upon the undisputed testimony of a Coptic bishop that detailed the requirements for a valid Coptic wedding. The appellate court said in part:

We find that this case falls squarely in the ... category of cases where the court can make a determination about what is required for a ceremony to be solemnized in the manner used and practiced in a given religious denomination without becoming entangled in a religious dispute. There is no dispute in this case about what the requirements are for a marriage to be solemnized in the Coptic Church. Bishop David laid out what the requirements are for solemnization, which were affirmed by defendant’s expert....

Since the record in the present case contains undisputed evidence of what the Coptic Church requires for a valid marriage, a determination of whether the ceremony was properly solemnized does not require inquiry into religious doctrine, but only into the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 12.... 

... [W]e now apply the facts to the neutral standard provided by the Bishop’s undisputed testimony about what is required for a ceremony to be properly solemnized in the Coptic Church. 

Based on the neutral standard provided by the Bishop’s undisputed testimony, we find as a matter of law that the parties’ ceremony was not solemnized under the Domestic Relations Law....

Finally, even assuming that the parties’ alleged marriage could not be evaluated using neutral principles of secular law because plaintiff disputed what is required for a marriage to be properly solemnized in the Coptic Church, defendant’s motion should still have been granted. In this alternative scenario ...  a determination as to whether the parties were married in a religious ceremony could only be made by “analyzing the various and customary rites, customs, and practices of the [Coptic] religion,” and thus would improperly involve the court in a religious matter.... Any finding as to whether there was a solemnized marriage sufficient to meet the requirements of Domestic Relations Law §§ 12 and 25 could thus offend the First Amendment, which ... prevents civil courts from engaging in an analysis of religious doctrine...

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Magistrate Says Claims Against School for Ignoring Antisemitism Should Not Be Dismissed

In In re Claims of Avi Polischuk as Parent of D.P. v. Massapequa Union Free School District, (ED NY, Jan. 5, 2026), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the parent of a Jewish middle school student be allowed to move ahead with claims that the school ignored antisemitic actions directed at his son by other students.  The court described the antisemitic incidents:

... D.P. was being harassed by another student, Defendant S.W. on the basis of his religion. Specifically, in the school lunchroom S.W. asked D.P. if he was Jewish and then yelled "Heil Hitler" at him.... This treatment escalated to a physical attack on November 9, 2023, during which S.W. stabbed D.P. multiple times with a pencil causing physical injuries and resulting in S.W.'s suspension for a "short" and "insufficient" period. ...

This assault, however, is not the only example of antisemitism within the District. As far back as 2017 a swastika and the word "Hitler" were spray painted on a public school.... On a separate occasion ...Plaintiff was told by another family that District students "hurled antisemitic statements" at their son, and despite the parents' complaints, the District did nothing.... Still another set of parents reported that when their daughter passed around her yearbook for signatures, it came back with a swastika on it.... A complaint was made by the parents and again nothing was done....

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to give rise to an Equal Protection claim under Section 1983 as well as to a claim under Title VI, under the New York State Human Rights Law, and a claim for negligence, but that municipalities are not liable for punitive damages for violations of these provisions.

Street Preachers' Challenges to Noise Ordinance Fail

 In Cabral v. City of Fort Myers, Florida, (MD FL, Jan. 6,2026), a Florida federal district court dismissed a First Amendment challenge to Fort Myers' Noise Ordinance brought by three Christian street preachers. The challengers were cited for violating the Ordinance's ban on drivers, passengers or pedestrians producing amplified sound that can be heard over 25 feet away. The court rejected plaintiffs' facial and their as-applied challenge to the Ordinance, saying in part:

You don’t get to strike down a city’s noise-control policy just because it might catch a few conversational speakers in its net; you have to show that the net is designed so poorly that it catches a substantial amount of protected speech....

