New York City Law Providing Police Perimeters During Demonstrations Around Houses of Worship Goes into Effect

As reported by JNS, last week New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that he would not veto a law protecting houses of worship during protests and demonstrations. The law, Int. 1-B (full text), passed last month by New York City Council, calls for police to create a plan for security perimeters around places of worship. The new law provides in part:

... [T]he police commissioner shall submit to the mayor and the speaker of the council a proposed plan to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation, and interference, while preserving and protecting the rights to free speech, assembly, and protest, at places of religious worship through the use of security perimeters, in accordance with subdivision d, at entrances to, and exits from, such places of religious worship, including parking lots or driveways of such places of religious worship....

d. The proposed and final plans shall include considerations to be used by the police department in connection with: 1. Deciding whether and when to use a security perimeter at entrances to, and exits from, a place of religious worship...; 2. Determining the extent of such a security perimeter... 3. Implementing such a security perimeter, including steps taken by the police department to ensure that such a perimeter neither curtails rights to free speech, assembly, or protest nor impedes emergency access to, or egress from, a place of religious worship....4. Engaging and communicating with clergy and administrators of a place of religious worship ... in order to understand their relevant needs and concerns; and 5. Engaging and communicating with the public and individuals seeking to assemble or protest at, or to enter and exit from, places of religious worship ... in order to understand their relevant needs and concerns....

Churches Fail to Obtain Injunction Against Enforcement of Human Smuggling Law

In Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Finney, (MD TN March 31, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against prosecution under Tennessee's law against "human smuggling."  The law prohibits transporting with intent to conceal, harboring, concealing or shielding from detection a person illegally in the United States if done for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Plaintiffs are churches that provide housing and various services to undocumented immigrants and receive donations to support these activities. Other plaintiffs are individuals who rent housing to undocumented immigrants. The state contended that the Tennessee statute does not apply to the activities of these plaintiffs. While the court expressed doubt over that interpretation of the statute, it nevertheless refused to issue an injunction, saying in part:

Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm because there is no evidence that any Tennessee official agrees with Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law and plans to use it against them. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ fear that they might be prosecuted under the law is insufficient to show an immediate threat of irreparable harm that warrants a preliminary injunction....

Notwithstanding the challenges in discerning the specific conduct proscribed by the statute, given Defendants’ insistence that Plaintiffs’ conduct is not unlawful and does not subject them to risk of prosecution, Plaintiffs have not shown an immediate non-speculative, non-theoretical threat of prosecution.... 

Church Wins Its Fight Over Fire Code Requirements

Last November, an Ohio state appellate court remanded to the trial court a church's appeal of an injunction that had been issued against it enforcing Ohio's fire code requirements for residential buildings. (See prior posting.) At issue was whether the church's "overnight ministry" triggered fire code requirements for residential use. The appellate court remanded the case because the trial court had not applied strict scrutiny as required by the Conscience Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Now in Pool v. Dad's Place, (OH Com. Pl., April 1, 2026), the Ohio trial court on remand held in favor of the Church and dismissed the fire department's request for injunctive relief. The court said in part:

Having applied strict scrutiny as set forth in the Sixth District's instructions, the Court concedes that the Fire Chief's enforcement of the fire code fails because it lacks a compelling interest and isn't the least restrictive means of enforcing fire safety. The City has given waivers to other businesses like hotels, but has refused to give the church a similar accommodation. this is fatal under strict scrutiny. Therefore, a judgment in favor of Dad's Place must be entered.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Court Refuses to Issue Consent Decree Exempting Church Sermons from Johnson Amendment

 As previously reported, in a suit brought against the Internal Revenue Service by two churches and two other non-profit religious groups challenging the Johnson Amendment, the IRS joined plaintiffs in filing a proposed Consent Judgment. The Consent Judgment proposed that the court issue an order enjoining the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the churches. It enunciated a new IRS policy of permitting houses of worship to engage in speech concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith made to their congregations in connection with religious services through their customary channels of communication on matters of faith. This would permit clergy to endorse political candidates from the pulpit. However, now the Texas federal district court in which the suit is pending has refused, on jurisdictional grounds, to adopt the proposed consent decree. In National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, (ED TX, March 31, 2026), the court held that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act and the related tax-suit bar in the Declaratory Judgment Act deprive it of jurisdiction to enter the proposed injunction. The court said in part:

The government cites no authority for its position that its own consent to an injunction regarding a condition for tax benefits creates jurisdiction that the AIA or DJA otherwise denies....

