Religion Clause

Thursday, November 06, 2025

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by the Moody Bible Institute challenging the Chicago Board of Education with excluding its students from participating in the Chicago student teacher program in violation of the Constitution and of state law. The complaint (full text) in Moody Bible Institute of Chicago v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 11/4/2025), alleges in part:

... Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign two agreements that contain provisions prohibiting Moody from employing only those who share its religious beliefs and agree to comply with its standards of Christian conduct (the “Employment Provisions”)....

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody....

Plaintiff alleges that this violates their rights under the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

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

Priest's Defamation Suit Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Catholic Diocese of Richmond v. Smalls, (VA App, Nov. 5, 2025), a Virginia state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation suit by a priest serving in the Diocese of Belize. The Diocese of Richmond included plaintiff's name on a list of priests who had credible and substantiated allegation of sexual abuse of a minor. The allegations against plaintiff occurred while he was a seminarian in the Richmond Diocese. The court said in part:

It is clear that the definition used to determine that there was a credible and substantiated allegation against Smalls of sexual abuse involving a minor includes references to religious precepts. The definition discusses sexual abuse in terms of a violation of the Sixth Commandment. It also provides that clergy who possessed, acquired, or distributed “pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen” committed sexual abuse, but does not define “pornographic images.” But if there is doubt as to whether such an offense has occurred, bishops are directed to reference writings of moral theologians. Smalls’s defamation claim thus rests on the falsity of a statement that is based on the application of a specific religious definition of sexual abuse. “[C]ivil courts cannot adjudicate defamation claims when the truth of the statements in question turns on ecclesiastical law.” ...

Because Smalls’s claim for defamation cannot be resolved on neutral secular principles, the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case....

Wednesday, November 05, 2025

Texas Voters Approve Parental Rights Amendment

Texas voters yesterday by a vote of 70% to 30% adopted an amendment to the state Constitution providing:

To enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent's child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child's upbringing.

Trump Calls Out Jews Who Vote for Mamdani

In a Truth Social post (full text) yesterday, President Donald Trump said:

Any Jewish person who votes for Zohran Mamdani, a proven and self-professed JEW HATER, is a stupid person!!!

Axios reports on the President's remarks.

Trump Declares Nigeria a "Country of Particular Concern"

On October 31, President Trump announced on Truth Social (full text) that he is designating Nigeria as a "Country of Particular Concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act. He said in part:

... When Christians, or any such group, is slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria (3,100 versus 4,476 Worldwide), something must be done.... We stand ready, willing and able to save our great Christian population around the World.

In a follow-up Truth Social post on November 1 (full text), President Trump said:

If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country "guns-a-blazing"...

The Pillar has more details.

Tuesday, November 04, 2025

Presidential Message on All Saints Day

On November 1, President Trump issued a Presidential Message on All Saints Day (full text). It reads in part:

On All-Saints’ Day, the First Lady and I join Christians across our Nation in celebrating the saints who have gone before us and now share in the glory of God. Their examples remind us that the strength of our country rests in the goodness of its people—and that through faith and virtue, our Nation can endure in liberty and truth.

From our earliest days, the United States has drawn inspiration from holy men and women whose witness shaped our people and deepened our faith. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Patroness of the United States, has long been honored as a symbol of grace for our country. Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini poured out her life in service to the most poor and needy among us; Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton formed generations through her schools of faith and learning; and Saint John Neumann led his flock with humility, courage, and unrelenting devotion. Their example, and those of all the saints, demonstrates that faith transforms nations as surely as it transforms hearts.

Our country has long cherished the freedom of religion that allows faith such as theirs to flourish. My Administration is committed to defending this sacred right, upholding the freedom of every believer to worship, speak, and live according to their beliefs. We are standing firm against those who seek to persecute or marginalize people of faith, protecting churches, schools, and communities from religious discrimination, and ensuring that Christian values maintain their rightful place at the center of American life. As we remember the perfect example of Christ and the legacy of His saints, we renew our promise to live as one Nation under God, defending liberty, seeking justice, and striving always toward the good that His truth reveals.