An as-applied challenge against the City ... requires a showing that the City itself—not just an officer with a badge and a misunderstanding of the word “pedestrian”—has a policy of targeting speech it doesn’t like. But Plaintiffs don’t seem to make such a claim. Instead, they allege the Ordinance was inapplicable to them. Even if true, such facts don’t alone trigger the First Amendment....

Though styled as an as-applied challenge under the First Amendment, Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim reads as a Fourteenth Amendment selective enforcement claim....

Plaintiffs claim that the Ordinance was enforced against them while other individuals were making amplified noise audible from 25 feet away.... But Plaintiffs don’t allege that these other individuals weren’t also cited for violating the Ordinance. Nor are these other individuals alleged to have been producing sound on public property. Without those specific facts, the allegation of targeting is just a hunch, not a plausible legal claim.

9th Circuit: Church Autonomy Doctrine Allows Churches to Hire Only Co-Religionists Even for Non-Ministerial Positions

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Brown, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's Law Against Discrimination against a Christian ministry that gives hiring preference to co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. The court said in part:

The freedom of religious institutions to establish their own doctrine and faith is so fundamental that they may categorically hire and fire their ministers without regard to anti-discrimination laws—even if the termination is for non-religious reasons.  Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions.  

But the church autonomy doctrine is not so narrowly drawn.  The First Amendment may also shield religious institutions’ hiring of non-ministerial employees when it involves matters of faith and doctrine.  For example, a religious institution may decide that its religious mission is best served by hiring only employees who adhere to and follow its religious beliefs—even for those not acting in ministerial roles. The religious institution may also believe that it can more effectively promote its view of moral and spiritual well-being if its own employees do not lead lives contrary to the institution’s teachings....

But unlike with the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine only protects Union Gospel’s non-ministerial hiring decisions based on religious beliefs.  So Union Gospel cannot discriminate on any other ground.  And our decision is limited to religious organizations like Union Gospel.  We do not consider the scope of the doctrine on other types of entities run by religious institutions, such as businesses or hospitals....

Yakima Herald Republic reports on the decision. 

Wyoming Supreme Court Strikes Down State's Abortion Bans

In State of Wyoming v. Johnson, (WY Sup. Ct., Jan 6, 2026), the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. The majority opinion for 3 justices held that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman's own health care decision, and the right to make health care decisions protected by Art. I, §38 is a fundamental right. The majority rejected the state's argument that abortion is not health care and is not the woman's own health care decision since a fetus is involved.

The majority went on to hold that restricting a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and the state had not shown that the state's abortion laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The majority rejected the state's argument that the statutory exceptions to the abortion ban make the law narrowly tailored to protect unborn life without unduly infringing on a woman’s fundamental right to make the health care decision to have an abortion.

Justice Fenn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I agree with the majority the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision....  However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to the right recognized in Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution.  I would find Article 1, § 38 allows the legislature to enact reasonable and necessary restrictions that do not unduly infringe on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.  Because the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Abortion Statutes meet this standard, I would find the statutes are unconstitutional and affirm the district court’s decision.

Justice Gray filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I ... do not dispute that article 1, section 38 creates a fundamental right to make one’s own health care decisions.  I disagree, however, that strict scrutiny applies.  Under the plain terms of article 1, section 38(c), a restriction on a competent adult’s right to make his or her own health care decisions will pass constitutional muster if the legislature could “determine” such restriction was “reasonable and necessary . . . to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”  When properly construed, the abortion statutes constitute a “reasonable and necessary” restriction by the legislature on the right of a pregnant woman to make her own health care decisions for the purpose of preserving prenatal life at all stages of development.  The abortion statutes do not violate article 1, section 38. 

Wyoming Public Media reports on the decision.

Cert. Filed In Case Challenging Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for State Grant Program

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Youth 71FiveMinistries v. Williams, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 1/5/2026). In the case (full text of appeals court opinion), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule of the Oregon Department of Education barring religious discrimination by grantees in selecting employees insofar as it applies to grant-funded programs, but not as it applies to petitioner's selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through programs that are not funded by state grants. The certiorari petition defines the questions presented by the appeal as:

1. Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional right, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed, as the Ninth Circuit held here. 

2. Whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review. 

Indiana Asks Court to Vacate 2002 Injunction Barring 10 Commandments Monument at Statehouse

Last week, Indiana's Attorney General filed a motion in an Indiana federal district court asking the court to vacate an injunction it issued in 2002 enjoining the governor from erecting a proposed Ten Commandments monument on the Indiana statehouse grounds.  The motion (full text) in Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. Braun, (SD IN, filed 12/29/25), reads in part:

In 2002, this Court permanently enjoined the Governor of Indiana from “taking any steps to erect, on the grounds of the Indiana Statehouse,” a proposed monument that depicts the Ten Commandments, Bill of Rights, and preamble to the Indiana Constitution.... The Court entered the injunction only after the Seventh Circuit held that similarly situated plaintiffs had standing to challenge the placement of such monuments and this monument’s placement would violate the Establishment Clause principles laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman.....   

Not long ago, however, the Supreme Court announced that Lemon has been “abrogated” and that Establishment Clause claims instead must be evaluated based on history and tradition.... Viewed through the lens of this Nation’s history and traditions, erecting the monument raises no Establishment Clause concerns.... That substantial change in law renders it improper to maintain the injunction.  

Substantial changes in standing doctrine provide a second, independent reason for vacating the injunction.... Now that Lemon is no longer good law, there is no longer any basis for holding that an offended observer has standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim. That, too, makes relief from the final judgment proper. 

The Attorney General also filed a 20-page Brief In Support of the Motion. In a press release announcing the court filing, the Attorney General said in part:

The monument—a gift from the Indiana Limestone Institute—displays the Ten Commandments on one large side, the Bill of Rights on the opposite side, and the Preamble to the Indiana Constitution on the smaller sides. A similar monument stood peacefully on the Statehouse lawn for over 30 years until it was vandalized in 1991....

The monument remains in Bedford, Indiana, and would be placed near its original intended location if the court grants the motion.

WTHI-TV News reports additional background information.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Blair Major, Between Freedom and Neutrality: Servatius v Alberni School District and the Problem of Judicial Gaslighting (December 19, 2025).
• Mustak Ahmed, The Weaponisation of Amnesty: Terrorism, Executive Decisions, and National Security in Bangladesh, (December 23, 2025).
• Shucheng Wang, The Varieties of Protestant House Churches Beyond Authoritarian Legality, (November 01, 2025).
• Matthew Cavedon, Eden America: John Locke and the School of Salamanca on Natural Property Rights, (Cambridge University, Press Elements in Law and Religion (under contract).
• Russell Bell, The Structural Necessity of Thought Control: Why Theocracy and Intellectual Freedom Are Logically Incompatible, (December 13, 2025).
• Russell Bell, Early Christian Authority Conflicts and Textual Preservation: The James-Paul Dispute and Its Impact on Alternative Christian Literature, (November 26, 2025).
• Russell Bell, Religious Reasoning in Nuclear Command Authority: Constitutional Crisis, Algorithmic Warfare, and Emergency Democratic Response During Real-Time Threshold War, (December 03, 2025).
• Advaith Sri Krishna Datta Mamidanna & Yug Gattani, Emergency Powers and Constitutional Morality: Re-examining Article 356 through S.R. Bommai, (December 17, 2025).
• Nicolin Decker, The Continuity vs. Conscience Doctrine (CVC): The Mappability Boundary in Artificial Systems and Human Rights, (December 26, 2025).
• Habiba Danjuma, & Abubakar Yusuf Mamud, Religious Freedom, Violence, and International Policy: Assessing Nigeria’s Designation as a Country of Particular Concern for Alleged Christian Persecution, (December 22, 2025).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Godfrey Lukindo J, Probate in Islamic Law Tanzania, Law and Practice Concern 1/3 Principle Properties to Wakf, (December 26, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, From Revelation to Legislation, (December 02, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, ‘Inna’: The Solemn Affirmation of Allah in the Quran, (December 20, 2025).
• Sonny Bhagat, The Raid on Somnath: Ghaznavid Ambitions and Divine Destiny in Futuh-us-Salatain (August 12, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Vol. 63 (2025).
• Symposia, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol 25, Issue 2 (2025).
• Kyle Reinhard, Myths and Magical Thinking: American Civil Religion, the Establishment Clause, and "Codified Irrationality" in Anti-CRT Measures, 37 Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development  287-376 (2025).
• Michael Zuckert, William J. Brennan Lecture. Brennan, Madison, and Freedom of Religion, 49 Oklahoma City University Law Review 305-318 (2025).

