7th Circuit: Plaintiff Must Allege More Than Conclusory Statements of Religious Belief to Get Religious Exemption

In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 9, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of free exercise claims by a Chicago Fire Department employee who was denied a religious exemption from the city's Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Troogstad alleges “the gene-altering aspect of mRNA vaccinations violates his beliefs as a Christian.” But he failed to allege facts about how taking the vaccine violated his religious beliefs. He misses that step....

.... While the pleading of a violation of the Free Exercise Clause need not be overly exacting, in numerous rounds of pleading ... Troogstad did not move beyond conclusory statements. A complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations; mere conclusions generally will not suffice.... Troogstad’s failure to allege facts about how his religious beliefs as a Christian conflict with the vaccine requirement—after numerous opportunities to satisfy this pleading standard—dooms his Free Exercise claim.

For the same reason, the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Suit Challenges High School's Ban on Religious and Political Messages on Its Spirit Rock

A suit was filed this week in a North Carolina federal district court by a high school student whose patriotic and religious tribute to the late Charlie Kirk painted on her high school's Spirit Rock led to controversy and revision of school rules. The 66-page complaint (full text) in G.S. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, (WD NC, filed 12/8/2025), reads in part:

3. In a desire to emulate Charlie Kirk’s boldness for his faith, G.S. wanted to remind her classmates, friends, and others in the Ardrey Kell High School community that Charlie Kirk had received and was enjoying eternal life with his Savior, Jesus Christ, and to create a space where students could memorialize him. 

4. After receiving permission from school officials to paint the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock with a patriotic message related to Charlie Kirk, that’s exactly what G.S. and two friends did. They painted the spirit rock with a heart, a United States flag, the message “Freedom 1776,” and a tribute to Charlie Kirk: “Live Like Kirk—John 11:25.” Then they placed flowers in a vase at the base of the spirit rock....

John 11:25 reads: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die'."

School authorities quickly painted over the tribute and promulgated a Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code which barred students from expressing “political” or “religious messages” on the spirit rock. According to the complaint, authorities also investigated her for a few days for vandalism. 

The complaint, among other things seeks:

A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s Unwritten Spirit Rock Speech Code, Vandalism Policy, and Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code, and the unconstitutional actions against G.S. pursuant to it—including censoring her speech, publicly accusing her of misconduct, searching her cell phone, refusing to clear her name, and adopting a new viewpoint-based policy—violated her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments....

In detailing her claims, plaintiff alleged in part:

458. G.S.’s views and expression on the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock were motivated by her sincerely held religious beliefs, are avenues through which she expressed her religious faith, and constitute a central component of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

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

Supreme Court Remands Amish Parents' Challenge to Ending of Religious Exemptions from Vaccinations

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. McDonald, (Docket No. 25-133, Dec. 8, 2025) (Order List), granted certiorari, vacated the 2nd Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor. In Miller, the 2nd Circuit held that New York state's removal of a religious belief exemption that would allow parents to opt their children out from the state's school immunization law did not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise rights of Amish parents or Amish schools. (See prior posting.) In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court upheld the granting of a preliminary injunction to parents who objected to a Maryland school district's removal of parents' right to opt their children out of class discussions involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks. (See prior posting.) Christian Post reports on the Supreme Court's remand.

Camping Ordinance Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights of Homeless Resident

In Hebbe v. City of Folsom, (ED CA, Dec. 3, 2025), plaintiff who is an unhoused resident of Folsom, California, challenges on numerous grounds a Folsom Ordinance that prohibits public camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.  One of his claims-- rejected by the decision of a California federal magistrate judge-- is that the public camping ban violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights. The court said in part:

To state a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff must allege that the government action substantially burdens the plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.... A substantial burden exists when the government puts significant pressure on a person to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs....

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Ordinance, which prohibits camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., forces him to sleep during the day, which prevents him from attending church service....  These allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state a cognizable Free Exercise Clause claim.  Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the Ordinance targets religion or is applied in a discriminatory manner.  Neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.... Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing the Ordinance places a substantial burden on his ability to practice his faith.  Conclusory statements that he cannot go to church service are insufficient....

7th Circuit: Chicago's Reporting Requirement for Employees During Covid Pandemic Were Constitutional

In Kondilis v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 2, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by City of Chicago employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate that, nevertheless, the reporting requirements imposed on them violated their free exercise and equal protection rights. All employees were required to enter their vaccination status and unvaccinated employees were required to enter their Covid test results into the employee portal. The court said in part:

Section VII, which addresses the COVID-19 testing reporting requirements for the portal, ... draws no distinction based on religion: it applies to all “[e]mployees … who are covered by this policy” and are “not fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021,” without further distinction. And neither section reflects any religious animus at all. Both sections “are neutral: They do not target religion or religious institutions.” ... 

