DHS's Disqualification of Applicant Who Engages in Protected Religious Use of Psychedelics Supports Title VII Claim

In Reis v. Noem, (SD FL, Aug. 24, 2026), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Title VII alleging disparate treatment on the basis of religion and failure to make reasonable religious accommodations. Plaintiff , a Brazilian-American, is a member of  União do Vegetal (UDV), a Christian Spiritist denomination. As part of her religious practices, she uses ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea. In its 2006 Gonzales decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under RFRA, the government needs to show a compelling interest in order to prosecute for sacramental use of ayahuasca by UDV members.

Plaintiff was provisionally offered a position as a Customs and Border Protection Officer by the Department of Homeland Security. However, the offer was withdrawn when plaintiff told examiners about her use of ayahuasca. Plaintiff sued. The court said in part:

Defendant ... argues that its drug-use policy constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the Withdrawal Notice because 5 C.F.R. § 731.202(b)(6) authorizes disqualification for "illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled substances, without evidence of rehabilitation." ... Without a more developed factual record, the Court does not see this argument as a reason to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims....  Because classifying Reis's sacramental ayahuasca use as per se "illegal" raises tension with Gonzalez, ..., not sufficiently addressed by Defendant, and because Defendant offers no other argument to buttress its theory on this point, the Court declines to dismiss these claims on the pleadings. Reis has plausibly alleged a disparate treatment claim....

Count II states a plausible claim for failure to make a reasonable accommodation under Title VII. Reis alleges that her sincere religious practice of consuming sacramental ayahuasca tea as a UDV member conflicted with CBP's blanket drug-use policy, that she informed CBP of this conflict and its lawful basis, and that CBP withdrew the offer without engaging in any interactive process or offering any accommodation whatsoever.... The burden of demonstrating undue hardship therefore falls on Defendant.... Defendant offers only generalized assertions that accommodating Reis would create "safety or security" risks.... Generalized assertions are not evidence of a "substantial" burden....

6th Circuit Questions Whether "Secular Purpose" Is Still Part of Establishment Clause Compliance

 In Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, (6th Cir., Aug. 21, 2026), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Free Speech, Establishment Clause and Equal Protection challenges to a city Ordinance that changed the rules on what flags could be flown from a group of 18 city-owned flag poles. The flag poles historically were maintained by the city's Human Relations Committee (HRC). Originally, the city would fly any flag a resident requested. After the HRC honored a resident's request to fly the Pride flag, City Council passed a Resolution limiting flags that could be flown to the American, Michigan, Hamtramck, and Prisoner of War flags, and the flags of nations representing Hamtramck’s international character. When two members of the HRC, in defiance of this Resolution, again flew the Pride flag, they were removed from the HRC and the HRC's authority over city flag poles was removed. The two HRC members sued. The court said in part:

Before Resolution 2023-82, we assume without deciding that the flagpoles conveyed private speech and that they were a designated public forum.  But because we conclude that Resolution 2023-82 closed the flagpoles as a forum for private speech, we hold that the plaintiffs’ free-speech claim fails....

Gordon and Stackpoole ... altogether ignore Kennedy and do not attempt to grapple with its effects on Establishment Clause jurisprudence.  Instead, they cite Lemon and its progeny for the proposition that legislation must have a secular purpose...

... [A]lthough Kennedy recognized the abrogation of “Lemon and its progeny,” ...  it is unclear if it disturbed the Court’s pre-Lemon Establishment Clause case law that requires government action to possess a secular purpose....

Councilmember Choudhury’s statement, during an hours-long hearing, that “we have to respect the religious,” ...  fails to demonstrate that Resolution 2023-82’s primary purpose was to advance religion....

The court also concluded that plaintiffs had forfeited their Equal Protection claim by not developing the claim on appeal.

Judge Thapar filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Resolution doesn’t resemble any founding-era hallmarks of established religion.  The City hasn’t exerted any control over religious belief or exercise by limiting the content of its flag display.  Even assuming religion motivated certain City Councilmembers to pass the ordinance, the City hasn’t compelled its residents to proclaim any religious creed or adopt those Council members’ beliefs.  Rather, Hamtramck’s residents remain free to express their contrary views....

