Texas AG Sues School District to Require Posting of 10 Commandments

Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the Galveston School District and its board members seeking to order them to display copies of the Ten Commandments in every classroom as mandated by Texas law. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Galveston Independent School District, (TX Dist. Ct. filed 11/7/2025) reads in part:

Defendants are openly violating the law in Texas. In order to prevent irreparable harm to the State of Texas’s interests and to bring Defendants back into the bounds of the law, the State of Texas requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief from this Court. 

In August 2025, a Texas federal district court enjoined eleven school districts from complying with the Texas statute that requires posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. (See prior posting.) The Galveston district is not one of those eleven. Attorney General Paxton has directed school districts that were not defendants in that case to comply with the display requirement. (See prior posting).

Friendly Atheist blog discusses the lawsuit.

6th Circuit En Banc: Banning Student-on-Student Use of Biological Pronouns Violates Free Speech Rights

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Nov. 6, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 10-7 en banc decision held that the free speech rights of public-school students are infringed when the school prohibits them from calling fellow-students who are transgender by their biological pronouns rather than the pronouns preferred by their fellow students.  A 3-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had reached an opposite conclusion. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff students and parents hold religious beliefs that gender is immutable. Opinions in the en banc case span 112 pages. The en banc court's majority opinion said in part:

A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would “materially and substantially disrupt” school activities or infringe the legal “rights of others” in the school community.  Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969).  In this case’s current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard.  It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law....

 ... [T]he School District has regulated personal expression—the use of biological pronouns to convey a student’s scientific and religious beliefs—that addresses a “sensitive topic of public concern.” ... As part of the broader debate over transgender rights, the question whether speakers should use preferred pronouns to refer to transgender individuals—and whether we should treat the commonplace (and non-antagonistic) use of biological pronouns as proper or offensive—has stirred a “passionate political and social debate” in our society....

... [T] the School District has not just entered this policy debate.  It has taken a side.  The School District has “targeted” a speaker’s use of biological pronouns as improper while allowing students to use preferred pronouns (no matter how novel)....

... The School District is right that schools may bar abusive “invective” that targets “specific” students—whether transgender students, religious students, female students, Hispanic students, or any others.... That is, a school could bar a student from abusively ridiculing a transgender classmate’s “physical characteristics” in the same way it could bar a student from abusively ridiculing a smaller student’s physical characteristics.... But the School District is wrong to treat the use of biological pronouns alone as analogous to this abusive invective.  Defending Education’s members want to use biological pronouns not because they seek to ridicule others but because they want to speak what they view as the truth.... 

Ohio law defines “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” to cover speech directed at another student only if the speech both “[c]auses mental or physical harm to the other student,” and “[i]s sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.”  Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.666(A)(2)(a).  And the School District has offered no evidence that the commonplace use of biological pronouns would create an intimidating, threating, or abusive environment....

Judge Batchelder filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... [E]ven if the School District were to produce overwhelming evidence of disruption, that evidence would still not justify the compelled-speech or viewpoint-discrimination aspects of its preferred-pronoun policies.

Judge Kethledge filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

 ... [T]o determine whether the plaintiffs here should prevail on their First Amendment claim, we should begin with the right question:  namely, whether the historic common law would have subjected a student to punishment (as a matter of public law or private) for referring to a classmate with biological pronouns that the classmate had insisted the student not use.  Considering the speech alone, the answer is likely no.  For one thing, as noted above, offense or dignitary harm was not cognizable at law....  And the right to express one’s opinions in good faith would almost certainly protect the speech at issue here....

A final point is hortatory rather than legal.  That the law permits certain action does not mean that an individual should necessarily engage in it....

Judges Thapar and Nalbandian filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:  

In the end, the School District’s policy “mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination,” and fails to recognize that “[t]olerance is a two-way street.”...  The District chose a side in a hotly contested debate and tried to squelch the opposing viewpoint by imposing an ideological speech code.  When it did so, it unlawfully discriminated based on viewpoint.  And while we appreciate the majority’s thoughtful Tinker approach, we worry that students’ rights to speak freely on important matters of public interest should not hang in the balance while district courts perform ad hoc inquiries into how “disrupt[ive]” they find the students’ viewpoint....