Other fora, however, may be available. A refund suit could be brought if a tax were ultimately collected....  And an exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) now allows a ... declaratory suit—available in one of three courts headquartered in the District of Columbia— if the IRS were to make any determination with respect to an organization’s § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. A dispute in that posture would also have the benefit of a specific set of facts upon which the IRS made a determination.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State which had sought to intervene in the case to oppose treating houses of worship differently than secular nonprofits issued a press release reacting to the decision.  Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

New ICE Policy Allowing Enforcement Operations at Churches Violates RFRA

 In New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security, (D MA, Feb. 13, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration officials from enforcing a new policy on enforcement operations at churches. The new policy allows ICE agents to conduct arrests, searches, or interrogations in or near churches and other houses of worship at the agents' own discretion. It replaces a 2021 Policy that allowed enforcement actions near churches only in exigent circumstances or with prior approval from Agency headquarters. The court concluded that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court first concluded that some, but not all, of the 11 Christian church organizations that brought suit have standing because only they demonstrated injuries of decreased attendance at worship services or at social ministries or financial consequences. In deciding to issue a preliminary injunction, the court said in part:

The prospect that a street-level law-enforcement agent—acting without a judicial warrant and with little or no supervisory control—could conduct a raid during a church service, or lie in wait to interrogate or seize congregants as they seek to enter a church, is profoundly troubling.  Indeed, according to the new policy, agents could conduct a raid, with weapons drawn, at any type of church proceeding—including a regular Sunday service, a wedding, a baptism, a christening, or a funeral—subject only to the exercise of their “discretion” and “common sense.”   

It hardly requires mentioning that freedom of religion is both a core American value and a basic liberty protected by the First Amendment and laws of the United States.  That freedom encompasses not merely the freedom to believe, but the freedom to worship, including the freedom to attend church and to participate in sacraments, rituals, and ceremonies.  If government interference with those freedoms is ever justifiable, it is only in relatively extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to public safety.  The routine enforcement of the immigration laws does not involve such a threat, and cannot justify the harm to religious freedom posed by the new policy.   

It is of course true that the presence of millions of illegal immigrants within the borders of the United States justifies a substantial government response.  But the need to address that problem cannot override the fundamental liberties on which our nation was founded....

In one important respect, the preliminary injunction is broader than the 2021 Policy.... The preliminary injunction issued by the Court will permit such operations only in exigent circumstances, regardless of supervisory approval.  The Court can conceive of no circumstance, outside of a true emergency, in which a law-enforcement operation to enforce the immigration laws inside a church would be justifiable under the First Amendment and RFRA. 

The preliminary injunction is also narrower than the 2021 Policy, in that it applies only to the plaintiffs in this case who have standing, and not nationwide....  The preliminary injunction will also, as noted, exempt immigration-enforcement actions taken pursuant to an administrative warrant or judicial warrant.

Democracy Forward issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to the original complaint filed in the case.

IRS Says Houses of Worship Can Endorse Political Candidates

In a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Judgment (full text) filed on Monday with a Texas federal district court in National Religious Broadcasters v. Long, (ED TX, 7/7/2025), the Internal Revenue Service agreed that houses of worship can endorse political candidates without violating Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3). (See prior related posting.)

Section 501(c)(3) bars tax exempt non-profits from "participat[ing] in or interven[ing] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The Motion from both parties seeking entry of a Consent Judgment reads in part as follows:

7. When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign.... Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted. 

8. This interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is in keeping with the IRS’s treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice. As recounted in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the IRS generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services....

