Student Organizations Challenge University's Consolidation of Christian Student Groups Under One Campus Minister

Suit was filed last month in a Virginia federal district court by two Christian student groups at Virginia State University challenging the school's new Campus Ministries Policy.  The complaint (full text) in Women of Victory at Virginia State University v. Branch, (ED VA, filed 9/24/2026), alleges in part:

3. ... VSU recently instituted a Campus Ministries Policy ... that strips religious organizations of their registered student organization (“RSO”) status and accompanying benefits, brings student-led ministries under the “governance and influence” of a University-appointed Campus Minister, and yet exempts secular student groups as well as the Muslim and non-Christian student ministries on campus from the Policy’s onerous requirements. 

4. The burden of this Policy falls on the Plaintiff chapters of Women of Victory and Bethel Campus Fellowship. These are VSU chapters of national organizations that provide religious support to students on college campuses through Bible studies, leadership trainings and events, and numerous other opportunities for spiritual growth, both on- and off-campus....

8. ... [O]n August 6, 2026, VSU’s Campus Ministries office circulated its new Campus Ministries Policy, informing student leaders that “student-led ministries” could no longer affiliate with their national organizations or hold RSO status. Instead, faith-based groups (unlike secular groups) would be absorbed into VSU’s Campus Ministries, subject to the sole authority of VSU’s Campus Minister and a newly appointed Board of Advisors, made up of various faculty members, including a Public Safety officer, a Facility Quality Assurance Director, and the VSU President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, among others. 

9. Under the new Policy, Christian organizations lose access to RSO benefits, including funding, event-planning resources, and event-promotion rights. Further, the VSU Campus Minister is granted control of all Christian, student-led ministries, with complete discretion to approve or reject requests for religious meetings, events, guest speakers, and all other religious activities on campus....

148. Forcing Christian student organizations to submit to a single religious figure employed by a public university violates religious students’ constitutional rights.....

The complaint alleges that the new policy violates plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause and violates their rights of expressive association and freedom of assembly.  Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Employer's Religious Refusal to Cover Gender Dysphoria in Its Health Plan May Violate Title VII, But Not ADA

In Bernier v. Turbocam, Inc., (D NH, Sept. 28, 2026), Lillian Bernier, a transgender woman, sued her employer because the company refused to provide coverage in its health plan for gender-affirming care. The president of the company and his wife are evangelical Christians who operates the company according to their religious tradition. That includes a belief that a person's sex is ordained by God and that it should not be obscured through medical treatment. The court dismissed plaintiff's claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the Act excludes from its definition of "disability" gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments. However, the court refused to dismiss plaintiff's Title VII sex discrimination claim, saying in part:

Bernier argues that Turbocam adopted the exclusion (and decided not to modify it for her) because of Turbocam’s discriminatory, sex-based animus....

The record here is sufficient for a jury to find that Bernier’s sex is a but-for cause of Turbocam’s refusal to cover the care she seeks. Turbocam states that it adopted the exclusion, declined to modify it, and refused to grant Bernier an exception from it based on Turbocam’s moral disapproval of Bernier’s effort to obscure or change her sex. Further, there is evidence from which a jury could find that Turbocam’s owner harbored personal animus toward Bernier because of her transgender status....

Turbocam contends that, even if a reasonable jury could find that Bernier carried her burden of showing a Title VII violation, Turbocam is nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on Bernier’s Title VII claim because a jury would find in Turbocam’s favor on its RFRA defense.. Bernier responds that RFRA is inapplicable to lawsuits between private parties. The court agrees with Bernier, as do most of the Courts of Appeals to have considered the issue...

Because Bernier sued only after the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued her a right-to-sue letter, Turbocam contends that the EEOC has effectively delegated governmental enforcement authority to Bernier such that she is for all intents and purposes the “government” under RFRA.... The court is not persuaded. As a matter of law, the EEOC’s “[m]ere approval” of Bernier’s right to initiate a lawsuit does not convert Bernier into a state actor.....

