9th Circuit: Question of Fact Remains on Whether Airline Flight Attendants Were Fired Because of Their Religious Beliefs

In Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., (9th Cir., June 24, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that precludes dismissing before trial a suit by two Alaska Airlines flight attendants (Brown and Smith) who were fired after they posted comments on an internal intranet communications network opposing the Airline's support for the proposed federal Equality Act. That proposed Act protected LGBTQ+ rights. At issue is whether the firings were because of the flight attendants' religious beliefs or instead because their comments violated the company’s anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. The court said in part:

... [T]he issue is not whether Alaska can punish employees who engage in discrimination and harassment (it can).  The issue here is instead a factual one of whether Brown was in fact fired for engaging in discrimination or harassment, or whether Alaska instead used the cover of its employee policies to fire Brown because of her religious beliefs.  Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Brown, there is a genuine dispute of material fact on this point, and so summary judgment for Alaska was improper....

Under our cases, a union under Title VII “has an affirmative obligation to oppose employment discrimination against its members,” and if the union instead “acquiesce[s] or join[s] in the Company’s discrimination practices, it too is liable to the injured employees.”

The record raises factual questions about whether AFA’s representation of Brown was colored by potential disagreement with her religious views....

Judge Christen dissented in part, saying in part:

I dissent from my colleagues’ decision to reverse the district court’s entry of summary judgment on Lacey Smith’s claims against Alaska because I do not agree that Smith demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Alaska terminated her because of her religion...

During Alaska’s investigation, Smith insisted that she was merely posing a philosophical question rather than asserting to the investigators that her Christian beliefs caused her to conclude that the Equality Act was immoral.  The majority posits that “‘morality’ is often associated with religious beliefs,” but references to morality are not inherently religious....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

U.S. and Florida Launch Investigations of Religious Discrimination by Major League Baseball

Major League Baseball's apparent selective enforcement of its rules regarding players' uniforms has led to religious discrimination investigations by both the EEOC at the behest of the Department of Justice and by Florida's Attorney General.  A June 18 letter (full text) from the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon to Commissioner of Baseball Robert Manfred says in part:

According to media reports, Major League Baseball ("MLB") has warned and/or is considering disciplining three players on the San Francisco Giants who refused to participate in "Pride Night." The three players expressed their opposition to MLB's pro-Pride orthodoxy by inscribing Bible verses on their rainbow-colored hats....

MLB has asserted that its warning to the Giants players "had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message" and that it merely is enforcing a policy that prohibits writing on uniforms. Yet MLB has allowed players to wear uniform patches reading "Black Lives Matter."  This double standard-- under which players may not inscribe Bible verses on hats for one game only but may wear "Black Lives Matter" patches for one game only-- calls MLB's true motives into question and raises serious concerns about MLB's compliance with Title VII....

I have referred this matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for further investigation.

A June 19 press release from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says that his office has sent a letter and issued an investigative subpoena to MLB, indicating that Florida is also launching a formal probe into whether MLB is engaging in religious discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act by selectively enforcing its rules regarding uniforms.

9th Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Church Autonomy Case

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

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

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

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

DC Circuit Gives Pleading Leeway to Pro Se Muslim Plaintiff Who Claims Religious Discrimination

 In Naz v. Wright, (DC Cir., June 9, 2026), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a Muslim woman of Pakistani origin who was fired from her position at the Department of Energy.  The majority said in part:

Naz alleged that, in May or June 2019, she asked Gross—who by then had become her supervisor—whether during the month of Ramadan, he could adjust the start time of their weekly team meetings by 30 minutes and grant her a flexible work schedule to accommodate her religious observance....  But “instead of accommodating m[y] request,” Naz alleges, Gross “bluntly replied to me that [the Department] is a workplace, not a religious institution, and he does not believe in Islamic religious extremism.” ...   

The district court’s opinion, though, does not expressly take account of Naz’s allegation about Gross’s statement. Granted, Naz did not include the allegation in her complaint, instead stating it in her opposition to the Department’s motion to dismiss.  But as noted, our precedents generally call for considering a pro se plaintiff’s allegations in an opposition to a dismissal motion even if they are not in the complaint....

Judge Katsas filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

... [M]y colleagues vacate the dismissal of the discrimination claims, based on a contestable argument raised neither by Naz nor by the amicus curiae whom we appointed to support her position.  Specifically, my colleagues conclude that the district court erred in not plucking an allegation out of Naz’s 148-page opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss, deeming that allegation to be part of Naz’s complaint, and then considering whether it tipped the balance against dismissal.  Rather than inject that contention into this appeal, I would instead apply ordinary party-presentation principles, which compel an affirmance....