Corporate Governance in Sharia Compliant Banking Institutions Explored

A series of papers have been posted on SSRN from students at STEBank (Jakarta, Indonesia). The papers focus on corporate governance issues in Islamic banking:

• Ilham Pajar Berutu, Analysis of the Influence of Sharia Compliance and Good Corporate Governance on the Sustainability and Customer Trust of Sharia Banks: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Malaysia, and England (November 19, 2025).
• Shafaunnisa Mufidah, Good Corporate Governance and Sustainability Principle in Islamic Banking in Indonesia, (November 20, 2025).
• Saripudin Sarip, The Role of Good Corporate Governance in Maintaining Ethics and Compliance in Islamic Banking: Challenges and Solutions in the Digital Age, (November 19, 2025).
• Sella Sudrajat, Good Corporate Governance in Driving Corporate Performance and Sustainability in the Modern Era (November 17, 2025).
• Nia Kanialistiowati, Concepts and Principles of Good Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking and Its Differences from Conventional Banking, (November 19, 2025).
• Andy Rifqi Kurniawan & Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, Islamic Business Ethics as the Foundation of Sharia Good Corporate Governance for Sustainability, (November 20, 2025).
• Almira Azmi Sabila, Good Corporate Governance as a Pillar of Sustainability and Resilience in Islamic Banks in Modern Indonesia, (November 19, 2025).
• Lilis Ainul Yaqin, The Implementation of GCG for the Sustainability of Islamic Banks in Indonesia Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, (November 17, 2025).

California's Law Combatting Antisemitism In Public Schools Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Prichett v. Bonta, (ND CA, Dec. 31, 2026), a California federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of California AB 715 which is directed at preventing antisemitism in the curriculum of public schools. Among other things, the new law provides that the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism should be a basis to inform schools on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism. Plaintiffs are California teachers and students who allege that AB 715 violates their free speech rights and is overbroad and void for vagueness. The court said in part:

Teacher Plaintiffs worry that AB 715 exposes them “to charges of unlawful discrimination and corresponding discipline if they convey ideas, information, and instructional materials to their students that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism—thus, creating a chilling effect and infringing on the First Amendment rights of both the teacher and student.” ...Student Plaintiffs allege ...that AB 715 undermines their “rights to receive information” related to “Palestinian and Arab culture” because teachers will be forced to self-censor to remain within the confines of AB 715....

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that the uncertainty created by AB 715’s inexact definition of antisemitism casts an unconstitutional pall over the entire bill....

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the California legislature’s references in AB 715 to the Biden National Strategy ... were unconstitutional. However, even if Plaintiffs had proved that those two references were unconstitutional, the Court could, and would, properly sever those two references from the remainder of AB 715....

While Teacher Plaintiffs’ claims pass the standing hurdle, those claims are not currently ripe for adjudication....

As public-school education belongs to the government, the government may regulate Teacher Plaintiffs’ speech to accord with the government’s educational goals. It is of no significance that the curricula and the attendant speech required to teach it may advance a single viewpoint to the exclusion of another....

The Court does not find the word antisemitism in AB 715 to be vague....  A reasonable person reading AB 715 would sufficiently understand what the legislature meant by the word “antisemitism.”...