... The Supreme Court couldn’t have been any clearer—Lemon is dead.  But the majority cracks the door open for the ghost of Lemon to keep haunting the Sixth Circuit.  That crack risks subjecting future Establishment Clause plaintiffs to an amorphous test “flawed in its fundamentals, unworkable in practice, and inconsistent with our history and our precedents.”... [W]e should recognize what our sister circuits have already understood:  Any inquiry into whether the government acted with a secular purpose has no place in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Confrontation Between Jewish and Muslim High School Students Leads to Complex Court Decision

Hiester v. School District of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Aug. 21, 2026), is a 41-page opinion covering complex allegations of competing anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish harassment by high school students and high school administrators. The Pennsylvania federal district court describes the basic claims as follows:

The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations is that the School District and its officials established a Muslim Prayer Room at one of its high schools, the Academy at Palumbo..... Plaintiffs claim that the room was restricted to Muslim students, and that they were unfairly disciplined by the Defendants for entering the Prayer Room because they are not Muslim. The Plaintiffs also allege that the School District caused, and then failed to respond to, their harassment by other Palumbo students. They allege that this harassment became so severe that they were forced to relocate out of the school district at significant personal expense.

Plaintiff M. Danowitz decided to visit his old friends at Palumbo. Danowitz, who is Jewish, had attended Palumbo the previous school year and remained friendly with Palumbo students including Plaintiff John Hiester.... He and Hiester arrived at Palumbo together on the morning of June 11, entering the building through the main entrance....

Once inside, Hiester and Danowitz joined Plaintiff Meru Parmar and several other friends in the school’s computer lab.... The group ... then made their way to the library ... where an open door marked “Quiet Room” and decorated with a makeshift Palestinian flag caught their attention..... Believing that the room was open to all students, first Danowitz—then later Hiester and Parmar—went inside....  

Inside the Quiet Room, the Boys found several female students seated at a table using their laptops, as well as Islamic religious decorations and Arabic signage adorning the walls.... One large sign welcomed people to the “Prayer Room” and wished them a “Happy Ramadan”.... A laminated placard pinned to the wall contained “guidelines” from The Academy at Palumbo Muslim Student Association for use of the “Quiet Room.”...  

The Boys sat on the opposite side of the room.... Danowitz said a short Jewish prayer in Hebrew..... The prayer elicited laughter from the female students and a short exchange during which the girls questioned why the Boys were in the room.... Danowitz responded that he had a First Amendment right to pray and was a proud Zionist; he also sang a short section of Am Yisroel Chai (“The People of Israel Live”) and did a handstand....  As he left the room, he removed a laminated placard from the wall, setting it on the floor.... 

News of the event spread, often in exaggerated fashion, accusing the boys of trashing the Prayer Room. Students using social media, and teachers, fanned the flames. An investigation concluded that the boys committed harassment.

Plaintiff families sued. A number of their claims were dismissed, some for lack of standing. However, several claims survived.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Court finds it plausible that a reasonable jury could find that the School District Officials violated the Establishment Clause by disciplining Student Plaintiffs for entering the Prayer Room....

Plaintiffs adequately plead that the School District Officials deprived them of due process. This Court finds that the right to due process for suspended students is so clearly established that the School District Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity....

... Student Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants Thompson, Stamps, and Gordon suspended them for entering the Muslim Prayer Room as non-Muslims.... They also plausibly allege that they were suspended to pacify Palumbo students’ outrage.... In this respect, the defendants’ actions resemble the fourth hallmark of religious establishment: “the government restrict[ing] political participation by dissenters.”...  

The Plaintiffs also plausibly allege that Defendants ... used public resources to create the Prayer Room and prevent non-Muslim students from accessing it.... In this respect, Defendants’ actions resemble the fifth hallmark of religious establishment: “the government provid[ing] financial support for the established church, often in a way that prefer[s] the established denomination over other churches.”...

Palumbo students accused Student Plaintiffs, among other things, of “exclaiming that they are openly Zionist” and “destroy[ing] a sacred space during one of the most brutal genocides [referring to Palestine].”.... But unlike Judaism, Zionism is not a protected characteristic under Title VI.... However vehement or crass, Palumbo students’ disagreement with Student Plaintiffs’ perceived political beliefs doesn’t constitute antisemitic harassment....