Turbocam asserts that, even if it may not raise RFRA as a defense to Bernier’s Title VII claim, it may raise a defense under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Turbocam cites no case in which a court has permitted an employer (other than a church or religious institution) to raise the Free Exercise Clause as a defense in an employment discrimination suit brought by a private plaintiff.  Even assuming such a defense is available in this case, Turbocam agrees that it is subject to the test articulated by the Supreme Court in Smith.  

Smith held “that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability.’” 

...Title VII is a neutral law of general applicability. 

While Bernier claims that Turbocam admits it has denied coverage to her because Turbocam opposes gender-affirming care, a reasonable jury could conclude that this does not reflect an intent to discriminate against Bernier because she is transgender.... Moreover, while there is evidence of transgender-based animus in the record, it is also undisputed that Turbocam accommodated Bernier’s name change and addressed another employee’s harassment to Bernier’s satisfaction. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, a reasonable jury could find for Turbocam on Bernier’s Title VII claim....

Homeschooling Parent Sues Over Discrimination Against Religious Homeschooling Materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalist Sues Dearborn for Favoring Muslims Over Christians and Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Doctors Challenge Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Law

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

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

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

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

EEOC Outlines Its Progress in Fighting Religious Discrimination

On Monday, the EEOC issued a press release (full text) titled EEOC Delivers on Administration Priorities and President Trump’s Executive Orders. A significant portion of the release is devoted to the EEOC's protection of religious freedom since the beginning of the Trump Administration. The press release says in part:

Since January 2025, the EEOC has filed 16 religious discrimination lawsuits and recovered over $63 million on behalf of religious workers via public and private pre-litigation voluntary resolutions, as well as litigation settlements.

It goes on to detail over 30 cases involving anti-Christian bias or antisemitism in which the EEOC since January 2025 has filed suit or in which it has obtained a significant settlement in conciliation proceedings or after filing suit or in which it has obtained a favorable court judgment.

Other portions of the press release deal with the EEOC's attacks on DEI-related race and sex discrimination; its protection of American workers from preferences for foreign workers; protection of women's sex-based rights at work; and reform of the complaint process for federal workers.

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Sues for Recognition as Student Organization

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by a Christian student organization at Broome Community College that is part of the State University of New York system. The group was denied recognition as an official student organization because its proposed constitution requires all student leaders of the organization to affirm its Statement of Faith. The school says that this religious leadership requirement violates the school's non-discrimination policy. The complaint (full text) in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. SUNY Broome Community College, (ND NY, filed 8/21/2026), alleges in part:

... [I]n over 150 years of precedent, the Supreme Court has emphasized that religious organizations have the right “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”... SUNY Broome’s actions here not only interfere but also seek to control a core component of InterVarsity’s governance, faith, and doctrine....

... [I]n the past decade, the Supreme Court has warned governments three times that they cannot deny religious organizations access to benefits because of their religious beliefs....

In 14 counts, the complaint alleges violation of the free exercise, free speech and equal protection provisions of the U.S. and New York constitutions as well as violation of New York's Human Rights Law. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship also filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and a Memorandum of Law supporting that motion.

Becket Fund has issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Sues to Challenge School's Ban on Outside Adults at Student Religious Club Meetings

Suit was filed this week in a New Jersey federal district court by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) challenging a New Jersey school district's ban on outside adults attending on-campus meetings of student religious groups. The ban was put in place after a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  Fellowship of Christian Athletes organizes student chapters called "huddles" in which students pray, engage in Bible study, support one another in their faith and athletics, and eat pizza. FCA staff and adult volunteers also attend the huddles. The complaint (full text) in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Board of Education of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District, (D NJ, filed 8/11/2026), alleges in part:

... [T]he District’s new religious-clubs-only volunteer ban does indeed discriminate against religious clubs and single them out for disfavored treatment. While FFRF had claimed that FCA’s adult supporters were being given “unique access” to students, this is simply false. The District expressly permits adult visitors on its campuses for a variety of different reasons. And other non-religious student groups are allowed to—and regularly do—take advantage of this permission as a matter of course....

