10th Circuit: Suit Challenging Religious Exception to Trapping Ban Is Not Justiciable

In New Mexico Trappers Association v. Torrez, (10th Cir., June 8, 2026), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on justiciability grounds a challenge by trappers' organizations to a New Mexico statute banning capturing or killing wildlife on public lands. Trappers challenged the law because it contains an exception for "enrolled members of a federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo when trapping is conducted solely for religious or ceremonial purposes pursuant to rules issued by the department of game and fish...." The court rejected plaintiffs' equal protection arguments, holding that the trappers' injuries caused by their inability to trap would not be redressed by a decision in their favor. Severing the exception from the law would still leave the ban on Trappers' activity in place.

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenges, saying in part:

The second type of injury is more attenuated: that the exception communicates that the government favors Native Americans and religion, and the Trappers are excluded from the favored group....

The claims based on this harm are not ripe for review....

The Act’s exception applies only “pursuant to rules issued by the department of game and fish...." No such rules have been promulgated, and we do not know if such rules will ever be promulgated.  Meaning today, the prohibition against trapping stands, regardless of Native American status.  Unless and until there are regulations putting the exception into effect, the Trappers are asking us to issue an impermissible advisory decision on the issue....

They argue that the very existence of the statutory exception, for which the Trappers could never qualify, injures the Trappers now because it communicates that the government prefers Native Americans over other groups. 

Even if ripe, this is not the sort of concrete and particularized injury that we can review under Article III. ...

 And even if this was a concrete injury, it is not particularized because anyone in the country, without ties to New Mexico or an interest in trapping, could similarly claim that the exception communicates a preference for Native Americans.  That is a generalized grievance that does not confer standing....

TRO Under RFRA Extends Legal Immigration Status of Nigerian Deacon

In Archdiocese of Santa Fe v. Mullin, (D NM, June 2, 2026), a New Mexico federal district court issued a temporary restraining order ex parte staying the expiration of the F-1 student visa issued to Martin Umeatuegbu, a citizen of Nigeria who obtained an MA degree in Theology and then was granted temporary employment authorization as a Deacon in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. That authorization expired on June 4, 2026. On December 31, 2025, the Archdiocese petitioned to sponsor Father Martin for an R-1 religious worker visa. However, on January 1, 2026, USCIS issued a new Policy Memorandum that placed on hold all applications for visa adjustments for foreign nationals of countries identified as "high risk" in two Proclamations that had been issued by President Trump. Nigeria was one of those high-risk countries. The court said in part:

... [T]he Archdiocese is likely to succeed on the merits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.... USCIS’s policy infringes on the Archdiocese’s right to select its minister of choice.  USCIS’s indefinite hold on the adjudication of any visa status change petitions is “depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” ... USCIS’s action therefore “prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,” and thus imposes a substantial burden on the Archdiocese's sincere religious exercise.... 

Moreover, the Government is unlikely to demonstrate that the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.  The Government’s interest in restricting the entry of noncitizens from “high risk” countries and imposing stricter screening processes for resident noncitizens is likely a compelling government interest.  However, USCIS has already lifted its adjudicative holds on certain categories of petitions....  So, USCIS’s policy is likely not the least restrictive means of implementing more robust screening processes for visa status change applications....

 ... [T]he Court orders a stay on the expiration of Father Martin’s F-1 visa and OPT employment authorization, which preserves Father Martin’s legal status and permits him to continue working until the Government responds to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction....

DHS Seeks Land Near Catholic Shrine for Border Wall Construction

 As reported by Axios, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to take by eminent domain 14 acres of land belonging to the Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico. According to the complaint (full text) in United States v. 14.259 Acres of Land, (D NM, filed 5/7/2026), the land is being acquired to use for roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, security lighting, cameras, sensors, and structures that will be part of President Trump's border wall. The land is at the base of Mount Cristo Rey. At the top of the mountain is a 29-foot-tall limestone statue of Jesus. Each Fall, on the Feast Day of Christ the King, thousands climb the mountain to participate in a Mass. According to Mint, the Diocese will raise defenses under the Free Exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

UPDATE: In a May 14 post on X, the Department of Homeland Security says in part: "The cross is located approximately A QUARTER MILE — 1,300 to 1,400 feet — north of the border ON TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN. Access to the shrine will NOT be affected, as all attendees enter from the U.S. side."