Judge Bush filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Rather than employ the traditional monsieur (for a man) and madame or mademoiselle (for women) or use longstanding aristocratic titles..., the French revolutionaries replaced those words with the masculine citoyen or feminine citoyenne (both translated as “citizen”) to refer to all men and women, respectively, regardless of station....  

Like the French revolutionaries, communists also sought to revolutionize forms of address for political ends.  Communist regimes strongly encouraged and sometimes mandated use of “comrade” instead of traditionally employed honorifics to refer to another person, just as the French revolutionaries insisted on the use of “citizen.”  That was not surprising.  “[T]he history of authoritarian government . . . shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech . . . .” ...

Governments in the United States—federal or state—never operated that way.  Our Constitution forbids mandatory use of certain titles to refer to others....

American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy.  Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference.  Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion.  Our system forbids public schools from becoming “enclaves of totalitarianism.”

Judge Stranch joined by Judges Moore, Clay, Davis, Mathis, Bloomekatz and Ritz, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In this case, the School District has repeatedly affirmed that the children of Defending Education members will have the right to express beliefs about transgender identities.  Those children will be permitted to express the view that sex is immutable.  But it is not viewpoint discrimination to require those students to share those beliefs in a manner that does not disrupt the education of others....

The District made clear in its Policies that the purpose of the ban on intentional use of non-preferred pronouns is to prevent disruption in the form of trauma to transgender or nonbinary students of a degree likely to hamper those students’ ability to learn.  Evidence of that purpose was before the district court.....

Though the record satisfied Tinker’s requirement that the School District’s forecast be reasonable, the majority opinion concluded otherwise, positing and applying a new approach:  that “the closer the speech resembles political expression at the First Amendment’s core, the more evidence a school must present of the potential disruption or violation of rights.”...

... Existing precedent provides educators—those most attuned to the issues in their schools—with a reasonable level of agency to develop productive, civilized educational settings while protecting both student rights and student safety.

Columbus Dispatch reports on the decision.

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.] 

5th Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Louisiana 10 Commandments Law

On Oct. 6, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc review in Roake v. Brumley, (Full text of court's Order.) In the case, a 3-judge panel affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana statute that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. (See prior posting.) The court's Order vacates the panel decision and calls for new briefs and oral arguments in the case. Baptist News Global reports on the court's action.

IDEA Requires New York To Pay for Kindergartener's Judaic Studies Class

In Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. E.L., (SD NY, Sept. 30, 2025), a New York federal district court upheld a decision by a State Review Officer who decided that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), New York schools must pay for a Judaic Studies class that is part of the curriculum of a private school which a kindergarten student with a disability attends. The private school was found to be an appropriate placement for the student after public schools failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). At issue was whether paying for the Judaic studies part of the curriculum violates federal regulations or constitutional provisions. The court said in part:

Here, there is no dispute that the IDEA’s guarantee of a FAPE and reimbursement for tuition at an appropriate school is a neutral program. There is no dispute that funding appropriately provided under that program adheres to federal regulations and the Constitution. The DOE, however, appears to argue that the Judaic Studies classes are not covered by that neutral program—that they are unnecessary religious instruction falling outside the IDEA educational guarantee. This issue is best resolved with an understanding of what a child of E.L.’s age needs to obtain a FAPE and whether the absence of his enrollment in Judaic Studies classes would prevent him from obtaining that FAPE. In other words, this question implicates educational expertise that is best left to the administrative officers. 

... [T]he Court finds that the Judaic Studies classes are a core part of E.L.’s FAPE. The SINAI School director testified that Judaic Studies classes work on reading comprehension skills, and expressive and receptive language skills.... Moreover, the classes comprise a key part of the school day, taking place for thirty minutes to an hour in the morning, between other classes such as language studies, art therapy, and educational therapy.... For a five-year-old, these are critical periods of learning and development. To deny funding for these specific class periods would effectively exclude the child from these periods of learning.