... FCA’s student leaders want to meet with fellow students and adult volunteers on campus so they can model to fellow students and coaches what it looks like to follow Christ in their school communities—something they cannot do if they’re forced to meet elsewhere.  

Having adult staff and volunteers present on campus is also critical to FCA’s religious mission because it allows FCA to see how student leaders are doing and give the students invited feedback and guidance....

Plaintiffs allege that the school's action violates their free exercise, free speech and equal protection rights as well as the federal Equal Access Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Illinois End of Life Options Act

Suit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court by four Catholic doctors, a Catholic bishop and a Lutheran skilled nursing facility objecting to the requirement that they comply with Illinois' recently enacted End of Life Options Act. The complaint (full text) in Kirchoff v. Treto, (ND IL, filed 8/11/2026), alleges in part:

... Illinois’s “End-of-Life Options” Act ...—which takes effect on September 12th—both legalizes assisted suicide and mandates that doctors who conscientiously object to it nonetheless promote its alleged “benefits” to “terminally ill” patients and, if requested, refer or transfer those patients to someone who is “able and willing” to help them commit suicide..... 

Illinois’s conscription of objecting practitioners into its new assisted suicide regime blatantly violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, EOLO plainly compels or restricts speech based on content and viewpoint by requiring such practitioners to (a) discuss assisted suicide’s alleged “benefits” and make specific “referrals” for the same....

EOLO also violates the First Amendment right of expressive association by forcing health care entities to hire and otherwise associate with health care professionals who promote or even directly participate in assisted suicide. 

EOLO additionally violates the First Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion and church autonomy. Put simply, requiring only a narrow class of “health care professionals” to discuss the “benefits” of and “refer” for assisted suicide with respect only to “terminally ill” patients, contrary to those professionals’ deeply held religious beliefs, is neither neutral nor generally applicable. And requiring health care entities to hire and retain employees who promote and even participate in assisted suicide violates the internal governance of religious institutions in deciding whom they authorize to carry out their religious mission to save and promote the dignity of every patient’s life....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Seeks Religious Accommodation to Obtain Environmentally Friendly 401(k) Option

 A suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court by an employee of Thermo Fisher Scientific alleging that the company is required under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law to provide plaintiff an investment option in the company's 401(k) plan that is consistent with plaintiff's religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Hartley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., (WD NY, filed 8/4/2026) alleges in part:

4. Dr. Hartley sincerely holds the belief that investing his money in fossil fuels is morally wrong and in violation of his religious convictions.

5. Dr. Hartley believes his Christian faith commands him to care for and steward the earth, and that actively investing in and profiting from fossil fuel companies whose work directly harms the earth and its inhabitants violates his religious obligations. 

6. Because each of Thermo Fisher’s current equity-based retirement plan options maintains significant investments in fossil-fuel companies, Dr. Hartley is forced to either compromise his religious beliefs or forego a significant component of his employer-provided benefit. 

7. To remedy this conflict, Dr. Hartley requested that his employer provide him with an accommodation that would allow him to partake of the benefits of his 401(k) plan in a manner consistent with his faith....

44. Defendant Thermo Fisher’s failure to provide the accommodation sought (a retirement fund option that allows Dr. Hartley to invest in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs) violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

The complaint also contends that the company's refusal to provide the investment option sought by plaintiff amounts to religious discrimination.

ClientEarth announced the filing of the lawsuit. HR Dive reports on the lawsuit.