Dance Company's "Ministerial Exception" Defense to Trafficking Claims Rejected at Pleading Stage

Chun-Ko Chang v. Shen Yun Performing Arts, Inc., (SD NY, Aug. 18, 2026), is a class action suit brought by students who also are performers in a Chinese dance company based in New York. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act as well as New York's Labor Law. The court dismissed certain claims but allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with others. One defense raised but not accepted at this stage of the proceedings was the ministerial exception defense. According to the court:

Shen Yun identifies itself as a nonprofit dance company devoted to highlighting Chinese culture and morality while exposing the “cruelty of the Chinese Communist Party.” .... Shen Yun recruits children as students to work as dancers and musicians for Shen Yun (“Performers”), many of which are recruited from abroad.... From the start of their time at Shen Yun as students, many Performers are recruited to attend the Fei Tian Academy of the Arts or Fei Tian College, which Plaintiffs allege “operate[s] as a cover for the forced labor scheme.”... This alleged “forced labor scheme,” is used to achieve the overarching goal of the Shen Yun Defendants, i.e., “performing uncompensated or undercompensated labor as Performers in Shen Yun performances, so that Defendants may reap massive financial benefits.”...

Hongzhi Li founded and leads Falun Gong, which is a “practice that combines teachings for self-improvement and mediation exercises,” though he has asserted that Falung Gong is not a religion.... Rui Lee is Hongzhi Li’s wife, and together, the Lis are alleged to “effectively control Shen Yun’s considerable assets, and personally and secretly benefit from that control....”

SYZ Defendants argue that the ministerial exception applies to this matter and accordingly bars Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety, as Plaintiffs are “ministers” of the “religious organization” of Shen Yun.... 

... Defendants attempt to argue that these “Performers” are “ministers” because that term “includes anyone who communicates a religious message on behalf of a faith-based organization.” ... However, the Court may not, at the motion to dismiss stage, engage in such a factual analysis where, as here, it is not clear from the four corners of the [complaint] that Plaintiffs “clearly” fall into the category of “ministers,” or for that matter, whether Shen Yun “clearly” qualifies as a “religious organization.”...

Defamation Action Should Be Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In In re Gateway Church, (TX App., Aug. 19, 2026), a Texas state appellate court held that a state trial court should have dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds. a defamation suit that was brought against a church and church leadership. At issue are statements that church leaders made about its investigation into charges that its then-pastor sexually abused a 12-year-old girl 30 years previously while he was pastor at another church. According to the court:

Gateway’s leadership issued a communication to church staff addressing the allegations and providing information about Morris’ past misconduct and the church’s understanding of events. The statement ... was intended to “empower” staff concerning a response should they receive any inquiries....

Although the communication was directed to staff, portions of it were later circulated on social media and reported in the news media. The mandamus record does not establish how the communication became public....

.... The [ecclesiastical abstention] doctrine prohibits civil courts from delving into ecclesiastical matters or a plaintiff’s claims that are inextricably intertwined with matters of doctrine or church governance.... Because we find that real parties’ claims are inextricably intertwined with the church’s investigation of Morris’ misconduct, the doctrine deprives the trial court of jurisdiction....

Gateway’s investigation into Morris (or, for that matter, lack of investigation if none was done prior to the communication) is inherently ecclesiastical. Gateway, through its leadership, was communicating with staff about what the church and elders knew about their senior executive pastor and events that transpired some three decades ago. As relators note in their petition, the challenged statements were made for a religious purpose, “shepherding the Gateway congregation in accordance with the dictates of Scripture.”...

... Claims related to a church’s publication or communication of the results of its own investigation cannot be severed from the church’s policy to investigate its clergy....

...  Although real parties argue that establishing knowledge can be a secular fact question in a defamation case, determining what Gateway and its leaders knew, and how they arrived at that understanding, would necessarily involve probing internal church deliberations and processes. That inquiry is inextricably intertwined with ecclesiastical matters and is therefore prohibited....

KERA News reports on the decision.

Texas Governor Attacks Airports' Plans to Install Ablution Facilities for Muslim Prayer Preparation

On August 14, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the CEO of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport accusing two Texas airports of illegally favoring Muslim travelers. The letter (full text) said in part:

It has come to my attention that the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) plans to install ablution facilities for Islamic wudu washing rituals onsite.  The George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) in Houston has already installed one such facility and an interconnecting prayer room furnished with “copies of the Quran, prayer rugs, prayer beads and a turbah.”  Unlike nondenominational interfaith chapels, these ablution facilities appear designed to single out one subset of the population for special treatment based on religion.  I am unaware of either airport installing standalone facilities to meet the particular needs of the many other religious groups represented across Texas.   