Members of Healthcare Sharing Ministry Have Standing to Challenge Insurance Regulator

In Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, (D NM, Aug. 25, 2025), a New Mexico federal district court held that two members of a healthcare sharing ministry that was barred from operating in New Mexico by insurance regulatory authorities have standing to challenge on free exercise grounds the regulator's order that ended the ministry's operation in the state. The ministry itself was originally also a party to the lawsuit, but it was dismissed because it was challenging the action in state court.

In refusing to dismiss at this stage for lack of standing, the court said in part:

... OSI acknowledges that Plaintiffs believe “they have a biblical obligation to help their fellow man when in need which is accomplished by sharing each other’s medical expenses.”...  Further, Plaintiffs present evidence—unrebutted by OSI— showing that OSI’s final order directing Gospel Light’s to cease operations tangibly interfered with their religious beliefs and practices. While Smith and Renteria admitted that they continue to pay into Gospel Light’s sharing ministry, they also testified that OSI’s final order prevented them from participating in other aspects of the program, including the ability to share in organized prayer networks which connected them to other Gospel Light members.... Importantly, Renteria stated that OSI’s actions caused her to switch her family to a different healthcare sharing ministry....

... OSI’s final order impacted Plaintiffs’ ability to fully participate in Gospel Light’s sharing ministry. That participation is a distinct part of Plaintiffs’ religious belief structure....

Plaintiffs’ statements raise a plausible inference that they share a concrete and particularized injury: the inability to utilize Gospel Light’s health sharing ministry to its full extent due to OSI’s final order. Because the scope of those injuries remains in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage....

3rd Circuit: Consular Decisions Cannot Be Challenged Under RFRA

 In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Rubio, (10th Cir., May 6, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld a consular officer's denial of an R-1 (non-immigrant religious worker) visa to a South African minister who wanted to serve as the worship leader at an Albuquerque, New Mexico church.  Plaintiff contended that the visa denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the majority concluded that it could not reverse the decision of a consular officer under the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The majority said in part:

RFRA’s cause-of-action provision plainly does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions.  Also, whether the provision stating RFRA applies to “all Federal law” expressly authorizes judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions is ambiguous.  Applying statutory construction tools to that clause, we conclude that RFRA does not do so.....

Calvary argues the constitutional claim exception to the consular nonreviewability doctrine applies because it brought a free exercise claim under RFRA, and RFRA is analogous to a constitutional right.... Even if a RFRA claim could qualify for the exception, Calvary has not plausibly alleged that (a) the consular officer failed to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason to deny Mr. Green’s visa application or (b) the officer acted in bad faith....

Judge Bacharach dissented, contending that RFRA's language authorizes review of consular decisions.

10th Circuit Upholds State Insurance Regulator's Closure of Christian Health Care Sharing Ministry

In Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, (10th Cir., Feb. 27, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a trial court's refusal to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of a New Mexico cease and desist order issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance against a Mennonite church's health care sharing ministry. The ministry claimed that the order violated its free exercise rights.  The court said in part:

OSI’s enforcement action here was not because of Gospel Light’s religious beliefs, it was because they operated outside of the bounds of the NMIC [New Mexico Insurance Code] that applied to their business activities. In other words, OSI’s asserted interests were to protect New Mexico consumers by regulating the insurance industry, not to burden or regulate religious conduct. That other organizations, not entirely secular and not comparable to Gospel Light, merit partial exemptions under the NMIC does not carry the water for Plaintiffs that the NMIC treats a secular activity more favorably than a comparable religious activity. Consequently, rational-basis review applies.....