Challenge To Makeup of Religious Liberty Commission Is Dismissed

 In The Interfaith Alliance v. Trump, (SD NY, July 27, 2026), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit brought by several religious organizations challenging the composition of President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission. Plaintiffs contended that the makeup of the Commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act which, among other things, requires membership on federal advisory committees to be “fairly balanced” in light of the functions the committee performs. Plaintiffs (which include organizations representing the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities) contended that the Commission contains no members who represent non-Judeo-Christian religious traditions and that the Commission is unbalanced in its representation of views on separation of church and state. The court said in part:

FACA requires that a “[c]ommittee’s members represent a fair balance of viewpoints given the functions to be performed,” but it does not define what constitutes a “fair balance.” ...  As such, the statute leaves unanswered three sets of questions regarding whether a committee is appropriately balanced.  First, “even before the points of view on an advisory committee can be balanced at all,” one must ask: “which points of view should be balanced[?]”...  The next question is: “what constitutes an appropriate or ‘fair’ balance of those views[?]”... Is a single member representing each view enough, or does a committee need more?  And finally, “which kind of organization or individual legitimately represents” a viewpoint by being a member of a committee?... For example, what kind of individual would hypothetically speak for an “interfaith perspective”? 

Lacking clear answers to these questions, courts have been “highly deferential” in reviewing a committee’s composition....

FACA is properly read as requiring such strong deference for two reasons.  First, determining whether a committee is fairly balanced is largely “a political task not properly undertaken by life-tenured, unelected federal judges,”...

Second, it is notable that “as part of [a] compromise [in FACA’s enactment], Congress deleted from the Act any specific standards” governing committee membership....

Under this deferential standard, the RLC’s membership is fairly balanced.  Its members include workers in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, have widely varying life experiences—from a former host of a popular television show to a State Lieutenant Governor, are religious leaders as well as rank-and-file congregants, and—to the extent that it matters—encompass adherents of at least five different religions....

It was certainly within President Trump’s discretion to decide that it was comparatively more important to prioritize balancing whether the RLC’s members were “representatives of various sectors of society, including the private sector, employers, educational institutions, religious communities, and States.”...

The Court also rejects the premise that there is a single “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint....

AP reports on the decision.

Artist's Suit Over Removal of Trump with Jesus Painting Is Dismissed

In Rose v. Arts Bonita, Inc., (MD FL, July 12, 2026), a Florida federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a complaint against the city and the organizer of an art festival held in a public park in Bonita Springs, Florida. A painting of Jesus blessing President Trump, displayed at the festival by plaintiff Julia Rose, was removed by the festival organizer and Rose was told to leave. The court said in part:

To start, Rose has not alleged that the City took any direct action to infringe on her First Amendment rights. The City itself was not at the art festival. Rose does not claim that municipal employees asked her to leave, nor does she suggest they had any problem with her art. Instead, her grievance lies against a private organization and its director....

... [E]ven if the art festival's conduct could somehow be pinned on the City, Rose's claim runs into another wall. A municipality cannot be held liable simply because it ... permits an event whose organizers allegedly violate the Constitution. There is no respondeat superior liability for civil rights violations....

The court rejected plaintiff's claim under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

To be sure, getting removed from an art show because of religious content might look and feel like discrimination. But there is a fundamental difference between an act of discrimination and a government-imposed burden on the exercise of religion. ...

The Court concluded:

... [T]he Court cannot say a more carefully drafted pleading would be entirely devoid of merit. When a pro se plaintiff's complaint falls short, she generally gets another bite at the apple if a better-drafted version might state a claim.... So while the City's motion to dismiss is granted, the door is not slammed shut. Rose may file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this order.

Cert. Petition Filed Challenging Grant of Qualified Immunity In 1st Amendment Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S Supreme Court last week seeking review of the 5th Circuit's decision in Hershey v. City of Bossier City. In the case, a 3-judge panel in a splintered decision reversed a Louisiana federal district court's dismissal of a suit against the city by plaintiff who was passing out booklets for the Christian Vegetarian Association outside an arena in which a Christian rock concert was taking place. However, the court affirmed the trial court's qualified immunity dismissal of the claims against police and security guards. (See prior posting.) It is this aspect of the 5th Circuit's decision that is being appealed in the certiorari petition. At issue is whether in free speech and free exercise claims, officers can claim qualified immunity where a reasonable officer should have understood their action to be unconstitutional, but their particular action has not been previously held unconstitutional by a court.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

9th Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Church Autonomy Case

In  Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, (9th Cir., June 18, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted to review en banc the 3-judge panel's decision that barred enforcement of Washington's Law Against Discrimination against a Christian ministry that gives hiring preference to co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. (See prior posting.)