That is illegal. Both airports are government-owned facilities.  Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from facilitating this sort of discrimination.  Just as the government cannot favor the secular over the sacred, it also cannot favor one religious view of the sacred over all others in our “pluralistic society.”  Nor may governments use private organizations as a “subterfuge” to “directly or indirectly” foster illegal discrimination more generally....

... I have already referred DFW and IAH to the U.S. Department of Transportation for investigation and enforcement....

Accordingly, this letter serves to notify you that any development, provision, or continued operation of such exclusionary religious spaces in government-owned facilities violates state and federal law and the terms of any grant agreements between the State of Texas and your organizations.  Engaging in these discriminatory practices will subject any organizations found to be in violation to the withdrawal of grant funding and other enforcement actions.

Texas Tribune reports that the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport cancelled its plans after receiving the letter.

On August 14, Governor Abbott also sent a letter (full text) to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy asking the DOT and the FAA to take enforcement action. Then on August 21, Governor Abbott sent a letter (full text) to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and the head of DOJ's Civil Rights Division referring the matter to the Justice Department. The letter says in part:

Airports can no more offer Muslim-only bathroom spaces than they can maintain white-only bathrooms.  Your office has authority to investigate and put a stop to these discriminatory practices.

The Governor's Office issued a press release announcing the referral to the Justice Department.

State Must Show Compelling Interest to Bar Child Sex Offender from Church Services

In Reeces Chapel Missionary Baptist Church v. Buck, (ED NC, Aug. 14, 2026), a North Carolina federal district court refused to dismiss a suit challenging North Carolina's statute barring a registered child sex offender from being within 300 feet of a location intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors. Reece's Chapel is a religious organization that offers religious services. It has a play area and an area used for religious education of minors within 300 feet of its worship hall, so worship services are considered by law enforcement to be off limits for child sex offenders. The court said in part:

Doe desires to attend religious services in the Reeces Chapel worship hall.... Doe has a "sincerely held religious belief' that he must "attend worship services at a duly constituted Christian church.... Doe alleges that subsections 14-208.18(a)(2) and 14-208.llA "render every church within a reasonable distance from [his] home off-limits because all such churches have either play areas or areas dedicated to the instruction of minors."... 

Reeces Chapel knows of Doe's conviction and status under subsection 14-208.18(a)(2) yet desires to admit him for religious services because of its "duty to minister to those seeking the comfort of Christ[,] ... includ[ing] those persons on the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry."...

Section 14-208.18 includes four exceptions to subsection (a) providing relief mechanisms for covered persons (1) who are the parent or guardian of a student enrolled in a school to visit that school property, (2) who are eligible to vote to visit polling places, (3) who are eligible to attend public school to attend such schools, or ( 4) who are juveniles to visit restricted areas for medical treatment or mental health services.... Such an exception regime "reveal[ s] a lack of neutrality by protecting secular activities more than comparable religious ones."...The state appears to trust the community's safety more when an offender votes or spends time at his child's school than when the offender goes to church (where minors may or may not be present). It cannot do so without justifying its choice with evidence....Buck must show that the "restrictions serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored to that end."...

Reeces Chapel alleges that it maintains and communicates a system of religious values to its members through congregational worship, teaching, and evangelism; that the challenged statutes exclude Doe from physically participating in the church's central expressive activities.... These allegations plausibly allege more than an incidental effect on expressive association.

Recent Articles of Interest

Note to Readers: Recently, the number of articles being posted each week to the Social Science Research Network has grown dramatically. This has resulted in each Monday's posting on Religion Clause of "Recent Articles of Interest" becoming unmanageably long-- often 25 to 30 articles each week. Starting with this post, I plan to curate much more intensively my weekly list in the hope that this will make the list more useful to my readers. I will attempt to limit each week's list to a dozen or so articles. I would appreciate hearing from readers via email at religionclause@gmail.com whether you prefer this curated approach. I can revert to the lengthier versions if that is preferred. -- HF

From SSRN:

• Marc O. DeGirolami, The Conquest of Me Decade Religion, (Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy (forthcoming).
• Vivian Grosswald Curran, Disentangling the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, (Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. (forthcoming)).
• Tiffany Williams Brewer & Eric Brewer, Faith, Freedom, and the Rule of Law: Christian Responsibility, the Beloved Community, and the Lawyer as Social Engineer, (August 15, 2026).
• Samuel L. Brayn, Nathan S. Chapman & Brent Strawn, Prescribing Religion: The Ten Commandments on Classroom Walls, (University of Chicago Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 26-25 (2026).
• Antony Irungu, The Sacralization of Power: Exploring Religious Manipulation within the Electoral Process, (August 14, 2026).
• Audra Savage, The Whitewashing of Religious Liberty, (August 02, 2026).
• Sushil K Jain, Britain's Post-War Transformation and the Structural Presence of Islam: An Academic Rejoinder to "Islamic Republic" Rhetoric, (August 15, 2026).
• Paul J. Larkin, Gender Dysphoria, Public School Responsibilities, and Parental Rights, (August 17, 2026).
• Agustin V. Startari, The High Middle Ages: A Historiographical Framework, (August 16, 2026).
• Nicholas McBride, James Joyce as a Great Irish Christian Jurist, (McIlroy (ed), Christianity and the Making of Irish Law: Violence, Virtue and Reason (Routledge, 2025)).
• Torun Dewan & Limor Ressler, Reading the Economic Logic of Law from Its Recorded Disputes The Machloket as Identification,(June 30, 2026).

Anti-Abortion Advocates Urge EPA To Require Data Collection on Mifepristone in Water Systems

Anti-abortion advocates are using a new strategy in their efforts to limit or ban the use of the abortion drug mifepristone. In July, the Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register a Rule Proposal (full text) to require certain public water systems to collect occurrence data for 30 contaminants not currently covered by federal regulations. In an August 20 press release, Liberty Counsel announced that it has submitted to the EPA a 65-page Comment (full text) on the proposed rule. The Comment urges the EPA to add the abortion drug mifepristone as one of the contaminants that water systems must screen for. The press release summarized the Comment Letter in part as follows:

In the comment, LCA points to the widespread and increasing use of chemical abortion drugs at home, which accounts for approximately 700,000 chemical abortions annually. These at-home abortions are polluting U.S. water systems and drinking water through human excretion, aborted human fetal remains, and related medical waste expelled and flushed into America’s wastewater systems. These expulsions contain mifepristone’s active metabolites which the wastewater systems are not designed to filter out. 

Mifepristone deserves heightened scrutiny because no other FDA approved drug has been designed and approved to be lethal in nature by starving a baby in the womb. The drug’s biologically active metabolites also have “long half-lives” and retain the “considerable” ability of the parent drug to block the vital fertility hormone progesterone, which makes the metabolites operate as “endocrine disruptors”....

Exorcist Priest's Defamation Suit May Move Ahead

In Martins v. Romero, (ED MI, Aug. 21, 2026), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by a Catholic priest against a podcaster and a frequent guest on the podcast, alleging that their podcasts defamed him and cast his exorcism ministry in a false light by falsely claiming that Martins was not an exorcist. On one episode, defendant made the claim by reading only part of an email from Fr. Martins religious order, giving the false impression that Martins had not been authorized to perform exorcisms.

Defendants argue that the issue of whether Plaintiff is an exorcist raises a “substantial danger that the State will become entangled in essentially religious controversies....

Plaintiff contends, on the other hand, that this case does not involve church doctrine and merely involves false statements of fact, made with actual malice....

... [T]he court need only resolve whether Defendants’ statements that Plaintiff’s Order said he was not an exorcist were untrue and thus defamatory.  Whether Fr. Martins is qualified under Catholic doctrine as an exorcist is irrelevant to this inquiry.  Thus, the court finds that at this stage of the proceeding, the affirmative defense of the ecclesiastical [abstention] doctrine does not bar Plaintiff’s claims....

Defendants argue that they had no obligation to read a sentence in an email to which they objected.  However, Defendants’ affirmative statements appear to have crossed the line between an opinion that Fr. Martins is not an exorcist to statements of fact that the email from his own Order says that he is not an exorcist.  And according to the Complaint, such statements are demonstrably false based on the email itself, which does not say that Fr. Martins is not an exorcist.  

For these reasons, the court concludes that the alleged defamatory statements at issue are not opinions protected by the First Amendment.  Accordingly, dismissal on this basis is not appropriate....

(See prior related posting.)