That said, Plaintiffs contend that the sections were not generally applicable because the City applied the Policy inconsistently. They allege that not all employees had to comply with the portal reporting requirements, making them “selectively burdened” for being forced to do so....

But this argument fails. It is not enough for Plaintiffs—all of whom profess sincere religious beliefs—to show that the Policy was inconsistently applied across their own personal circumstances; they must plausibly show that this inconsistency bore upon religion in some way.... Yet the complaint does not do so.... [A chart they introduced into evidence] does not identify any trend singling out a particular religion or set of religions for differential treatment within the plaintiff group....

We need not spill much ink in holding that the City had a rational basis for its Policy’s reporting requirements and disciplinary procedures during a global pandemic. ...

Class Action Filed Challenging Texas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in All Classrooms

 A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the recently enacted Texas statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom.  Two decisions, together impacting 25 specific school districts, have held the law unconstitutional. (See prior postings 1, 2 )  However, Texas has over 1000 school districts. The class action seeks to bar enforcement of statute in all Texas schools that are not parties to other cases already in the courts.  The complaint (full text) in Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 12/2/2025), alleges in part:

6.  The state’s main interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools under S.B. 10 is to impose specific religious beliefs on public-school children, ignoring the numerous objections from Texas families and faith leaders from across the religious spectrum....

7. For these reasons, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated parents and minor children, seek a declaratory judgment that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as permanent injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants and other independent school districts similarly situated from complying with the Act. 

ACLU Texas along with several other civil rights organizations issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Prison Chaplain Sues for Wrongful Termination

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian pastor who was terminated from his position as Senior Pastor at Madison Correctional Institution after he refused to proctor a newly-hired female pastor. The 75-page complaint (full text) in Horst v. Florida Department of Corrections, (ND FL, filed 11/26/2025), alleges in part:

13. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs grounded in the above-referenced passages of Titus and Timothy, among other Scriptures, Senior Chaplain Horst was compelled to abstain from proctoring training that instructs a female to teach and preach to men. Female chaplains ministering to males is a practice that directly contradicts Scripture and Senior Chaplain Horst’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

14. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Senior Chaplain Horst requested religious accommodation that would permit him to comply with his employments roles and requirements but also conform his conduct to his beliefs. 

15. Specifically, Senior Chaplain Horst’s religious accommodation request was that one of the DOC’s dozens of other competent and qualified chaplains proctor Chaplain Doe’s non-mandatory training.

Plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

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

"In God We Trust" On Currency Does Not Burden Jewish Plaintiff's Religious Exercise

 In Clayman v. Bessant, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiff's RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, Takings Clause and other challenges to the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. Plaintiff alleged that unlike prior cases which have rejected similar claims, he raises "unique Jewish religious objections" and cites "Jewish Hasmonean and Maccabean religious traditions and obligations, which strongly oppose the casual or superfluous use of G-d’s sacred Name in secular contexts." According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for 28 days due to his inability to pay cash-only bail;  that he continues to be vulnerable to pretrial detention due to the unavailability of cashless bail; that he is excluded from certain employment because he cannot handle cash; that he faces surcharges for not using cash; that he has difficulty with road trips in that he has to avoid cash-only tolls; that he cannot hold cash in contemplation of electronic systems failing due to natural disasters; that his future children’s lives will be disrupted because they cannot handle cash; that he has difficulty tipping and donating to the needy; that he cannot walk into public bathrooms with cash on his person; that he cannot park in cash-only lots; that he is unable to accept small-dollar political contributions; that he cannot operate a retail business; that he was unable to use $2,000 in cash he received as wedding gifts; that he suffers from a loss of privacy; and that he is excluded from cash-only services such as laundromats, bars, social events, and street food.  

In dismissing plaintiff's claims (with leave to amend), the court concluded that plaintiff had not established that the government has substantially burdened his exercise of religion.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Colorado's Regulation of Health Care Sharing Ministries

On Nov. 20, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (Audio of full arguments). In the case, a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. (See prior posting.)

New Test Case on State-Funded Religious Charter Schools Is Being Assembled

 As previously reported, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the question of whether the 1st Amendment allows Oklahoma to authorize and fund a religiously-sponsored virtual charter school. The split was caused by Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusing herself due to her connection to an early legal advisor to the school. The 4-4 split resulted in the affirmance of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violated Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Now, according to JTA, a new test case is being put together. JTA reports in part:

The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has notified an Oklahoma state board that it intends to apply for a statewide virtual high school integrating Oklahoma academic standards with daily Jewish religious studies....