Teacher Loses Challenge to School's "Controversial Issues" Policy

In Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 29, 2025), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a teacher's constitutional challenges to a 3-day suspension she received for violating the school's "controversial issues" policy. Plaintiff, a third-grade math and science teacher, added four books with LGBTQ+ themes to a book collection in her classroom that students can read during in-class free time. In upholding the school's action, the court said in part:

To the extent that [plaintiff] relies on the Free Exercise Clause... —teachers do not have a First Amendment right (whether under its free speech component or its free exercise component) to make their own “curricular and pedagogical choices” in a public school.... If Cahall wants to keep religious materials for her own use—for example, a Bible in a desk drawer that she reads herself during free time—the analysis gets more difficult. Or similarly if she wants to speak as a citizen on matters relating to LGBTQ+ or other issues—for example, commenting at a Board meeting.... But the District pays her to instruct students, and as part of that, it has the right to specify the materials that she uses to accomplish that objective....

Cahall also invokes the Establishment Clause. Her claim ... appears to be that the District chose to treat other religious expressions, by other school personnel, better than hers.... But assuming that is her claim, ... she has not plausibly alleged that a similarly-situated employee was treated more favorably, and thus has not plausibly alleged that the District is favoring one religion over another.  

If instead she is arguing that she has some kind of constitutional right to share her religiously motivated beliefs, the Establishment Clause actually works against her.

The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection challenges.

Canceling Church's Sunday Lease on School Gym Violated 1st Amendment

 In Truth Family Bible Church Middleton v. Idaho Housing and Finance Association, (D ID, Sept. 22, 2025), an Idaho federal district court held that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when its lease to use a public charter school's gymnasium for Sunday services was terminated. The court said in part:

... Truth Family had a month-to-month lease with Sage International Network of Schools (“SAGE”), a public charter school, where they would pay rent for the use of the school’s gymnasium on Sundays for church services.... SAGE submitted an application to IHFA to participate in the Public Charter School Facilities Program [under which] it could receive bonds for facility improvements and construction.  

IHFA reviewed SAGE’s application and indicated the lease with Truth Family could be a problem because the bond proceeds could not be used for religious purposes under Article IX Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution (otherwise known as the “Blaine Amendment”).... Ultimately, SAGE decided to terminate the lease in order to proceed with bond financing.....

IHFA did not single out Truth Family’s lease in a way that was neutral or generally applicable, and SAGE did not terminate Truth Family’s lease in a manner that was neutral or generally applicable. Therefore, Truth Family met its burden of showing there was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause here....

To refuse the issuance of bonds to anyone who contracts with a religious organization to use their facilities is likely not narrowly tailored to any government interest that could possibly be served by the Blaine Amendment....

... [T]he government is still indicating a preference for a certain religion or non-religion when it excludes another. When Truth Family was prevented from using facilities to participate in worship services, that indicated IHFA and SAGE’s preference for non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

SAGE terminated the lease solely due to Truth Family’s status as a religious organization. While the motivation might have been money rather than a direct issue with the message itself, the result is the same: Truth Family could no longer spread its message at the school because it was a religious one. This is a violation of the Free Speech Clause, and summary judgment is proper....

Idaho Ed News reports on the decision.

School's Policy on Disclosure of Students' Social Transitioning Violated Due Process, But Not Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, Sept. 18, 2025), parents of a middle school student, referred to as G.M., challenged a school's policy on non-disclosure of their child's social transitioning of gender. The school referred to G.M. by a female name and pronouns when speaking with the parents. However, teachers and other employees referred to the child by a masculine name and with masculine pronouns at school. A Michigan federal district court held that this did not violate parents' free exercise rights, but that parents had stated due process claims.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the District has conditioned the privilege of their child attending public school on their willingness to abandon their sincere religious beliefs.  Not so.  As parents, the Meads “are not being coerced or compelled into recognizing any individual in any particular way inconsistent with their religious beliefs.” ... The District allows its students to request their preferred name and pronouns....  In no way does that compel students or their parents to recognize a preferred name or pronouns of the opposite sex.  

Accordingly, the court finds the District’s policy and practice to be neutral and generally applicable.  As a result, the policy and practice are not subject to strict scrutiny but must have a rational basis....

Defendants proffer the legitimate purpose of promoting a safe and supportive learning environment for LGBTQ students.... Plaintiffs do not dispute that the policy is rationally related to this purpose....