OSI sought to enforce the NMIC to protect consumers. The “regulation and licensure of insurance producers” are “important state interests,”... and OSI’s final order, which enforces the NMIC against Gospel Light, is rationally related to the regulation of health insurance. As such, the government action here satisfies rational-basis review, and Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on their Free Exercise claims....

Judge Carson dissented, saying in part: 

State governments must enforce statutes in a neutral and generally applicable manner.  In this case, that means the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (“OSI”) cannot regulate Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan (“Gospel Light”), a religious organization, more stringently than it regulates similarly situated secular organizations like labor unions and fraternal organizations.  But the district court reached the opposite conclusion when it allowed the OSI to impose statutory restrictions upon Gospel Light while exempting similarly situated secular organizations.  The majority upholds the OSI’s impermissible action.  Because the district court’s and the majority’s conclusions run contrary to established Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent precluding discrimination based on religious views, I respectfully dissent.

New Mexico Supreme Court: Local Anti-Abortion Ordinances Pre-empted by State Law

In State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, (NM Sup. Ct., Jan. 9, 2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court, in a case brought by the state Attorney General, held that municipal and county ordinances restricting local access to abortions and regulating local abortion clinics are pre-empted by state laws. The local ordinances which the court invalidated purported to require compliance with the federal Comstock Act that prohibits the mailing or receipt of abortion inducing instruments or drugs. The Court concluded that these local provisions are pre-empted by the New Mexico Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Act enacted by the state legislature in 2023. The court also concluded that other provisions in the local ordinances that purported to require local licensing of abortion clinics are pre-empted by several state medical practice and licensing laws. Newsbreak reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Denial of Temporary Religious Worker Visa Upheld

In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Blinken, (D NM, March 13, 2024), a New Mexico federal district court dismissed challenges to the denial of an R-1 (Temporary Religious Worker) visa for Stefen Green, a South African citizen who was to be hired as Calvary Church's Worship Director. At issue was the fact that Green received honoraria and allowances from Calvary Church while in the United States on a B-1 visitor's visa before the R-1 visa was approved. Green and Calvary Church both contended that the denial violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Denying Green's claim, the court said in part:

Because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is a long-standing “no trespass rule” for judicial review, and Congress has not expressly provided for judicial review of consular visa decisions, this Court may not infringe upon the consular officer’s decision to deny Mr. Green’s visa except where the constitutional rights of an American citizen are implicated....

Moving on to the RFRA claim by the Church, the court said in part: 

Calvary Church is a United States church making a free exercise claim under RFRA, so this Court must next determine whether the consular officer’s visa denial was made for a facially legitimate and bona fide reasons....

Here, the consular officer cited a valid statutory reason for denial.... [T]he consular officer made a factual determination that Mr. Green willfully misrepresented the purpose of his April 9, 2022, visit to a border official as commensurate with a B-1/B-2 visa and then violated that status by intending to engage in unauthorized employment for hire as an independent contractor at Calvary Church within 90-days of his entry into the United States.

Satanic Temple Opens Reproductive Health Clinic Offering Its Abortion Ritual

In a press release issued this week, The Satanic Temple ("TST") announced that it has set up its first Reproductive Health Clinic in New Mexico. TST has developed an abortion ritual that it claims is protected by the First Amendment. According to the press release:

[A]nyone in New Mexico seeking to perform The Satanic Temple’s abortion ritual will be able to receive free online medical services. Patients undergo a confidential screening and virtual appointment before having their prescriptions sent to the clinic’s pharmacy partner, who will mail the medications in a discreet package. The pharmacy’s fees will fall around $90 USD in order to keep prices at a minimum. TST Health’s licensed medical staff will be available for patient questions and concerns and will initiate follow-up communications with patients. In addition, the clinic has a dedicated patient hotline that is on call 24/7. 

The Satanic Temple hopes to expand operations into other states, including those that do not allow clinicians to perform abortions.

TST's press release added that it has named the facility "The Samuel Alito’s Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic," and went on to elaborate on that choice. Christian Post reports on TST's actions.