School May Bar Teacher from Hanging Crucifix on Classroom Wall

In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, Nov. 3, 2025), a Connecticut federal district court in a 54-page opinion rejected claims of a public middle-school teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated when she was disciplined for hanging a crucifix on a classroom wall near her desk. The court said in part:

... Ms. Castro acted pursuant to her job duties as a teacher when she decorated the walls of her classroom with items the students would see during instructional time. The question is whether Ms. Castro was doing otherwise when she hung items she calls “personal expressive items” on the wall, including the crucifix. Ms. Castro specifically states that posting such items makes the classroom environment more conducive to learning because the items humanize the teacher to their students. In that way, therefore, Ms. Castro was acting pursuant to her official duties as a teacher by displaying the items....

Accepting Ms. Castro’s argument that teachers have a First Amendment free speech right to post “personal expressive items” related to matters of public concern on classroom walls—where they are visible to students during instructional time—would mean the District could not control the messages conveyed to students while the students are required to be present in the classroom for learning. Instead, with respect to each such item a teacher posted on the classroom wall, the District would need to engage in a Pickering balancing analysis and could prohibit only those items that are sufficiently disruptive.

... I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to prevail on her claim that her display of the crucifix on the wall of the classroom constitutes speech as a private citizen rather than pursuant to her job duties as a teacher. Therefore, I conclude she is not likely to prevail on her free speech claim....

Ms. Castro says that she “sincerely believes that her religion compels her to display her crucifix, not hide it under her desktop” and “[s]tifling her religious expression through concealment of the crucifix ‘would be an affront to [her] faith....

I have already concluded that the crucifix display on the classroom wall was pursuant to Ms. Castro’s official duties and is therefore speech attributed to the District. The speech is thus, for constitutional purposes, the government’s own speech....

Defendants argue that allowing the crucifix to remain on the classroom wall would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause or, at the very least, expose the District to a risk of liability for such a violation....

Based on the existing record, I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to show that Defendants did anything other than make “a reasonable, good faith judgment” that permitting Ms. Castro to hang the crucifix on the classroom wall during instructional time “runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause.... I agree with Defendants, therefore, that a preliminary injunction should not issue....

As noted, under binding Second Circuit cases, the District must be afforded some leeway in balancing the free exercise rights of its employees and the risk of an Establishment Clause violation.... Unlike the coach’s prayer in Kennedy, the crucifix display is a religious message on the classroom wall broadcast to a “captive audience” of students required to be in the classroom. ...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

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

Village's Zoning Law for Places of Worship Is Unconstitutional

In Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York, (ED NY, Oct. 30, 2025), a New York federal district court granted partial summary judgment to a Lubavitch organization that wants to build a Chabad House on land in Old Westbury. Plaintiffs allege that the Village has thwarted their efforts by enacting a discriminatory Places of Worship zoning law. The court said in part:

On a full summary judgment record, the case for the facial infirmity of the POW [Places of Worship] Law has been strengthened. ... The record now available demonstrates many more ways in which the POW Law treats religious development less favorably than comparable secular land uses. Thus, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion, denies defendant’s motion, and declares the POW Law facially invalid under the United States Constitution....

Given the irresponsible and misleading arguments lodged by defense counsel in its filings, which border on contumacious, the Court considered striking the defendant’s motion. However, considering the seeming interminability of this case, the motion will be resolved if only to avoid further delay. Furthermore, despite weighty submissions, defendant’s motion can be easily dispatched....

It has been almost seventeen years since this matter was filed. In its last major decision in this case, this Court declared as follows:

The allegations raise serious issues of constitutional magnitude, and this matter has lingered far too long. That ends now. Counsel will be expected to work diligently to bring this matter to resolution—in whatever form that might occur—with all deliberate speed....

Two more years of litigation, and the matter remains at this unsatisfactory juncture: the Court has now determined that the Village enacted a discriminatory law in violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs still have been unable to construct their Chabad. Still more legal battles, costs and delays lie ahead.

It would behoove all involved to work together to reach a satisfactory resolution of this matter. Given its history, the undersigned cannot reasonably hold out much hope.

In a footnote, the court described the difficult issues on computation of damages that remain:

... [C]ounsel represents that “from 1999 to 2020 [plaintiffs] lost more than $15 million in pledged donor commitments,” while “Rabbi Konikov’s lost earnings and benefits . . . exceed $5 million.”... As these figures include a time frame that predates the filing of litigation by nearly a decade, may well include speculative matters and, at a high level, would suggest double-counting, it is clear that, should the litigation proceed to that stage, the risks and costs will be substantial.