Plaintiffs allege two fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, (1) the parental right to direct the upbringing of their child and their child’s education, and (2) the parental right to direct their child’s healthcare.  Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the first set of rights when it failed to inform them of their child’s requested gender transition and when it deceived them so they wouldn’t find out besides their child telling them.  Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the second set of rights when it conducted a “psychosocial intervention” to treat their child’s gender dysphoria and other mental health disorders.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Stays Implementation of New Social Studies Standards While Litigation Is Pending

 As previously reported, in July a suit was filed asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction and enjoin implementation of the State Board of Education's 2025 Academic Standards for Social Studies in grades K-8. The Standards call for teaching of stories from the Bible with a Christian perspective on them.  Now, in Randall v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-2, assumed original jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing a temporary stay while the challenge to the new Standards is being litigated. The Court ordered that the 2019 Social Studies Standards be used while the litigation proceeds.

California Legislature Passes Law Aimed at Combatting Antisemitism and Other Bias in Schools

On September 12, the California legislature gave final passage to AB 715 (full text) which amends the state Education Code to create a state office of Civil Rights. The new Office is to work directly with local educational agencies to address discrimination and bias. It is to provide educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms bias. The bill also requires the Office to employ an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator who is to provide antisemitism education to school personnel and make recommendations to the legislature on legislation that is needed to prevent antisemitism in educational settings. The bill provides in part:

The United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, shall be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism.

The bill also provides in part:

51500. (a) (1) A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation or because of a characteristic listed in section 220....

(2) Discriminatory bias in instruction and school-sponsored activities does not require a showing of direct harm to members of a protected group. Members of a protected group do not need to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias.

(3) If the governing board or body of a local educational agency finds that instruction or school-sponsored activities are discriminatory pursuant to this section, corrective action shall be taken.

(b) Teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and align with the adopted curriculum and standards ..., and be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility, rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.

The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. JNS reports on the passage of the legislation. KQED reports on the controversy that surrounded the bill.

School Rules on Non-gendered Pronouns Do Not Violate Free Exercise or Free Speech Rights

In Hyland v. State Board of Education, (NJ App., Sept. 9, 2025), a New Jersey state appellate court rejected a 1st and 14th Amendment challenge to amended Board of Education rules that, among other things, eliminated gendered pronouns in the rules. The court said in part:

Hyland argues the State Board may not establish a "religion of secularism" by adopting amendments that define gender as "indeterminate," which can be decided based on the student's feelings, resulting in the treatment of comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.  He further argues the amendments force students who adhere to a "Biblical worldview," to act and operate under a law that directly contradicts those beliefs, and the students or parents are not allowed to opt out of the imposition of those beliefs....

A fair reading of the amended chapter demonstrates the State Board does not seek to promote a "religion of secularism," nor does it create a constitutionally prohibited entanglement.  The students and parents retain the right to opt-out of any instruction related to health, family life education, or sex education or educational activity that violates their religious beliefs.... Thus, the amendments do not violate either the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses, as they apply uniformly to all students and do not seek to regulate religious conduct or belief.,,,

We are satisfied that the record establishes there is no violation of the First Amendment free speech rights.  Here, the amendments to Chapter 7 do not regulate or target the speech of students or parents.  While the amendments define gender identity, they neither compel nor coerce students or parents to endorse this definition.  Nor do they prevent students or parents from publicly expressing a different view....

6th Circuit: Transgender Bathroom Rule Did Not Violate Objecting Parents' or Students' Free Exercise Rights

In Jane and John Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Aug. 26, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims that a school's policy on use of communal bathrooms by transgender students violated the free exercise rights of Muslim and Christian students and their parents. The court dismissed as moot plaintiffs' request for a declaratory and injunctive relief because while the case was pending, the school changed its policy pursuant to a new Ohio law that mandated bathroom access based on biological sex. However, plaintiffs' claim for damages from past violations was not moot. Nevertheless, the court found no 1st Amendment violation, focusing on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that “the government is generally free to place incidental burdens on religious exercise so long as it does so pursuant to a neutral policy that is generally applicable.” ... But the Court situated Mahmoud in line with Wisconsin v. Yoder, ...  as an exception to the general rule because “[a] government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” ...