11. Accordingly, the Parties request this Court enter the attached proposed order enjoining Defendants ... from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against Plaintiff Churches based on speech by a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.

New York Times reports on the IRS's action.

Suit Challenges HHS's Rescission of Sensitive Locations Policy

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oregon federal district court by a group of churches, an interfaith council and a Latino organization challenging the Department of Homeland Security's reversal of its "sensitive locations" policy that had limited immigration enforcement activities in churches, health care clinics and social service agencies. The complaint (full text) in Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, (D OR, filed 4/28/2025), alleges in part:

112. Defendants’ rescission of sensitive locations protections enables immigration enforcement to target sensitive locations and events commonly associated with expression, directly and substantially interfering with the ability of Plaintiffs and their members to associate freely.

113. Following the rescission of protections for sensitive locations, Defendants have shown that immigration enforcement actions will be carried out to punish individuals at sensitive locations from engaging in expressive activity with which Defendants disagree. The rescission of sensitive locations protections has already led to fear and discouragement of participation in planned protests, events, and activities, as well as religious ceremonies....

121. Defendants’ rescission of protections for sensitive locations permits ICE and CBP agents to conduct immigration enforcement activity, including arrests, investigations, and surveillance, at and near houses of worship, locations where houses of worship provide community services, and during religious ceremonies.

122. Such conduct has deterred and will continue to deter membership, attendance, and participation in religious services and related events for all individuals, including lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens. ICE enforcement will also be likely to disrupt activities and events held by places of worship, including religious ceremonies. The conduct has impacted the free exercise rights of members of the Augustana Lutheran Church; Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, San Francisco Interfaith Council, and Westminster Presbyterian Church. Plaintiffs’ core work of carrying out religious ceremonies and providing pastoral care to parishioners to further their faith has been disrupted by the need to now prioritize maintaining the safety of their sanctuaries....

Oregon Live reports on the decision.

Appellate Court Upholds $1.2M Fine Against Church for Violating Covid Public Health Orders

In People of the State of California v. Calvary Chapel San Jose, (CA App., April 15, 2025), a California state appellate court affirmed the imposition of administrative fines totaling $1,228,700 on defendant church for violating Covid public health orders requiring face coverings and submission of a social distancing protocol. The court rejected Calvary Chapel's Free Exercise defense. The court said in part:

...  [T]he People have met their burden to establish as a matter of law that the face covering requirements set forth in the orders are neutral and of general applicability, and Calvary Chapel has failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. 

First, the text of the revised risk reduction order and the safety measures order shows that these orders are neutral because they are not specifically directed at religious practice, do not discriminate on their face, and religious exercise is not the object of the orders....

Having reviewed the very limited exemptions that Calvary Chapel asserts show that the face covering requirements in public health orders are not of general applicability, we decide that Calvary Chapel has provided no evidence to create a triable question of fact regarding general applicability.

The court also rejected Calvary Chapel's due process claims and additionally held:

... [T]he undisputed facts show that Calvary Chapel’s level of culpability due to violating the public health orders requiring face coverings is high, and therefore the fines in the amount of $1,228,700 do not violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Churches Lack Standing to Challenge Rescission of DHS's Sensitive Locations Policy

In Mennonite Church USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D DC, April 11, 2025), the D.C. federal district court, in a suit by 27 Christian and Jewish denominational bodies and organizations, refused to issue a preliminary injunction to require DHS to reinstate its "sensitive locations" policy which severely limited the situations under which immigration enforcement actions could take place at churches, synagogues, mosques and other institutions of worship. The court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to rescission of the policy. The court rejected arguments by plaintiffs of injury based on the imminent risk that immigration enforcement actions will be taken at member congregations; of injury from declines in attendance at worship services and social service ministries; of needing to restrict in-person services to protect immigrants; and of cost of increased security measures.

Certiorari Denied in Dispute Over Standing to Challenge Covid Restrictions on Churches

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Grace Bible Fellowship v. Polis, (Docket No. 24-226, certiorari denied 10/15/2024). (Order List). (Certiorari petition). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (10th Circuit opinion) held that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain prospective declaratory relief in their challenge to Colorado's authority to impose public health restrictions on houses of worship.