Local Church's Property Held in Trust for Parent United Methodist Church

In French Broad United Methodist Church v. Holston Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, (TN App., Oct. 31, 20225), a Tennessee state appellate court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a local church's suit against its parent body. In this portion of a broader set of claims regarding ownership of a property that had been used as a parsonage, the local church challenged a provision in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church that provided all local church properties were held in trust for the benefit of the denomination. The court said in part:

The trial court determined that Bethel UMC’s claims to quiet title, for a declaration that the trust clause in The Book of Discipline was invalid, and for judicial modification of the trust ... were barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Even if the doctrine did not bar these claims, the trial court found that The Book of Discipline would require the dismissal of these claims pursuant to the hybrid neutral principles approach, “under which trust provisions in governing church documents must be enforced.” The trial court noted that the dispute at issue “post-dated the codification of the ‘trust’ provisions of The Book of Discipline.”...

... Tennessee cases dictate that the property dispute between Bethel UMC and Holston is subject to determination in accordance with the hybrid neutral principles approach, which requires a court to defer to and enforce the trust provisions of The Book of Discipline....

Bethel UMC asserts that The Book of Discipline and the trust clause fail because Bethel UMC did not “ever intend to give centuries old properties, worth billions of dollars, away to strangers, when it violates their lives, liberties, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness to worship as they wish without harm to others or in violation of any laws.”

We respectfully disagree with Bethel UMC’s reasoning. The trial court found that, “Bethel admits that it was an affiliate of The United Methodist Church.” The trial court also noted that the dispute at issue “post-dated the codification of the ‘trust’ provisions of The Book of Discipline.” By its affiliation with the national church, Bethel UMC agreed to be bound by the governing documents of the United Methodist Church.... Further, ... Bethel UMC concludes that, instead of applying the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, “as the long lineage of cases clearly indicates, . . . the legal neutral principles should have been applied to the trial court cause of action, which it was not.” As previously discussed, however, Bethel UMC’s claims were likewise subject to dismissal under that theory, which would require application of the trust provisions.

Monday, November 03, 2025

9th Circuit: Oregon Right to Life Group Is a Religious Organization

In Oregon Right to Life v. Stolfi, (9th Cir., Oct. 31, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, remanded the case to the district court for it to re-evaluate whether requiring Oregon Right to Life to furnish its employees with health insurance covering abortion and contraception violates its First Amendment rights. The majority said in part:

We agree with ORTL that its beliefs are religious and sincerely held. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. 238 (2025), which reiterated the constitutional significance of exemptions granted to some religiously motivated organizations but not others, we return this case to the district court to reevaluate whether RHEA’s application to ORTL violates the First Amendment....

ORTL’s religious motivations and beliefs are overt and long-established. They are announced throughout ORTL’s governing documents, shared by ORTL’s board, and have been publicly declared by ORTL since before this litigation....

Judge VanDyke filed a concurring opinion saying that he would also order the district court to enter a preliminary injunction because ORTL has shown a strong likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim.

Judge Schroeder filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority appears to suggest that the plaintiff, Oregon Right to Life, may have been wrongfully denied an exemption as a religious employer under Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA). Yet Oregon Right to Life never asked to be considered a religious employer. The case is thus unlike the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Sunday, November 02, 2025

Court Cannot Require Congregational Vote on Disaffiliation from Methodist Parent Body

In Ex parte Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2025), the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to dismiss a suit brought by certain members of the Auburn United Methodist Church (AUMC) who wanted to disaffiliate from its parent body, the United Methodist Church, because of disagreement with the UMC's position on human sexuality. Those members sought a court order to require a vote of all the members of AUMC on whether the congregation should disaffiliate and a declaration that the parent Conference lacked any interest in the congregation's property. The Court held in part:

Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, Alabama courts may not adjudicate disputes that are ecclesiastical in nature, including matters of church doctrine, polity, or internal governance.... Generally, the process of disaffiliation is governed by ecclesiastical rule.... Thus, a dispute concerning disaffiliation is typically considered an ecclesiastical matter -- not a civil one.

The Court went on to hold that an Alabama statute on church control of its real property does not require a congregational vote on denominational disaffiliation. AL.com reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Friday, October 31, 2025

FDA Restrictions on Abortion Drug Held to Be Arbitrary and Capricious

In Purcell v. Kennedy, (D HI, Oct. 30, 2025), a Hawaii federal district court, in a 79-page opinion, held that the FDA must re-evaluate the "Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy" which it has imposed for the use of mifepristone. The court said in part:

... [T]he court concludes that the Agency violated the APA by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for its restrictive treatment of the drug, which was compounded by its decision to limit the scope of information it considered when evaluating the REMS. More specifically, the Agency neglected to consider certain required statutory factors and generally failed to sufficiently explain the logic behind any reasoning it did provide, rendering the 2023 REMS Decision arbitrary and capricious.