This exception does not apply here.  The bathroom policy does not impose a burden “of the [] same character as the burden in Yoder.”...  Unlike the challenged state law in Yoder, which compelled Amish families to send their children to public or private schools, and the curricular requirement in Mahmoud, which required elementary school students to attend classes where certain LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks that “unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender” were taught, the bathroom policy was not an educational requirement or curricular feature, and the policy did not require students to use the communal restrooms.... [Single occupancy bathrooms were available to students.]

Because the policy was neutral and generally applicable, it is subject to rational basis review, which it survives....

On appeal, the parent plaintiffs specifically argue that the School District infringed on their right to direct the upbringing of their children by (1) modifying the School District’s bathroom operations, (2) increasing their children’s risk of physical danger, and (3) choosing not to answer questions about implementing the bathroom policy.  We are unpersuaded by their arguments, and thus, we affirm the grant of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim....

Judge Larsen filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but saying that the majority had read the Mahmoud case too narrowly. He said in part:

... [T]he ultimate question Mahmoud poses is whether a school policy “substantially interfere[s] with the religious development of the child or pose[s] a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”...  All sorts of non-curricular school rules—which aren’t clearly “educational”—can interfere with parents’ religious upbringing of their children.  Imagine, for example, a school that provides free school lunch to all students, regardless of income, to remove the stigma associated with accepting free or reduced-price meals.  If the school neither provided Kosher meals nor permitted parents to pack brown-bag lunches, that might well impose a Yoder-like burden on Jewish parents and students, even though the policy would neither be obviously “educational” nor involve the curriculum.  If the school cannot require Jewish students to read books “designed to” undermine their commitment to keeping Kosher, why would the school be able to more directly compel them to eat a grilled ham and cheese?...

... In this case, Bethel’s policy allowed religious students to “opt out” by using single-stall restrooms instead of the communal ones to which they objected.  That important fact distinguishes this case from both Yoder and Mahmoud....

Buckeye Flame reports on the decision.

HHS Pressures West Virginia To Implement Religious Exemptions from Compulsory School Vaccination Law

 As reported by Med Page Today, the Department of Health and Human Services is pressuring the state of West Virginia to recognize religious exemptions from the state's compulsory public school vaccination requirements. In January of this year, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued an Executive Order (full text) instructing state officials to create a procedure for parents to obtain religious or conscience exemptions, taking the position that this is required by West Virginia's Equal Protection for Religion Act. The compulsory immunization law only provides for medical exemptions, and legislative attempts to amend it have failed. Last week, the federal Health and Human Services Department took steps to support the Governor's position. In a letter dated Aug. 21, 2025 (full text) directed to West Virginia Health Departments participating in the federal Vaccines for Children Program (VCP), the HHS Office of Civil Rights said in part:

Providers participating in the VCP must comply “with applicable State law, including any such law relating to any religious or other exemption.” By specifically mandating that a State’s plan for administering Medicaid must respect State laws regarding religious exemptions, Congress recognized the importance of Americans’ religious convictions regarding vaccines and laws protecting such....

On January 14, 2025, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued Executive Order 7-25.... The Governor’s interpretation of EPRA was recently affirmed by Judge Froble of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County...

West Virginia is a participant in the VCP6 and receives $1.37 billion from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services each year as the federal Medicaid contribution. Therefore, West Virginia is obligated to ensure that its VCP providers comply with applicable state laws like EPRA, which requires recognition of religious exemptions from West Virginia’s Compulsory Vaccination Law. 

On Aug. 25, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. posted a message on X urging the state legislature to support the Governor's position, and saying in part:

...  At @HHSgov, we will enforce conscience protections and defend every family’s right to make informed health decisions.

Ban on Faith Statements by Colleges Participating in Program for High Schoolers Violates Free Exercise Clause

Loe v. Jett, (D MN, Aug. 22, 2025), is a challenge to a 2023 Amendment to Minnesota's Post Secondary Education Option (PSEO) statute. The statute allows high school students to enroll in nonsectarian college courses in colleges in the state. The state reimburses colleges for the credits earned by high schoolers. The challenged amendment disqualifies colleges that require faith statements from PSEO students, or which discriminate in admission of PSEO students on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation or religious beliefs or affiliations. The court held that the Faith Statement ban violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, saying in part:

[University of] Northwestern requires PSEO applicants to agree to a Declaration of Christian Community, by which applicants attest to “honor Christ,” “seek Christ‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that the Bible clearly condemns.”... Such an admissions requirement is facially proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban. Now, consider a hypothetical secular private college that participates in the PSEO program. If that secular school required that all PSEO applicants attest to “honor reason,” “seek reason‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that rationalism clearly condemns,” such an admissions requirement would seemingly not be proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban.  