Judge Bumatay, joined by Judges VanDyke and Tung, filed an opinion dissenting from the grant of en banc review, saying in part:

... [T]he Ninth Circuit has relegated religious liberty to a second-class right.  In case after case, our court has condoned governmental interference with the rights of the religious to practice their faith as they believe. 

Now, with this en banc vote, we continue down this disturbing path.  In what is likely a foregone conclusion, our court steps toward endorsing the view that States can force a religious organization to hire individuals who openly flout its religious beliefs and teachings.  As a matter of constitutional first principles and precedent, that’s wrong.... 

Jews for Jesus' Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case Fails

 In Amitay v. Jews for Jesus, (CA App., May 28, 2026), a California state appellate court held that a defamation claims against Jews for Jesus should not be dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law because the claim at least has minimal merit. The court describes plaintiff's claims in part:

In December 2023, JFJ posted on its social media pages, including on Facebook and Instagram, a blurred photograph of an Israeli soldier wearing a yarmulke.  Above the photograph was the following text attributed to “Nachman”: “ ‘Thank you for leaving at my home a copy of the New Testament.  I look forward to reading it when I return home from the war’ -- Nachman, a young Haredi soldier.”

Amitay filed a complaint against JFJ....  He alleged that the photographs posted by JFJ were photographs of him, that they had been posted without his consent, and that defendant had defamed him, put him in a false light, and inflicted emotional distress.  Amitay alleged that he was a Jewish Orthodox rabbi who had “dedicated his life to the study of the Jewish Orthodox faith and committed many years studying to become a rabbi”....  He had finally gotten a job teaching at an institution in Israel where he had worked for two years, a position he described as his “dream job.”  His job “suddenly came to an end as he was terminated . . . due to an egregious act by JFJ,”.... 

Amitay alleged that when his employer “saw the pictures posted online,” they “expressly stated that his termination was due to the posts online of him supporting JFJ, and that they could not condone or be associated with someone involved with JFJ or their views.” ...

See prior related posting.  [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Title VI Does Not Bar Religious Discrimination

In Storms v. Carcieri, (D NJ, May 26, 2026), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a suit which challenged a requirement by the Somerset County YMCA that in order to serve as a Board member, a board nominee must complete a 30-minute training course titled "Advancing Equity, Understanding Biases." Plaintiff Michael Storms refused to take the course because it violated his "deeply held religious belief that only Jesus Christ can forgive my sins." Storms, proceeding pro se, sued alleging that imposing the requirement on him violated his 1st and 14th Amendment rights, as well as Title VI and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. A number of his claims were dismissed because he had not plausibly alleged that the YMCA's conduct involved state action. The court dismissed plaintiff's Title VI claim because Title VI only bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. It does not cover religious discrimination. He also failed to show that the federal funding received by the national YMCA organization was the source of any of operations of the local entity.

Interestingly, in his complaint, Plaintiff also listed "Jesus Christ" as a plaintiff. In a footnote the court said: "The Court finds that Jesus Christ is not a proper plaintiff and proceeds in its analysis with Storms as the sole plaintiff in this matter."

President Issues Message on Pentecost

 Yesterday, the White House posted a "Presidential Message on Pentecost" (full text). It reads in part:

Melania and I join many Christians throughout our Nation and around the world who are joyfully celebrating the miracle of Pentecost today and the birth of Christ’s Church.

Fifty days after the glorious Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday, the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in Jerusalem in tongues of fire, triumphantly fulfilling Christ’s promise and giving them the courage and divine authority to proclaim the message of God to every nation and people....

On this holy day, we proclaim our faith in Jesus Christ, our hope in His saving power, and our enduring commitment to pursuing His will as one Nation under God.  As we celebrate 250 years of American Independence this year, we pray that the Holy Spirit continues to inspire our hearts, strengthen our resolve, and guide our Nation with wisdom, courage, and hope for years to come.