The court ordered the FDA to reconsider its restrictions. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Christian Opposition to Halloween Surfaces Again

Today is Halloween. The Wild Hunt this week reported on growing Christian religious opposition to Halloween celebrations. The report says in part:

Beginning early this month and, frankly, on cue, a surge of conservative Christian messaging has renewed the annual calls to avoid Halloween celebrations — and, in some cases, to confront or disrupt them. While many faith groups simply discourage participation, others have taken a more aggressive approach, framing Halloween and related Pagan observances like Samhain as manifestations of evil that must be “spiritually opposed.”...

Across social media, Christian influencers and ministries have once again amplified warnings that Halloween is “anti-Christian,” not merely secular or non-religious. Some claim that its roots in Samhain and ancestor veneration make it inherently pagan and demonic, even citing biblical passages as prohibitions against its observance....

While these ideas are not new, their intensity this year appears to have coincided with organized actions intended to “reclaim” public spaces from what these groups see as darkness. In Salem, often called “the Witch City,” that rhetoric has turned into direct confrontation....

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Broad Religious Statements Did Not Support Title VII Discrimination Claim

In Castaneda v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, (ED CA, Oct. 28, 2025), a DMV employee brought several federal and state claims challenging her firing. She had raised religious objections to the Covid vaccine and also objected to the alternative of testing by DMV's third-party contractor instead of her own doctor. Dismissing, with leave to amend, plaintiff's Title VII religious discrimination claim, a California federal magistrate judge said in part:

... Plaintiff does not explain the religious basis for her objection to the vaccine, beyond saying that “her body is sacred and God-given” and she cannot be compelled to have her DNA “harvested” and “tested on” because it is “the code of life given by God.”... The Ninth Circuit recently held that “[i]nvocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction” for purposes of a discrimination claim.... To allow Plaintiff’s claim simply because she invokes the concepts of bodily autonomy and God in the same sentence “would destroy the pleading standard for religious discrimination claims, allowing complainants to invoke magic words and survive a dismissal without stating a prima facie case.” ...

Battle Over Congregations' Disaffiliations Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In United Methodist Rio Conference Board of Trustees v. Alice First Methodist Church, (TX App., Oct. 29, 2025), a Texas state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a suit by the United Methodist Church parent body challenging attempts by some two dozen local Texas congregations to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church. The disaffiliation attempts were triggered by the General Conference's decision to allow ordination of gay and lesbian pastors. Plaintiff claimed that the local congregations did not comply with the proper procedures in their attempts to disaffiliate. The court said in part:

... [T]he Conference contends the trial court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the questions of whether the local churches are bound by the Discipline’s disaffiliation provisions and properly disaffiliated from the UMC can be determined by interpreting the Discipline using neutral principles of law. We disagree....

... This suit does not involve a dispute over who owns the real property currently occupied by the local churches. This is a dispute over whether the local churches are bound to follow the Discipline and the specific provisions providing for disaffiliation from the UMC. Although our supreme court has held courts may apply neutral principles of law to issues “such as . . . corporate formation, governance, and dissolution” when a religious entity has chosen to establish itself under Texas corporations law, ... it has rejected parties attempts to have the courts resolve disputes under church governing documents and regulations because such an inquiry would “intrude upon internal affairs of church governance and autonomy.”... As such, ... the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine— and broader church autonomy doctrine— precludes courts from interpreting religious documents that dictate church governance....

In its second issue, the Conference contends that even if the trial court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court nevertheless has jurisdiction to enforce the Conferences’ position because it is the higher ecclesiastical authority. It appears the Conference contends we look to neutral principles of law to resolve issues involving religious entities when possible but must defer to the higher ecclesiastical authority if the court determines it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

In Southern Methodist University, the supreme court recently rejected this argument from a regional conference within the UMC. See S. Methodist Univ., 716 S.W.3d at 483. The supreme court held that “if courts could not decide the case without resolving a religious question or impeding the church’s authority to manage its own affairs, the result would be dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, not rendition of judgment granting the Conference (or any other party) affirmative relief.”