The only difference between the two statement requirements is that Northwestern’s is of a religious—and not a secular—nature. Such a distinction on the face of the Faith Statement Ban is not neutral to religion, and thus triggers strict scrutiny....

In sum, the Faith Statement Ban is unconstitutional on its face under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it burdens religious exercise, is not neutral and generally applicable, and is not narrowly tailored to achieve MDE’s compelling interest. Necessarily, this means that the Faith Statement Ban is also unconstitutional under the Freedom of Conscience Clause of Article One, Section Sixteen of the Minnesota Constitution. ...

The court also held that the Amendment's nondiscrimination provision is inseparable from the Statement Ban, so that it too must be struck down. It also rejected the Department of Education's counterclaims against the religious schools that were among the plaintiffs.

MPR News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

School Counselor's Office Display of Anti-Trans Books Is Permissible Only When No Students Are in His Office

In Theis v. Intermountain Education Service Board of Directors, (D ORA, Aug. 20, 2025), a social worker employed by the district to administer standardized tests individually to students sued claiming his constitutional rights were violated when the district found that his display of two particular books in his office violated the district's bias policy. The district found that the display of the books-- titled He is He and She is She--constituted a hostile expression toward a person because of their gender identity. Plaintiff was ordered to stop displaying the books. 

The court concluded that the district's policy did not violate plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

... Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant’s Speech Policy is not neutral. There is no indication that the ESB Policy restricts any religious practices because of their religious motivations. Indeed, the policy explicitly seeks to prevent discrimination or harassment based on religion. And even if the ESB Policy adversely impacted religious practices, it is addressing the legitimate concern of ensuring an open and welcoming school environment for all students and employees.

Plaintiff also has not shown that Defendants were “hostile” towards his religious beliefs....

The court however agreed in part with plaintiff's free speech claim, saying that "only his display when no students are present is protected under the First Amendment." It explained: 

When no students were present in Plaintiff’s office, the message of the books would not be reasonably attributable to IMESD, and the display could not press Plaintiff’s views on impressionable or captive students.

School Officials Lack Standing To Sue Advocacy Group For Interfering With Their Duties

In Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (ED OK, Aug. 13, 2025), Oklahoma education officials, in an interesting twist, sued to enjoin the advocacy organization Freedom From Religion Foundation from interfering with Plaintiffs’ statutory authority to govern Oklahoma’s public schools. FFRF had sent letters complaining about Bible reading and prayer in classrooms in one district and appointment of a football team chaplain in another. The court held that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, saying in part:

... [T]he Complaint does not explain how these letters have interfered with day-to-day operations in any real way.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint also vaguely alludes that Plaintiffs’ injury is the “chilling effect” caused by Defendant’s letters....

... [T]he Complaint does not allege that it has stopped executing its duties or ceased administration of Oklahoma’s public schools because of Defendant’s letters.2  Nor does the Complaint allege that the schools have ceased any policies or practices because of Defendant’s letters. 

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show an injury in fact.

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

Court Again Upholds Idaho Law on School Restroom Use by Transgender Students

In Sexuality and Gender Alliance v. Critchfield, (D ID, Aug. 7, 2025), an Idaho federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of an Idaho statute that requires transgender students in Idaho public schools to use restrooms, changing rooms, and showers that correspond to their biological sex. The 9th Circuit had previously upheld the denial of a broad preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statute. In this suit, plaintiffs ask for a narrow injunction applicable only to restrooms at Boise High School. Plaintiffs argue that Boise High School has allowed transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity for years, and allowing enforcement now would upset the status quo. The court said in part:

Separating restrooms by biological sex has been common for centuries.... And for good reason—there are biological differences between men and women.... Those biological differences are deserving of privacy and S.B. 1100’s segregation of restrooms based on sex is related to that interest. It is not the Court’s role to determine whether S.B. 1100 is a perfect policy; the Court must only address whether it is “substantially related” to the State of Idaho’s interest in protecting student’s privacy. Because S.B. 1100 is substantially related to the State’s legitimate interest in privacy, the Court finds SAGA is unlikely to succeed on its Equal Protection claim....