West Virginia Ban on Churches Incorporating Violates 1st Amendment

In Hope Community Church v. Warner, (ND WV, Sept. 26, 2024), a West Virginia federal district court held that the West Virginia constitutional provision that bars churches from incorporating is unconstitutional.  The court said in part:

Because Article VI, Section 47 of the West Virginia Constitution that reads, in part, “[n]o charter of incorporation shall be granted to any church or religious denomination,” the Court finds it is not neutral or generally applicable, and it does not further a compelling government interest. Furthermore, the Court holds this provision violates the Church’s First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

6th Circuit: Permit Requirement Did Not Substantially Burden Church

 In Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, Ohio, (6th Cir., Sept. 5, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enter a preliminary injunction pending appeal to prevent the city from enforcing requirements that the church obtain a permit or variance before people may sleep on the first floor of the church building. Rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA argument, the court said in part:

Dad's Place fails to show that it will likely succeed on establishing that the City's zoning laws substantially burden its religious exercise.... [T]he burdens alleged by Dad's Place are self-imposed.... The City provides a process by which entities in the commercial district can seek a variance or conditional use permit ("CUP") allowing them to operate as residential facilities.... Yet, despite being opened in 2018, Dad's Place has never applied to the City for a CUP or variance.... RLUIPA does not entitle Dad's Place to engage in unauthorized uses without ever seeking a permit or variance to do so....

Additionally, Dad's Place has not shown that it lacks adequate alternatives. For example, it can use a second floor as a residential facility or open a second facility. It asserts that such alternatives "transform the nature of the Church's ministry," but it gives no explanation as to why its ministry requires people to sleep on the ground floor of the building as opposed to the second floor, or why its ministry would be less effective if people slept in a different building that was properly zoned for residential use....

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim.

Churches Challenge Constitutionality of Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment which prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations from supporting or opposing political candidates was challenged this week as being unconstitutional as applied to churches. The complaint (full text) in National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel, (ED TX, filed 8/28/2024) alleges in part:

Churches are placed in a unique and discriminatory status by the IRC. Under § 508(c)(1) of the IRC, churches need not apply to the Internal Revenue Service [“IRS”] to obtain recognition of their 501(c)(3) status. The IRC places them automatically within the ambit of 501(c)(3) and thereby silences their speech, while providing no realistic alternative for operating in any other fashion. Churches have no choice; they are automatically silenced vis-à-vis political candidates.

Hundreds of newspapers are organized under § 501(c)(3), and yet many openly endorse political candidates....

Many 501(c)(3) organizations engage in electoral activities that are open, obvious, and well known, yet the IRS allows some, but not all, such organizations to do so without penalty. Again, Plaintiffs believe that such churches have the constitutional right to engage in such participation; they simply want the same right for themselves. ...

The IRS operates in a manner that disfavors conservative organizations and conservative, religious organizations in its enforcement of § 501(c)(3). This is a denial of both religious freedom and equal protection....

Plaintiffs contend that the Johnson Amendment, as written and as applied by the IRS, violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Void for Vagueness), the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Equal Protection), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Catholic News Agency reports on the lawsuit.

Delaware Supreme Court Dismisses Suits Challenging Prior Covid Restrictions on Houses of Worship

 In In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (DE Sup. Ct., Aug. 1, 2024), the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the dismissal by two lower courts of challenges to restrictions on houses of worship imposed by orders of Delaware's governor during the early stages of the Covid pandemic. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Chancery Court over 18 months after the restrictions were lifted seeking an injunction, and when that was rejected, filed suit in Superior Court seeking damages and a declaratory judgment. The Delaware Supreme Court said in part:

Plaintiffs could not demonstrate reasonable apprehension of future conduct.  As the Court of Chancery noted below, “[a]lthough it is true that the virus continues to circulate and mutate, the possibility of a future surge, much less one that will necessitate emergency measures on par with what the world experienced in the first half of 2020, is speculative at best.”  Appellants do not confront the speculative nature of the future threat they allege, and instead invoke a generalized refrain that any restriction on their religious freedom causes irreparable harm.  This argument, such that it is, does not address the Court of Chancery’s analysis or carry Appellants’ burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction.  The importance of Appellants’ constitutional rights is not disputed, but it also is not dispositive.  The fact remains that, by the time Appellants filed suit, the Challenged Restrictions had been lifted, the Governor had entered into a binding agreement not to impose future restrictions targeting Houses of Worship, and the apprehension of a future pandemic and conditions like those of the early days of the emergency was hypothetical and speculative.  This Court “decline[s] to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario.”...

... [T]he Superior Court correctly held that Appellants’ injury could not be redressed through a prospective declaratory judgment.  In much the same way that Appellants’ irreparable harm argument crumbled because the Challenged Restrictions no longer were in effect and any future action imposing similar restrictions was speculative, the declaratory judgment sought in the Superior Court would not alter the status quo.  Moreover, Appellants’ constitutional rights would not be restored or further protected by declaratory relief because the complained-of harm had long since ceased and the threat of future harm was speculative....

The Delaware Supreme Court also concluded that a damage action against the Governor was barred by the Delaware State Tort Claims Act and qualified immunity.

2nd Circuit: NY Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship Violates Free Exercise Rights

 Antonyuk v. Chiumento, (2d Cir., Dec. 8, 2023), is a 261-page opinion upholding in part and rejecting in many other respects constitutional challenges to New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act.  One of the constitutional challenges which the court upheld was a claim by a pastor and his church that applying a firearms ban to non-security personnel in places of worship violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.  In the case, the pastor alleged that the New York restrictions interfere with his religious duty to protect his congregation by being armed in church and by inviting other congregants with concealed carry licenses to bring their firearms. In accepting that argument, the court said in part:

[T]he CCIA is not neutral because it allows the owners of many forms of private property, including many types of retail businesses open to the public, to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms on the premises while denying the same autonomy to places of worship. By adopting a law that applies differently as to places of worship (alongside the other enumerated sensitive places) than to most other privately owned businesses and properties, the CCIA is, on its face, neither neutral nor generally applicable....

The State provides no explanation for why leaders of religious groups in general, and the Plaintiffs specifically, are less able to “eject persons carrying firearms” than any other property owner who is permitted to make a free choice whether to allow firearms on their premises.... A place of worship that prohibits guns will be equally reliant on the police and the criminal law to eject a person carrying a firearm, whether it does so pursuant to a sensitive place designation or a church policy. Either way, someone will have to call the cops. And if the State has determined that places of worship must be designated as sensitive places because criminal trespass law is not enough to keep out guns, then the decision to regulate places of worship more assiduously than other locations amounts to an unequal pursuit of the interest in preventing gun violence. Such an approach is understandable, but unconstitutional....

Reuters reports on the decision.

Suit Seeks Historic Preservation Funds for Churches

Two historic churches have filed suit in a New Jersey federal district court challenging Morris County's exclusion of properties currently used for religious purposes from receiving Historic Preservation funds from the county. Plaintiffs contend that recent U.S. Supreme Court cases invalidate an earlier state Supreme Court decision barring churches from participation in such funding programs. The complaint (full text) in Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 4/28/2023), alleges in part:

In 2018 ... the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution bars state and local governments from providing grants to preserve the architecture of historic churches. Freedom From Religion Found. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders ...

This is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion: States and local governments that choose to provide a generally available public benefit—such as historic preservation grants—cannot exclude an otherwise-qualified applicant solely because the applicant happens to be a house of worship. See Carson v. Makin, 142 S. Ct. 1987, 1996 (2022).... ;Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue...., 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262 (2020)....