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

Satanic Temple Sues Over Denial of Use of Iowa Capitol Rotunda for Holiday Events

In Iowa, private organizations and individuals may request use of space on the Capitol Grounds, including the Capitol Rotunda, for events that are open to the public. Earlier this month, The Satanic Temple filed suit in an Iowa federal district court alleging that applications for holiday events they have filed have been denied in violation of the organization's 1st Amendment rights and its rights under Iowa law. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Campbell, (SD IA, filed 8/13/2026), alleges in part:

11. The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect TST-Iowa’s right to expression. Defendants’ ongoing exclusion of TST-Iowa from engaging in protected religious speech, grounded in their beliefs of Satanism and the governing tenets of TST, at the Rotunda is based on their religious viewpoint. This exclusion constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination and is presumptively unconstitutional. The exclusion is also a content-based restriction and is not narrowly tailored to, or the least restrictive means of, achieving a compelling interest.... 

12. The First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Iowa Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“Iowa RFRA”) protect TST-Iowa’s right to freely exercise their religion. By denying TST-Iowa’s applications to hold an event at the Rotunda because of their religious beliefs, Defendants have violated their clearly established constitutional and statutory right to the free exercise of religion, and this exclusion cannot survive strict scrutiny.  

13. Additionally, by allowing other religious events, but prohibiting TST-Iowa’s events, Defendants have engaged in unlawful disparate treatment against TST-Iowa based on their religion, protected speech, and membership in a suspect class. This exclusion cannot survive strict scrutiny and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

14. Finally, Defendants have also violated TST-Iowa’s statutory rights under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”). For the past two years and on an ongoing basis, Defendants have discriminated against TST-Iowa by denying them services and public accommodations, both (1) on the basis of their religion and/or their perception of their religion and (2) in retaliation for their prior reports of discrimination.....

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

Two Cert. Petitions Raising Issues of State Aid for Religious Instruction Filed

Two petitions for certiorari raising First Amendment issues were filed this week with the U.S. Supreme Court. Both involve the permissibility of state aid for religious instruction.

A petition (full text) asking the Court to review a Virginia federal district court's decision before the 4th Circuit hears the case was filed in Johnson v. Fleming, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 8/20/2026). In the case, a Virginia federal district court dismissed Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause claims challenging exclusions from the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program for theology and religion majors. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.  Earlier this month, a certiorari petition was filed in a separate case raising a similar challenge to religious exclusions from Virginia's Tuition Assistance Grant Program. (See prior posting.)

A petition for certiorari (full text) was also filed this week in Woolard v. Thurmond, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 8/20/2026). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment challenges to California's refusal to purchase and permit the use of religious curricular materials in home-based independent study programs of two charter schools. (See prior posting.) First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filling.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Says Religious Statues Proposed for Public Building Violate State Constitution

In Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Aug. 20, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a trial court's preliminary injunction barring the city of Quincy from installing two 10-foot-tall statues on the facade of a new public safety building. One statue depicts Saint Michael stepping on the head and neck of a demon. The other depicts Saint Florian towering above a burning building and extinguishing the fire. The Court concluded that there is a substantial likelihood that this violates Art. III of the Massachusetts Constitution as amended by Article XI, that provides: 

all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

The Court said in part:

The contested practice here raises concerns at the core of the text, purposes, and history of the amendment of art. 3:  whether the city is singling out a particular religion for special treatment....

The two statues are both of Catholic saints....: the depictions of Saint Michael and Saint Florian in these statues "are consistent with iconography of each religious figure within Catholic tradition"; and the symbols and objects depicted "are all central to the iconographies of each saint, which are not intelligible without reference to Catholic tradition."  ...

The likelihood that these statues of religious figures closely associated with the Catholic faith could be viewed by the public as endorsement of a particular religion, and thus subordination of others, is enhanced by the fact that the statues are not part of a larger collection of statues and monuments that includes nonreligious ones, or statues of figures of particular importance to other religions.  ...

These statues are also not long-standing historic monuments important to our common history, unlike many of the examples highlighted by the city.....

In sum, the preliminary injunction record reflects that the statues are large and will stand alone, they are brand new rather than long standing, they are closely affiliated with a particular religion, and they thus may convey to observing members of the public implicit government support for that religion and, as a result, subordination of other religions....

Americans United issued a press release announcing the decision.