Court Approves Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan for Santa Fe Archdiocese

The Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico announced yesterday that a U.S. Bankruptcy Court has confirmed a Plan of Reorganization that has been agreed to by the Committee representing victims of clergy abuse and by the Archdiocese. According to an Open Letter from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors recommending that abuse victims vote to accept the plan:

Under the Plan, the Debtor, its affiliates and their insurers will create a settlement fund of approximately $121.5 million (the “Settlement Amount”) upon the effective date of the Plan. The Plan also includes measures to enhance child protection, including the first-ever publication of abuse related documents through an archive administered by the University of New Mexico.

All the Chapter 11 Plan Documents are available on the Archdiocese's website. In announcing the court's confirmation of the plan, Archbishop Wester said in part:

While I hope and pray that the bankruptcy outcome will bring a measure of justice and relief to the victims of clergy sexual abuse, I realize that nothing can ever compensate them for the criminal and horrendous abuse they endured. I pledge that the Archdiocese of Santa Fe will remain vigilant in protecting children and young people from clergy sexual abuse, doing all we can to assure them of a safe and protective environment in the Catholic Church. We will continue to monitor the safeguards we have put in place and implement the non-monetary agreements....

Once again, I express my most profound sorrow and contrition for those who have endured clergy sexual abuse. This is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance and which has no place in the Catholic Church: not now, not ever.

AP reports on the court's action and has additional background on the proceedings. 

Christian Doctors Challenge New Mexico's Assisted Suicide Law

Suit was filed this week in a New Mexico federal district court by a physician and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico's End-of-Life Options Act.  The complaint (full text) in Lacy v, Balderas, (D NM, filed 12/14/2022), alleges in part:

6. The Act purports to protect physicians who object to assisted suicide for reasons of conscience, saying they will not be required to “participate.” But that promise rings hollow. The Act does not define the word “participate,” requires conscientious objectors to facilitate suicide in material ways, and expressly prohibits professional associations like CMDA from taking action to ensure that their members advance—rather than undermine—their mission and message.

7. The Act compels objecting physicians to speak and inform terminally ill patients about the availability of assisted suicide.....

8. The Act forces objecting physicians to refer their patients to physicians or organizations who are “able and willing to carry out” the patient’s assisted suicide.....

9. The Act expressly prohibits professional associations like CMDA from suspending, denying, or revoking membership to physicians who participate in assisted suicide, violating CMDA’s right to associate with members who will present a consistent message. Id. at § 24-7C-7(B).

10. The State of New Mexico thus compels objecting health care professionals to speak a certain message about assisted suicide, and forces them to provide proximate, formal, and material cooperation in an unethical and sinful act.

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

Free Exercise Challenge To New Mexico COVID Orders Moves Ahead

McKinley v. Grisham, (D NM, June 7, 2022), involves various challenges to Executive Orders and Public Health Orders issued by New Mexico officials in response to the COVID pandemic. While most of the challenges were dismissed, the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their free exercise challenge to restrictions on in-person gatherings at houses of worship. The court said in part:

Some New Mexico public health orders treated comparable secular activities more favorably than religious exercise. For example, the April 11, 2020, public health order allowed essential businesses 20% occupancy capacity but prohibited mass gatherings in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship....

Taking the allegations as true, it is plausible that the Plaintiffs state a freedom of religion claim. Therefore, whether the public health orders survive strict scrutiny is a factual inquiry that cannot be resolved on this Motion. For the above reasons, Plaintiffs alleged a plausible freedom of religion claim, and this Count cannot be dismissed at this stage.

Court Upholds New Mexico's COVID-19 Limits On Church Services In Lengthy Opinion

In a 268-page opinion in Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, (D NM, July 13, 2020), Legacy Church lost its challenges under the Free Exercise Clause and the Freedom of Assembly Clause to New Mexico Department of Health Kathyleen Kunkel’s Public Health Emergency Orders imposing various restrictions on gatherings for religious services. Summarizing its holdings, the court concluded that the Public Health Orders "are neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable;" and they "are unrelated to the suppression of speech or religion, serve a compelling state, interest, and less restrictive alternatives are not available."