The Ninth Circuit... concluded: “SAGA failed to meet its burden to show that the State had clear notice at the time it accepted federal funding that Title IX prohibits segregated access to the facilities covered by S.B. 1100 on the basis of transgender status.”... This conclusion applies with equal force to SAGA’s as-applied challenge. Accordingly, the Court finds SAGA is unlikely to succeed on its Title IX claim.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

7th Circuit: Jury Must Decide Whether Religious Accommodation Would Create Undue Hardship

In a Title VII case that has been in litigation for six years, in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., (7th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the Brownsburg school district and sent the case back to the trial court for a jury to determine disputed facts. At issue is a music teacher's religious objections to following school policy that requires him to refer to transgender students by the names and pronouns that the students and their parents have asked that the school use. Initially the school accommodated the teacher by permitting him to address transgender students using only their last names. However, this led to student dissatisfaction and the accommodation was rescinded. The primary disputed facts are whether the accommodation created an "undue hardship" under the standard defined by the Supreme Court in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, and whether the teacher's religious objections were sincere.  The majority said in part:

... [T]he record contains material factual disputes about whether the accommodation disrupted Brownsburg’s learning environment, precluding summary judgment to the school....

... [T]he complaints ...  all deal with the effects on the two students from Kluge’s use of the last-name-only practice. Nowhere do these documents support an inference that the students had a problem with Kluge’s religion or “the mere fact [of] an accommodation.”...  Instead, the complaints are leveled against the impacts on students and teachers, regardless of whether the accommodation was for religious or secular reasons. 

... [T]here is still a genuine material factual dispute about whether those complaints rose to an undue hardship on the school’s educational mission....

...  [A] genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Kluge’s sincerity. Even though a claimant’s sincerity does not hinge on whether he is “scrupulous in his [religious] observance,” it would still be premature to take this issue away from the jury on this question. ...

Judge Rovner filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Until today, when confronted with a Title VII employment discrimination claim, we have deferred to an employer’s good-faith assessment of how an employee performed in the workplace..... Today the court invites a jury to do what we have always said a federal court will not do, which is to sit as a super-personnel department and second-guess the employer’s good-faith reasoning. In making employment decisions, ... employers will now have to consider not only how successfully an employee is performing his job as modified by a religious accommodation, but how a jury might second-guess its assessment in litigation years down the line. This is an untenable restraint on employers’ decision making. 

Today’s decision also burdens employers in a second important respect. Brownsburg successfully argued below that Kluge’s accommodation proved inconsistent with its mission, which is to provide a supportive learning environment for all of its students. Although the majority accepts this mission for present purposes, it also suggests that evidence of an employer’s mission must be limited to policies that are formally documented and adopted prior to any litigation. I think many employers will be surprised to learn that their ability to define their own missions is restricted to formal policies prepared long before an employment dispute arrives in court....

See prior related posting. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Suit Challenges Oklahoma's Social Studies Standards

Suit was filed yesterday in the Oklahoma Supreme Court by public school teachers, parents, children and clergy asking the court to assume original jurisdiction and enjoin implementation of the State Board of Education's 2025 Academic Standards for Social Studies in grades K-8. The complaint (full text) in Randall v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 7/1/2025), in addition to challenges to the procedures used to adopt the Standards, alleges that the Standards violate the religious freedom protections of the Oklahoma Constitution and statutes. The complaint alleges in part:

3. The 2025 Standards require stories from the Bible to be taught to first and second graders.  In accordance with a particular Christian view of the Bible, the 2025 Standards present certain biblical passages as historical fact to older children, contrary to a scholarly consensus that those passages do not accurately represent historical events.  As a whole, the 2025 Standards favor Christianity over all other religions, as they contain numerous references to Christianity but few to other faiths....

The complaint cites numerous specific portions of the Standards that require students to identify historical accounts from the Bible and understand the influence of the Bible and Christianity on the founding of the United States.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.