Challenge To Tennessee's Requirement That Charter Schools Be Non-Sectarian Moves Ahead

Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville v. Knox County Board of Education, (ED TN, May 22, 2026), is the latest court challenge to state laws that require publicly funded charter schools to be nonsectarian and nonreligious. Plaintiff seeks to open a Christian charter school. However, its letter of intent submitted to the Knox County Board of Education was rejected because the school could not affirm that it was not a "religious or church school". Wilberforce did not proceed to the next step of submitting an application because the application required a similar representation. Instead, it filed suit in federal district court contending that the nonsectarian requirement violates the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. The defendants moved to dismiss on standing and mootness grounds because Wilberforce had never filed an application to create the school. The court refused to dismiss, saying in part:

... Wilberforce was effectively presented with only two options: either falsely disclaim its religious status or continue submitting materials that KCBOE had already indicated would be deemed incomplete. Under these circumstances, requiring Wilberforce to proceed further in the application process would elevate form over substance....

... Although it is true that KCBOE may lack discretion to approve a religious charter school, it still may be held responsible for an alleged unconstitutional law it enforces....

Wilberforce has demonstrated a concrete interest in being able to apply and to compete on equal footing with secular organizations to become a charter school in Tennessee. Although it is true that it may not be able to open a charter school during the 2027-2028 school year, Wilberforce has alleged and shown that it is “able and ready” to apply to for charter-school status “for the earliest school year it could open.”...

Accordingly, Wilberforce’s claim presents a live case or controversy that is not moot.

Washington Foster Care Licensing Agency Modifies Rules in Settlement of Litigation

 As previously reported, in DeGross v. Hunter, (WD WA, April 22, 2026), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss free speech and free exercise claims against the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) brought by a Christian couple who objected to the Department's policy on sexual orientation and gender identity. The state has required prospective foster parents to agree to support a foster child's sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE), including using their preferred pronouns and chosen name. The parties have now agreed to a settlement in the case and the Washington federal district court yesterday issued a permanent injunction reflecting the parties' agreement. 

The injunction in the case, now captioned DeGross v. Senn, (WD WA, May 20, 2026), bars DCYF from denying or imposing conditions on a foster family home license solely because of a family's religious beliefs, including speech and actions pertaining to marriage, gender, or sexual relationships. Instead DCYF will amend it rules to require foster parents to either connect, or allow DCYF to connect, their foster child to resources and supports relating to their race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, developmental capabilities, tribal affiliations, heightened medical needs, behavioral needs, and any other aspect of the child’s individual identity.

The injunction goes on to provide in part:

3. DCYF is prohibited from requiring foster parents to agree to use prescribed words or language, including chosen pronouns, to express views about sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs as a condition of licensure....

6. During the licensing process, DCYF shall be permitted to inquire about an applicant’s views regarding SOGIE. This line of inquiry shall be no different from other information gathering concerning the variety of identities of prospective children in care. 

7. Nothing in this Order prohibits DCYF or a child-placing agency from inquiring about a child’s SOGIE before placement, just as it does for all children for all components of their individual characteristics, including identities. 

8. ... Nothing in this order prohibits DCYF from deciding a child’s placements based on its individualized consideration of the child’s needs and of a foster parent’s concerns or limitations (including where religiously motivated) on their ability or willingness to meet the child’s specific needs, including with regard to their SOGIE....

ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement. 

Certiorari Denied In Christian Day Care's Challenge to California's Licensing Requirements

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Foothills Ministries v. Johnson, (Docket No. 25-802, certiorari denied 5/18/2026) (Order List). In the case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian day care center lacks standing to bring a free exercise challenge a California requirement that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious activities of their parents' choice. The 9th Circuit held, however, that the day care center does have standing to challenge the state's general licensing requirement and to challenge on free speech grounds required disclosures to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice. On the merits, though, the 9th Circuit held that neither of these requirements infringe the day care's 1st Amendment rights. (See prior posting.)