... [T]he group’s legal team — led by Becket, a prominent nonprofit religious-liberty law firm — is preparing for the state board to reject the application, setting the stage for a federal lawsuit and, potentially, a precedent-setting ruling at the Supreme Court....

The group will not sue in state court, bypassing the state Supreme Court ruling against St. Isidore, but in federal court, where they believe they will prevail.

By framing Oklahoma’s refusal as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, Ben Gamla hopes to build on recent Supreme Court rulings holding that states may not exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefits solely because they are religious.

Church's Challenge to Fire Code Applicability Triggers Strict Scrutiny

 In Pool v. Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio, (OH App., Nov. 21, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court remanded to the trial court a church's suit seeking an injunction against subjecting it to Ohio's fire code requirements for residential buildings. The city contends that the church's overnight ministry constitutes use of the building for "residential" as well as "assembly" purposes because the building is used in part for "sleeping purposes."  Categorizing the building as "residential" would require the church to install a sprinkler system whose cost is beyond the church's financial ability. 

The court said in part:

... [N]ot only has appellant presented undisputed evidence that it cannot afford to open a second location to provide sleeping accommodations, appellant maintains that its religious beliefs require it to welcome the stranger to live among the church, not to operate an offsite homeless shelter.  Moreover, appellant cannot simply relocate to somewhere else in the surrounding area with the appropriate use occupancy.  Because appellant’s ministry involves gatherings for religious worship, during which individuals are permitted to fall asleep, appellee maintains that appellant’s use occupancy is mixed....  Outside of a fire official exercising discretion in favor of appellant, appellant is left with only one option to comply with the fire code: cease permitting individuals to sleep in its premises, which would violate appellant’s religious beliefs....

The lack of objective criteria in the fire code to categorize appellant’s use as residential combined with appellee’s shifting interpretations throughout the matter’s pendency demonstrates that the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable....  

... [A]ppellant maintains that it has no intention of creating a homeless shelter, but instead its intention is to provide an overnight ministry in which individuals can pray, engage in fellowship, and listen to scripture, and it would violate its sincerely held religious beliefs to wake individuals who fall asleep during its ministry....  [A]ppellee had to consider the reasons for appellant’s conduct—including its religious reasons—when exercising his discretion to determine that appellant impermissibly changed its use occupancy, and therefore the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable.... Accordingly, appellee’s attempted enforcement of the fire code is subject to strict scrutiny under federal constitutional law, and the trial court erred in applying a rational basis review....

Here, appellant opposed the preliminary injunction under both the federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and the Ohio Constitution’s Conscience Clause.... The trial court did not apply a strict scrutiny test as required by Ohio constitutional law, and therefore the trial court neglected to address appellant’s rights under the Ohio Conscience Clause.  

Catholic Clergy Sue for Access to ICE Detention Facility

 A religious advocacy organization, its director, 3 priests, and a sister filed suit this week against immigration officials alleging that their free exercise rights were infringed by ICE agents who barred them from entering an Illinois ICE detention center to pray and give holy Communion to detainees. The complaint (full text) in Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership v. Noem, (ND IL, filed 11/19/2025), alleges in part:

60. The intimidation of the religious persons, Catholic, Protestant, and of other faith traditions, has denied them their religious right to practice their faith. Until the intimidation began, Catholic clergy had been “allowed” to pray and administer Holy Communion to detainees. The refusal of ICE officials to allow clergy and laypersons to bring the Most Blessed Sacrament to fellow Catholics housed in the facility is an arbitrary decision by ICE. Heretofore, ICE has allowed religious services, including the distribution of Holy Communion. A non-specific reference to safety and security is not sufficient to deny the rights of Catholic clergy and laypersons, or persons of any other denomination or religion, to practice their faith, especially as others have been allowed to do so at the ICE facility in Broadview since it became an immigration-related facility in 2006....

66. Defendants’ policies and practices have unreasonably burdened the Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the broad protections under the RFRA, without any showing that those policies and practices advance a compelling government interest, or that if such a compelling interest even exists, it would be the least restrictive means available for doing so....

81. Defendants’ policies and practices have burdened the Detainee’s free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and in violation of the RLUIPA....

The Coalition issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Trump's Executive Order on American History Does Not Infringe Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Jeanpierre v. Trump, (D UT, November 18, 2025), a Utah federal district court dismissed a suit by the founder of a religious organization called the Black Flag challenging President Trump's Executive Order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." The court said in part:

According to Mr. Jeanpierre, this executive order “effectively establishes a state-sponsored religious doctrine of American historical exceptionalism” and, as a result, is “a direct attack on the foundational tenets of [his] sincerely held religious beliefs.”  He alleges the order prevents Mr. Jeanpierre “from exercising his religious autonomy to perceive and interpret history according to his religious conscience.”...