Churches Seek to Hold ICE In Contempt for Violating Injunction Limiting Enforcement Around Churches

As previously reported, in February a Massachusetts federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration officials from enforcing against plaintiffs in the case a new policy that allows ICE agents to conduct arrests, searches, or interrogations in or near churches and other houses of worship at the agents' own discretion. Now in New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security, (D MA, filed8/20/2026), plaintiffs filed a motion (full text) asking the court to hold DHS in contempt for violating the injunction. The motion alleges in part:

DHS documents filed last week in an ongoing criminal proceeding, United States v. Sant, No. 26-cr-115 (D. Minn.), reveal that Defendants have repeatedly violated the preliminary injunction at University Baptist Church in Minneapolis, including by sending an undercover ICE agent into the church itself in order to spy on those inside....

DHS’s surveillance outside the church on April 11, April 19, and June 11 violates Section 3 of the order, which states that “[a]bsent either Exigent Circumstances or Prior Approval, Defendants shall not take Immigration Enforcement Action Near a Protected Area.”...

DHS’s sole argument that its operations at University Baptist Church did not violate the preliminary injunction is that those operations do not qualify as “Immigration Enforcement Action[s]” under the order. DHS contends that the investigations “were not planned nor undertaken to enforce the immigration laws of the United States,” but rather “were related to alleged Title 18criminal offenses.”...

As an initial matter, DHS has wholly failed to explain under what authority ICE agents even could undertake investigations into crimes having no connection to the immigration laws...

Politico reports on these developments.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

2nd Circuit: Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Defamation Suit Against Church Leaders by Former Priest

In Belya v. Kapral, (2d Cir., Aug. 18, 2026), a defrocked priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) sued church leaders and church entities for defamation. He claimed that defendants wrongly accused him of forging three letters from church leaders. The letters stated that Belya had been elected Bishop of Miami. Defendants say that no such election took place. The court said in part:

 The church autonomy doctrine bars Belya’s claims in at least two respects. First, Belya’s claims interfere with ROCOR’s autonomy in selecting, supervising, and terminating its clergy. Second, evaluating the merits of Belya’s claims would impermissibly require a jury to address numerous questions regarding ROCOR’s governance and protocols for selecting its bishops....

9th Circuit: Suit Over Confiscation of Inmate's Wiccan Materials Should Not Be Dismissed on Summary Judgment

In Goff v. Rode, (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that an inmate presented sufficient evidence to create a dispute that should go to trial over whether confiscation of his Wiccan religious items constituted a substantial burden on his religious exercise. The majority said in part:

... [A] jury could reasonably conclude that the deprivation of Goff’s protective medallion and altar cloth substantially burdened his exercise of Wicca.  Defendants do not dispute the sincerity of Goff’s religious beliefs.  And according to Goff, his medallion stored energy and had significant “spiritual” value, preventing “negative or evil forces/energies that would seek to cause imbalance or harm.”  Goff’s altar cloth was similarly “[a] consecrated space for casting runes for Divination, altar items . . . , [and] prayer focus.”...

That Goff could have alternative ways to practice Wicca in some form, as our dissenting colleague contends, does not make the deprivation of his religious items any less of a substantial burden....

Judge Rawlinson dissented, saying in part:

... There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Goff was coerced into acting contrary to his beliefs or that he was pressured in any way to modify his behavior and violate his beliefs.... Indeed, Goff continued to practice his rituals as he did before confiscation of the altar cloth and medallion....

In addition, Goff could have replaced the altar cloth and medallion, but elected not to do so.  It is undisputed that the altar cloth and medallion cost $12 each.  It is also undisputed that Goff was previously allowed to possess the medallion and chain, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that a request to replace the altar cloth and medallion would be denied.  Goff does not assert that he lacks the funds to replace the altar cloth and medallion.  Rather, he has elected not to do so because he "will not place money on [his] account until [he] start[s] getting these [11 lawsuits] dealt with and taken care of."

Ministry Loses Challenge to Ban on Sex Offenders Living Near Places That Children Gather

In Hope Prison Ministries v. City of Fort Worth, Texas, (ND TX, Aug. 14, 2026), a Christian ministry that operates transitional housing for former inmates, including sex offenders, challenged a Fort Worth Ordinance that bars registered child sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any premises where children regularly gather. Apparently, this restriction makes it difficult for HPM to locate appropriate housing. Rejecting plaintiff's claim under the Fair Housing Act, the court said in part:

While Plaintiff may house individuals with a disability apart from them being a child sex offender, Plaintiff fails to identify any provision in the Ordinance that discriminates against persons on the basis of a qualifying disability.