HRD reports on the decision.

HHS Reorganizes Civil Rights Office to Emphasize Religious Liberty, Conscience Protections and Racial Discrimination

The Department of Health and Human Services yesterday announced a restructuring of its Office of Civil Rights into three subject-matter Divisions: the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, the Civil Rights Division, and the Health Information Privacy, Data, and Cybersecurity Division. The press release announcing the reorganization said in part:

... “This reorganization reinstitutes a structure that rightly prioritizes civil rights and conscience and religious freedom alongside health information privacy and security”...

The new structure will improve OCR’s effectiveness and efficiency to advance the protection of conscience rights, address race-based discrimination in a color-blind manner, eradicate antisemitism and anti-Christian bias, and restore biological truth....

 More information about the reorganization will be published through a Federal Register notice next month....

Bloomberg Law reports on the reorganization. 

President's Task Force on Anti-Christian Bias Issues Report

Yesterday, the President's Task Force to Eradicate anti-Christian Bias issued a report (full text) titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government. The 197-page Report (with an additional 368 pages of Exhibits) focuses on policies of the Biden Administration, and concludes in part:

The Task Force found that, in its zealous pursuit of its preferred policies and constituents, the Biden Administration engaged in anti-Christian bias, seeking to limit Christians’ ability to act in concert with their sincerely held beliefs in their homes, in the workplace, and in the public square. At times, it went still further, leading Christians to reportedly choose between their beliefs and compliance with federal law. And, most troublingly, the Biden Administration is alleged to have prosecuted and jailed peaceful Christian pro-life demonstrators, terminated or harassed Christian workers who did not comply with the vaccine mandates, targeted Christian organizations with IRS inquiries, and subjected Christian schools to excessive fines. Taken together, the findings presented by the Task Force raise serious concerns about whether certain Biden-era policies and practices were administered in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable federal law. These concerns implicate core American commitments—religious liberty, equal treatment, and the rule of law—that protect all Americans of faith and conscience....

Our Nation’s forefathers recognized that our most essential rights are given to us by God and are not bestowed by civil government. By design, the Constitution and federal law limit the government’s reach into speech and religion to protect those inalienable rights from the vicissitudes of politics and changing times. Americans have been promised freedom of religion, not just in the privacy of their homes and four walls of their churches, but to daily walk in accordance with their religious teachings and conscience in the public square.

The National Catholic Register summarizes the Report.  The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release strongly criticizing the Report.

European Court Says German Catholic Organization Cannot Dismiss Employee Who Left the Church

In Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung, (CJ EU, March 17, 2026), in a referral from the Federal Labor Court (Germany), the Court of Justice of the European Union, interpreted Council Directive 2000/78 that, among other things, bans employment discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. The Court said in part:

2.  The request [for a Preliminary Ruling] has been made in proceedings between the Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung (a Catholic association counselling on pregnancy, Germany) ... and JB concerning the legality of the dismissal of the latter on the grounds of an alleged infringement of the duty to act in good faith and with loyalty to the Association’s ethos....

24. JB, who is the mother of five children, entered the service of the Association in 2006. Until her parental leave, which began on 11 June 2013 and which ended on 31 May 2019, she was entrusted with pregnancy counselling. In October 2013, JB, under the procedure provided for by the national provisions, declared before the competent local authority that she was leaving the Catholic Church. The grounds she stated for leaving the Catholic Church were that the Diocese of Limburg levied, in addition to the State church tax, an additional church levy on Catholic persons who, like JB, are in an interfaith marriage with a high-earning spouse.

25      After unsuccessfully attempting to persuade JB to rejoin the Catholic Church, the Association, on 1 June 2019, dismissed JB on the grounds that she had left that church.... [I]n the pregnancy counselling service in which JB was working the Association employed four employees who were members of the Catholic Church and two employees who were not members of that church....

... [T]he Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/78 ... must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a private organisation the ethos of which is based on a religion may require of an employee who is a member of a certain church practising that religion not to leave that church during the employment relationship, on pain of dismissal or, in order to continue the employment relationship, to rejoin that church after leaving it, even though--  that organisation employs other persons to carry out the same duties as those of the employee in question, without requiring that those persons be members of that church, and  –  that employee does not openly act in a manner that is antagonistic to the church concerned, where ... those occupational requirements are not genuine, legitimate and justified having regard to that organisation’s ethos.