Mr. Jeanpierre fails to assert facts showing the executive order substantially burdens his exercise of religion.  He alleges the order “imposes a sanitized historical narrative” that prohibits “depicting American history as ‘inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.’”  And he broadly alleges this prevents him “from exercising his religious autonomy to perceive and interpret history,” impedes his religious practice of identifying and confronting “historical realities” and “acknowledging and addressing systemic racism,” forces him to comply with an incorrect historical narrative, compels him “to violate his religious tenants regarding autonomy, truth-telling, and confrontation of systemic inequity,” and forces him “to choose between adherence to his religious principles and compliance with federal law.” 

But the executive order ...  does not demand any conduct from Mr. Jeanpierre or impose any consequence for his religious beliefs.  It orders federal agencies to remove race-centered ideology from the Smithsonian Institution and to restore public monuments, according to President Trump’s historical narrative that the country’s achievements, principles, and milestones are being undermined and cast in a negative light.  Mr. Jeanpierre does not assert he was made to alter his religious behavior in some way because of this order.  He does not even allege he visited the Smithsonian or any other monument affected by the order.  And, even if he has, the order demands nothing from him.

Texas AG Sues Challenging Exclusion of Sectarian Employment from Work-Study and Similar State Programs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and its Board members claiming that conditions imposed in the state's work-study program, its WORKS internship program for college students, and its Adult Career Education grant program for non-profit institutions cooperating with educational institutions in job training violate the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. The complaint (full text) in Paxton v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/12/2025), alleges in part:

To participate in the Work-Study Program, however, an eligible institution or other employer must provide employment to an eligible student “in nonpartisan and nonsectarian activities.”... These requirements effectively eliminate religious organizations with only sectarian employment opportunities from participating in the Work-Study Program and condition the receipt of State funds on nonsectarian use. The Work-Study Program also excludes students “enrolled in a seminary or other program leading to ordination or licensure to preach for a religious sect or to be a member of a religious order” from participating and receiving state funds.... This amounts to a wholesale exclusion of certain people—no matter how needy—from state benefits under the program based solely on the religious character of their course of study.,,,

And like the Work-Study Program—to be eligible to participate—employers in the WORKS Program must provide employment in nonsectarian activities to students in the program....

 A rule established by the Board ,,, prohibits organizations receiving ACE Grant Program funds from using the funds for “religious activities, such as sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.”...

... When a state program is otherwise generally available, use-based conditions like the Sectarian Exclusions and Use Restriction are impermissible under the First Amendment.... Moreover, such laws targeting religious practice are not facially neutral and are, therefore, subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment....

The AG's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. The Black Chronicle reports on the lawsuit.

Certiorari Filed in Exclusion of Catholic Schools from Colorado's Preschool Program

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (Sup. Ct. filed 11/13/2025). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the nondiscrimination requirements of Colorado's Universal Preschool Program do not violate the free exercise or expressive association rights of Catholic schools that are excluded from the program because they insist on considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of a student and their parents in making decisions on who will be admitted. (See prior posting.) According to the petition for review:

The decision below exacerbates a 7-4 split [among Circuits] over the test for determining whether a law is generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for Supreme Court review.

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

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

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

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

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

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

School May Bar Teacher from Hanging Crucifix on Classroom Wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

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

Village's Zoning Law for Places of Worship Is Unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Schroeder filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

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

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Denial of Access to Clergy During Covid Lockdown Did Not Violate Inmate's Free Exercise Rights

In Johnson v. Ellis, (D NJ, Oct. 15, 2025), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a claim by a pre-trial detainee that his free exercise rights were violated. The court said in part: 

Plaintiff essentially asserts that he was denied any and all access to ordained ministers and appropriate worship services for several months during the COVID-19 pandemic's height.... [T]hat claim does present an instance in which Plaintiff's religious exercise was substantially burdened. Plaintiff effectively could resort to nothing but private prayer for several months.... That said, the state did have a legitimate interest in controlling the flow of people into a county jail during a recognized pandemic.... Plaintiff does not allege that he was completely deprived of any ability to worship God, view televised worship services, or offer prayer during the lockdowns. Considered in total, Plaintiff has a borderline free exercise claim in which his rights to religious practice were burdened. That burden, however, was imposed as part of a neutral policy ... which was most likely sufficiently rationally related to the state's interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in its jails during an emergency situation. Plaintiff thus likely fails to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation.

Even if Plaintiff did state such a claim, however, Plaintiff cannot show that the violation in question was clearly established.... [S]ome deference must be provided to jail staff in their response to the novel pandemic situation during its height, and courts should not infer constitutional violations where good faith efforts are being made to curtail what is perceived to be a deadly, difficult to contain, pathogen in the absence of clear guidance.... Defendant Ellis is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's free exercise claims.