Court Upholds New Mexico 5-Person Limit On Size of Church Gatherings

In Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, (D NM, April 17, 2020), a New Mexico federal district court refused to enjoin enforcement of the Order issued by the New Mexico Department of Health that bars gatherings of more than five people in houses of worship. Legacy Church, a megachurch, requires approximately 30 clergy and technical staff members to live stream its religious services. Summarizing its 100-page opinion, the court said:

The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff Legacy Church, Inc.... is likely to succeed on the merits in demonstrating that Defendant Kathyleen M. Kunkel’s Public Health Emergency Order (4-11-20-PHO)..., which restricts places of worship from gathering more than five people within a single room or connected space, violates Plaintiff Legacy Church’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....; and (ii) whether Legacy Church is likely to succeed on the merits in demonstrating that the Order violates [its]... rights to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment. The Court concludes that: (i) the Order does not violate Legacy Church’s First Amendment religious freedom rights, because the Order is neutral and generally applicable; and (ii) the Order is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and so does not violate Legacy Church’s First Amendment rights to assemble.

[Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

Church Challenges To COVID-19 Orders Proliferate

Suits challenging COVID-19 orders that ban group church services are proliferating.  Sacramento Bee reported yesterday:

A group of Inland Empire pastors is suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom in federal court, alleging that his administration is “criminalizing the free exercise of religion” with stay-at-home directives that have prevented people from attending church services....

One of the plaintiffs is Dean Moffatt, a Riverside County pastor who was fined $1,000 for holding a Palm Sunday church service, according to the complaint filed.

KRQE News reported yesterday:

An Albuquerque [New Mexico] megachurch is now suing the state claiming the governor violated the first amendment that protects the freedom of religion. Specifically, it’s focused on the church’s Easter Sunday service and the number of people it takes to live stream to its congregation....

[Pastor Steve] Smothermon of Legacy Church filed suit requesting a temporary restraining order but also a permanent injunction affording them the same restrictions as local essential retailers, limiting capacity to 20%. Smothermon says to hold yesterday’s service they would have a worship team, a band, the pastor and technical staff. A group of about 30 people. Therefore, conducting the live-streamed services would immediately violate the governor’s order to limit gatherings to no more than five people.

WAVE News reported yesterday:

 A Kentucky church whose members defied Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order not to gather in groups now plans to file a federal lawsuit claiming its constitutional rights were violated.

The Maryville Baptist Church is at the center of the debate, after about 50 members attended an Easter service in person.

Kentucky State Police troopers were ordered to take down the license plates of those who attended, threatening to quarantine them.

The church’s attorney, Matthew Staver, said the lawsuit is because the church was targeted.

10th Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Inmate's 1st Amendment Claims

In Khan v. Barela, (10th Cir., March 26, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 35-page opinion reversed a New Mexico federal district court's sua sponte dismissal of a federal pre-trial detainee's pro se 1st and 4th Amendment claims. Erik Khan was a pre-trial detainee for some four years. His 1st Amendment free speech claims involved a prohibition on his reading hard-cover books, newspaper and newspaper clippings. His 1st Amendment free-exercise claims revolved around prison chaplains' refusal to allow him a clock, prayer schedule, and Muslim calendar to track the timing of Ramadan, and his inability to obtain Ramadan-compliant meals.

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Textbook Loan Program

In Moses v. Ruszkowski, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 13, 2018), the New Mexico Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision held that New Mexico's textbook loan program does not violate the state constitution. The program provides for the loan of secular textbooks to private and parochial school students.  In 2015, the state Supreme Court held that the program was unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) However in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court  granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Trinity Lutheran Church decision. (See prior posting.) Now on remand, the state Supreme Court reversed itself, saying in part:

On remand, we conclude that this Court’s previous interpretation of Article 16 XII, Section 3 raises concerns under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To avoid constitutional concerns, we hold that the textbook loan program, which provides a generally available public benefit to students, does not result in the use of public funds in support of private schools as prohibited by Article XII, Section 3. We also hold that the textbook loan program is consistent with Article IV, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution, which addresses appropriations for educational purposes, and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, which limits “any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation.”