The Forward reports on the decision.

Catholic Church Sues Over Historic Preservation Designation

 A Catholic church has filed suit in an Indiana federal district court charging that actions of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and Metropolitan Development Commission designating a former church building as a landmark and prohibiting its demolition violate the church's free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in St. Philip Neri Catholic Church Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, (SD IN, filed 12/30/2025), alleges that the historic church building which is in substantial disrepair was deconsecrated in 2019. Catholic canon law imposes specific requirements regarding removal of religious symbols and limits the purposes for which the building can be reused after its deconsecration. The complaint alleges in part:

75. On its face, the Preservation Plan thus invokes the color of state law to unlawfully impose IHPC authority over religious features and aspects of this Catholic Church property, including the immovable religious symbols on the exterior of the Church Building....

95. The October 1, 2025 IHPC hearing was dominated by efforts by officials and commenters to critique and even to ridicule the religious determinations of Plaintiff and individuals associated with the Archdiocese and St. Philip Neri, to substitute their judgments about Roman Catholic religious doctrine for that of the Plaintiff, and to disrupt and intrude on the religious autonomy of the Plaintiff.

96. Multiple governmental officials provided their statements and opinions on what “the Church” is and what Roman Catholicism requires of Plaintiff, creating a decision-making environment for the Demolition Application that was entangled with religious opinions and distorted religious concepts....

168. The MDC’s adoption of 2024-HP-001 requires the Plaintiff to maintain a church that is closed, deconsecrated, and no longer usable as a church at considerable expense and prevents them from selling the property due to the concern that the church building could in the future be put to a forbidden use in violation of Roman Catholic canon law.

World reports on the lawsuit.

Happy New Year 2026! A Letter To Readers.

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2026! 

Thank you for your loyal readership. I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy. If you do, please recommend it to your friends and colleagues.

In 2025, issues of religion often took center stage as the President created a federal Religious Liberty Commission, as the IRS concluded that clergy could endorse political candidates in their sermons, and as the President focused on oppression of Christians in countries such as South Africa and Nigeria. The federal government leveraged concerns about antisemitism on college campuses to disrupt research and battle admission procedures at leading universities in the country. The proper response to gender dysphoria in minors was often framed in religious rather than medical terms as Biblical passages were cited to reject the reality of gender transition.

In 2025, free exercise concerns continued to overwhelm anti-establishment objections as the Supreme Court endorsed parents' right to opt their children out of religiously objectionable public-school instruction. Meanwhile states continue to test the limits on religion in publicly funded schools.

Some commentators have suggested that developments at the federal level in 2025 can best be described as promotion of "Christian nationalism.". I continue to wonder whether that term should be seen as pejorative or merely descriptive of those who believe that the United States is or should be a "Christian nation."

Religion Clause has always been a niche blog which has particularly attracted lawyers, social scientists, advocacy organization personnel, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, legislative and executive branch staff, students and others working professionally or avocationally interested in church-state relations and religious liberty issues.  I invite your feedback on whether it continues to serve this purpose.

The Religion Clause website is the most effective way of accessing posts, ad-free.  However, Religion Clause posts are also available through e-mail subscriptions, through X (formerly known as Twitter) and through Facebook, though the format, accompanying advertising, and availability of posts through these channels are handled by third parties over whom I have little or no control.

As always, I have attempted to retain Religion Clause's objectivity and its policy of linking to extensive primary source material. I hope that the blog continues to have a reputation for reliability at a time when the objectivity of social media is increasingly called into question.

I want to extend a special thanks to those of you who have sent me leads to developments of interest.  I have tried to acknowledge them in the posts that they generate. To all my readers, feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions. All of your emails are read, even though I apologize that I am often unable to respond to all of them.

It seems likely that religion will continue to animate much of the political, social and cultural conversation in 2026.  Religion Clause will try to keep you up to date on all of it.

Best wishes for a year of civil and respectful discussion,

Howard Friedman