The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

Here, Plaintiff fails to plead any facts showing that the Ordinance is not “neutral” or “generally applicable.”....  A plain reading of the Ordinance shows the restriction is not aimed at any religious practice—it is aimed at protecting children from the risks associated with having child sex offenders near areas where children gather. This neither facially discriminates against adherents of any particular faiths nor targets any religious conduct. Moreover, the Ordinance is generally applicable because it does not restrict housing based on any religious or secular conditions. The Ordinance applies universally to residences under the Ordinance’s jurisdiction. Thus, all conduct—secular and religious—is limited equally, without consideration of any religious commitments or individual exceptions....

The court rejected plaintiff's equal protection claim, saying that "sex offenders are not a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause." It rejected plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, saying that the challenged Ordinance is not a land use regulation. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

4th Circuit Rejects DHS's Elimination of Protection Against Immigration Raids at Churches

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (4th Cir., Aug. 18, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland federal district court's preliminary injunction that rejected DHS's 2025 rescission of a long-standing policy that severely limited immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship. The suit was brought by Quaker, Sikh and Baptist housed of worship. The court said in part:

Among other things, DHS’s new policy removed guidelines requiring that immigration officers weigh various considerations before conducting enforcement actions at these sensitive locations.  Instead, the new policy requires only that the officials use their discretion and “common sense” in deciding where to conduct immigration enforcement actions....

We hold that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims.  Based on the evidence before the district court, it reasonably can be predicted that many immigrants will decide not to attend the plaintiffs’ houses of worship because of the new policy.  So, the plaintiffs’ asserted injury of a decline in attendance at worship services and other activities is fairly traceable to the new policy and likely will be redressed by an injunction limiting the policy’s application.  We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim, because the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that DHS’s new policy substantially burdens their religious exercise. Finally, we hold that the government waived its claim that the new policy satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny by failing to present any legal argument or evidence before the district court.  We therefore affirm the district court’s order imposing the preliminary injunction.

Judge Agee filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... [I]t’s also important to keep in mind the narrow scope of the preliminary injunction in this case and the Court’s affirmance of it. First, the preliminary injunction enjoins “potential or actual immigration enforcement actions in or near” the identified list of places of worship connected to the plaintiffs.... Neither the preliminary injunction nor this Court’s decision affirming it restrict DHS’s actions at any other places that the 2021 Policy itself identified as sensitive locations or even at other places of worship....

Second, a host of DHS immigration enforcement actions are expressly permitted by the preliminary injunction....

Third, ... our analysis of the merits of plaintiffs’ likelihood to succeed on their RFRA claim is partially driven by DHS’s inexplicable failure in the district court to advance any relevant evidence or legal argument pertaining to the existence of a compelling government interest and use of the least restrictive means to secure it....

CBS News reports on the decision.

2025 Data on Hate Crimes in U.S. Released

Last week, the FBI released its 2025 Reported Crime Statistics. In a summary of the data, the FBI said that "hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 2,703 single-bias offenses reported by law enforcement." 62.3% of the religiously motivated hate crime offenses were anti-Jewish. 9.6% were anti-Muslim. 7% were anti-Sikh. 3% were anti-Catholic. The remaining 18% were spread among 10 other denominations or groups. Some hate-crime incidents involved multiple offenses.so that there were 2,408 religiously-motivated hate crime incidents. (Table 1). A further breakdown (Table 4) shows that 1,179 of the offenses involved property damage or vandalism to property. 749 offenses involved intimidation. 2025 saw a 7% overall decrease in hate crimes from the year before.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Texas 10 Commandments Cases

 A joint petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Nathan v. Alamo Heights School District and Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 8/17/2026). In Nathan, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the constitutionality of the Texas law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) Subsequently, on the basis of their Nathan decision, the 5th Circuit in an unpublished Order summarily reversed and vacated a district court's opinion in Cribbs Ringer. The cert. petition frames the Questions Presented as:

1. Whether the Establishment Clause forbids a state from mandating the permanent, conspicuous display of a government-selected version of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. 

2. Whether permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom interferes with parents’ Free Exercise Clause right to direct their children’s religious education and burdens children’s religious freedom.

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