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

Virginia Legislature Passes Law Protecting Houses of Worship from Discriminatory Restrictions During Emergencies

Yesterday, the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to HB 2171 (full text). The bill, which is a reaction to restrictions imposed during the COVID pandemic, provides:

No rule, regulation, or order issued by the Governor or other governmental entity pursuant to this chapter shall impose restrictions on the operation of a place of worship that are more restrictive than the restrictions imposed on any other business, organization, or activity.

Virginia Mercury, reporting on the bill's passage, says that Gov. Glenn Youngkin is expected to sign the bill. It quotes a proponent of the bill as saying: "This bill means the governor’s not gonna open liquor stores and close churches."

Results From Election Day on Ballot Issues of Interest

Here are Tuesday's vote results for the ten ballot issues of interest to those following law and religion developments.  More details and updated information are available at Ballotpedia.

Arkansas Issue 3: Constitutional amendment that would provide "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Losing 49.56%- 50.44% with 97% of precincts reporting.

California Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. Passed 65%- 35%.

Colorado Amendment F: Constitutional amendment to allow operators of charitable gaming activities to be paid and authorize the legislature to determine how long an organization must exist to obtain a charitable gaming license. Defeated 39%- 61%.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2:  Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution to provide that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion. Defeated 48%- 52%.

Michigan Proposal 3: Constitutional amendment to provide a right to reproductive freedom. Passed 57%- 43%

Montana LR-131: Referendum on statute that states infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons, and requires medical care for infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, or attempted abortion. Losing 48%- 52% with 85% of precincts reporting.

Nevada Question 1: Constitutional amendment to prohibit the denial or abridgment of rights on account of an individual's race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin. Winning 57%- 43% with 77% of precincts reporting.

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 4: Amendment to repeal section of the Tennessee Constitution that disqualifies religious ministers from being elected to the state General Assembly. Passed 63%- 37%.

Vermont Proposal 5: Constitution amendment that would protect the right to personal reproductive autonomy and prohibit government infringement unless justified by a compelling state interest. Passed 77%- 23%.

West Virginia Amendment 3: Amendment to remove the state constitution's prohibition on incorporating religious denominations and churches and to authorize the state legislature to pass laws providing for such incorporations. Defeated 45%- 55%.

Ten Issues of Interest Are on Today's Ballots Across the Country

Today voters in ten states will be voting on ballot measures that relate to religious institutions, reproductive rights, clergy, religious freedom or religious and LGBTQ discrimination.  Here are summaries of each measure with links to fuller explanations on Ballotpedia:

Arkansas Issue 3: Constitutional amendment that would provide "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

California Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.

Colorado Amendment F: Constitutional amendment to allow operators of charitable gaming activities to be paid and authorize the legislature to determine how long an organization must exist to obtain a charitable gaming license.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2:  Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution to provide that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion.

Michigan Proposal 3: Constitutional amendment to provide a right to reproductive freedom.

Montana LR-131: Referendum on statute that states infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons, and requires medical care for infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, or attempted abortion.

Nevada Question 1: Constitutional amendment to prohibit the denial or abridgment of rights on account of an individual's race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 4: Amendment to repeal section of the Tennessee Constitution that disqualifies religious ministers from being elected to the state General Assembly.

Vermont Proposal 5: Constitution amendment that would protect the right to personal reproductive autonomy and prohibit government infringement unless justified by a compelling state interest.

West Virginia Amendment 3: Amendment to remove the state constitution's prohibition on incorporating religious denominations and churches and to authorize the state legislature to pass laws providing for such incorporations.

Suit Challenges New York Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of New York's ban on carrying firearms in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, filed 11/3/2022) alleges that the ban violates the free exercise, Establishment Clause, Second Amendment, and equal protection rights of a church and its pastor.  The complaint says in part:

S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants.....

[S51101]  subjects houses of worship to disfavored treatment while treating comparable secular organizations, such as retail stores or restaurants, more favorably than those offering religious exercise....

A church’s authority over who may enter the sanctuary and under what circumstances lies at the very heart of “the general principle of church autonomy” protected by the Establishment Clause.....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Last month, in another case, the same court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of this statutory provision. (See prior posting.)