Chief Justice Nakamura and Justice Clingman dissented. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Street Preacher's Suit Against Police Survives Dismissal Motion

In Craft v. Wright, (D NM, Sept. 26, 2018), a New Mexico federal district court refused to dismiss a street preacher's 1st and 4th Amendment claims against Hobbs, New Mexico police officials. The court concluded that plaintiff Al-Rashaad Craft was arrested without probable cause for assault and battery and disorderly conduct after an incident described as follows:

[Craft] was standing in the public square ... preaching a religious sermon, recording himself while doing so.... Susan Stone, began yelling at him, using obscenities, and waving a lighter only inches from Craft’s face and in front of the camera that Craft had set up to record his sermon.... Craft ignored the woman, but when he started to read from his Bible, Stone struck Craft in the face with his Bible.... In response, Craft pushed the woman away, and she lost her balance and fell.... Stone got up and continued to shout obscenities at Craft, walking in circles around him, smoking, and waving her lighter; she appeared intoxicated, which Craft later reported to the police.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Applies To Shaming By Group Teaching Reincarnation

In Hubbard v. J Message Group Corp., (D NM, July 11, 2018), a New Mexico federal magistrate judge dismissed under the church autonomy doctrine defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against JMGC, also known as Companions of Wisdom. The organization promotes reincarnation-based teachings. The court summarizes plaintiff's allegations:

JMGC lures people who are looking for spiritual direction and altruistic involvement.... When prospective members wish to advance their association with JMGC and share details of their personal lives with Defendants, Defendants collectively engage in a process designed to control, isolate, shame, emotionally harm, and take advantage of the prospective members.... Members who dissent or question the leadership’s directives become the targets of “shaming conduct”—meaning that Defendants “collectively disseminate false information coupled with outrageous accusations, in CoW communications, designed solely to cause dissenting members substantial emotional and psychological trauma.” ... Dissenting members are subjected to this “shaming conduct” until they recant their dissent or quit the organization....

Finding that the 1st Amendment requires dismissal, the court said in part:

JMGC/CoW, an organization that exists to promote its reincarnation-based spiritual doctrine and whose membership is required to adhere to its “religious” precepts, is entitled to First Amendment protections against tort claims on par with churches and other religious organizations. That is, ... JMGC/CoW retains exclusive control, protected by the First Amendment, over matters concerning “theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.” ...

As alleged in the Complaint, the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims originally stemmed from an internal dispute between Plaintiff and the leadership of JMGC prompted by Plaintiff’s “inquiring nature” and her “resistance” to the directives of the leadership. It is evident from the face of the Complaint, however, that JMGC is an authoritarian organization that does not permit dissent or questions regarding its doctrines or leadership. Thus, when she dissented from and questioned the leadership’s directives, to permit Plaintiff to pursue her claim for damages based on Defendants’ having ostracized and defamed her would, in the context of this case, amount to impermissible government interference with Defendants’ right to practice their faith....

The statements and conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s lawsuit cannot be adjudicated without impermissible intrusion upon Defendants’ right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to freely exercise their religion. Each of Plaintiff’s claims, if adjudicated in a civil trial, would require the jury (or judge in the role of fact-finder) to resolve questions that are rooted in religion. For example, in order to succeed in her defamation claim or in her false light invasion of privacy claim, Plaintiff would have to prove, among other things that, as a matter of fact, Plaintiff does not: have “a split who is a porn star”; Plaintiff’s soul has not been part of “several sex cults”; and that no aspect of Plaintiff’s soul was sexually or financially “predatory” within JMGC/CoW.

EEOC Sues New Mexico Diner For Failing To Accommodate Muslim Employee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against a diner in Farmington, New Mexico. The lawsuit charges that the Blue Moon Diner refused to accommodate a female Muslim employee who requested to work wearing a hijab. The suit also claims that the diner constructively discharged the employee because of her religion.