The July 2025 Opinion of the Advocate General, the Court's Press Release on the case, and the Court's explanatory video on the case are available from the Court's website.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Indiana Governor Signs Law Barring State Religious Discrimination in Adoption or Foster Care

On February 26, Indiana Governor Mike Bruan signed House Enrolled Act 1389 (full text) which prohibits governmental discrimination in adoption and foster care matters. It provides that a governmental entity may not discriminate against a person who provides, or declines to provide, foster care or parenting of an adoptive child consistent with that person's sincerely held religious belief, unless required to advance a compelling governmental interest. It similarly protects religious organizations involved in adoption or foster care from governmental discrimination. In making placements, however, it does allow consideration of whether an adopting or fostering family shares the same religious or faith tradition as the child or the child's parents.

Daily Citizen reporting on the new law says it is particularly aimed at policies requiring foster and adoptive parents to affirm a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity in order to be approved.

DOJ Sues UCLA Under Title VII Alleging Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias

The Justice Department Civil Rights Division this week filed suit against the University of California alleging that UCLA violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli employees from antisemitic and anti-Israel harassment and violence. The 81-page complaint (full text) in United States v. Regents of the University of California, (CD CA, filed 2/24/2026), alleges in part:

Swastikas, calls for the extermination of Jews and the Jewish state of Israel, antisemitic violence, and open harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff: this was the grim scene at the University of California Los Angeles ... beginning in the 2023 to 2024 academic year. Following the October 7, 2023 ... massacre in Israel, UCLA’s administration turned a blind eye to—and at times facilitated—grossly antisemitic acts and systematically ignored cries for help from its own terrified Jewish and Israeli employees. Activists at the now infamous encampment at Royce Hall physically excluded Jewish students, faculty, and staff from portions of campus.... UCLA is currently under a permanent injunction banning it and its officers from allowing further exclusions of Jews or religious supporters of Israel from campus or activities. That prior action generally sought to protect the Jewish students at UCLA. But the harm to Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA goes much deeper. The general atmosphere of antisemitism was, and remains, so severe and pervasive that UCLA’s own official Task Force on Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias concluded that the University’s failures to protect Jewish staff and faculty constituted a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.... This suit seeks to right these wrongs.

Until the United States Department of Justice issued its notice of investigation letter to UCLA in March 2025, not a single one of the dozens of civil rights complaints filed by Jewish and Israeli employees since October 7 was properly investigated. UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI Office) ... routinely ignored complaints of antisemitism. And UCLA continues to mishandle them....

Moreover, UCLA’s flawed Anti-Discrimination Policy was poorly designed and maintained, making it difficult for victims to report hostile work environment claims. UCLA faculty, staff, and administrators were untrained on the University policy and routinely failed to report antisemitism. The most sophisticated faculty and staff, including members of UCLA leadership, were puzzled by the confusing and ineffective complaint procedures, leaving Jewish and Israeli employees with nowhere to turn. They got UCLA’s message that filing an antisemitism complaint was futile....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Church Autonomy Doctrine Allows Churches to Hire Only Co-Religionists Even for Non-Ministerial Positions

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Brown, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's Law Against Discrimination against a Christian ministry that gives hiring preference to co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. The court said in part:

The freedom of religious institutions to establish their own doctrine and faith is so fundamental that they may categorically hire and fire their ministers without regard to anti-discrimination laws—even if the termination is for non-religious reasons.  Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions.  

But the church autonomy doctrine is not so narrowly drawn.  The First Amendment may also shield religious institutions’ hiring of non-ministerial employees when it involves matters of faith and doctrine.  For example, a religious institution may decide that its religious mission is best served by hiring only employees who adhere to and follow its religious beliefs—even for those not acting in ministerial roles. The religious institution may also believe that it can more effectively promote its view of moral and spiritual well-being if its own employees do not lead lives contrary to the institution’s teachings....

But unlike with the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine only protects Union Gospel’s non-ministerial hiring decisions based on religious beliefs.  So Union Gospel cannot discriminate on any other ground.  And our decision is limited to religious organizations like Union Gospel.  We do not consider the scope of the doctrine on other types of entities run by religious institutions, such as businesses or hospitals....

Yakima Herald Republic reports on the decision. 

Cert. Filed In Case Challenging Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for State Grant Program

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Youth 71FiveMinistries v. Williams, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 1/5/2026). In the case (full text of appeals court opinion), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule of the Oregon Department of Education barring religious discrimination by grantees in selecting employees insofar as it applies to grant-funded programs, but not as it applies to petitioner's selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through programs that are not funded by state grants. The certiorari petition defines the questions presented by the appeal as:

1. Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional right, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed, as the Ninth Circuit held here. 

2. Whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review. 

DOJ Seeks to Intervene in Suit Over Christian Males' Reaction to Transgender Use of Boy's Locker Room

The Justice Department this week filed a Motion to Intervene and a Memorandum In Support of its motion in S.W. v. Loudoun County School Board, (ED VA, filed 12/8/2025). DOJ alleges that a Loudoun County high school discriminated against two male Christian students in disciplining them for their reaction to the presence of a transgender male in the boy's locker room.

In an Announcement of its action, DOJ said in part:

Policy 8040 requires all students, regardless of their religious beliefs, to adopt the Loudoun County School Board’s understanding of “gender identity” — including its practical application that affects all students’ use of intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and changing facilities. At Stone Bridge High School, a female student took advantage of this policy, entered the boys’ locker room, and recorded audio and video of the boys in that locker room. Several boys spoke out about this incident, including two Christian, male students whose religious beliefs require them to use biologically accurate pronouns and use sex-segregated facilities.

Loudoun County determined that these Christian, male students’ religious practice violated school policy, recasting constitutionally protected activity as “sex-based discrimination” and “sexual harassment.” ...

(See prior related posting.) Northern Virginia reports on DOJ's action.

No Religious Discrimination Shown in Enforcement of Septic Tank Code

In Schoff v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, (IL App., Dec. 4, 2025), an Illinois state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Human Rights Commission to dismiss religious discrimination claims brought by property owners who were cited by the Village of South Barrington for violating its septic tank code. The court concluded that the property owners had failed to produce substantial evidence to sustain any of their claims. According to the court:

In 1985, the property at issue, a single-family residence, was built with 5 bedrooms and two 1,500-gallon septic tanks in the Village, resulting in a 3,000-gallon septic capacity. At some point prior to 2014, the property owner added two unpermitted bedrooms to the residence, bringing the total number of bedrooms to seven. In 2014, the Schoffs, who are Episcopalian Christians, bought the property. Due to their faith, the Schoffs believed they were called to provide short-term housing to people in need, specifically asylum seekers, missionaries and refugees. The Schoffs’ beliefs led them to house, at various times, predominantly Black individuals from Africa, but also occasionally Chinese, Japanese, Colombian and white individuals. 

The Schoffs were granted a religious accommodation from a municipal ban on short term rentals but were cited for violation of the septic tank code that required a minimum tank capacity of 3,500 gallons for a 7-bedroom home. The court said in part:

The Schoffs alleged that the Village’s prosecution of the septic code violations against them amounted to harassment, interfered with their religious beliefs, and interfered with their association with Black and African asylum seekers and missionaries. The Schoffs asserted that the Village’s interpretation of its septic code was unreasonable and the Village engaged in selective enforcement of it....

... [T]he Schoffs posit that, when an ordinance contains a variance procedure and the government refuses to grant a variance based upon an applicant’s need to use a property for religious observance and practice, an inference of religious practice discrimination exists....

All the Schoffs can do with the fact that the Village denied them a variance is speculate that the denial had a discriminatory intent. But speculation cannot create substantial evidence....  Consequently, the Commission properly found that the Schoffs failed to make a prima facie showing on Count F, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the Department’s dismissal on Count F for lack of substantial evidence....

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.

New Executive Order on Foster Care System Includes Focus on Religious Concerns

President Trump yesterday issued an Executive Order titled "Fostering the Future for American Children" (full text). The Executive Order is designed to modernize the foster care system and support those transitioning out of the system. The Executive Order. reads in part: 

Sec. 1 ...Some jurisdictions and organizations maintain policies that discourage or prohibit qualified families from serving children in need as foster and adoptive parents because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs or adherence to basic biological truths....

 Sec. 4.  Maximizing Partnerships with Americans of Faith. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Director of the White House Faith Office and the Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, shall:

     (a)  take appropriate action to address State and local policies and practices that inappropriately prohibit participation in federally-funded child-welfare programs by qualified individuals or organizations based upon their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions; and

     (b)  take appropriate action to increase partnerships between agencies and faith-based organizations and houses of worship to serve families whose children have been placed in foster care or are at risk of being placed in foster care.

Scripps News reports on the Executive Order.

Broad Religious Statements Did Not Support Title VII Discrimination Claim

 In Castaneda v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, (ED CA, Oct. 28, 2025), a DMV employee brought several federal and state claims challenging her firing. She had raised religious objections to the Covid vaccine and also objected to the alternative of testing by DMV's third-party contractor instead of her own doctor. Dismissing, with leave to amend, plaintiff's Title VII religious discrimination claim, a California federal magistrate judge said in part:

... Plaintiff does not explain the religious basis for her objection to the vaccine, beyond saying that “her body is sacred and God-given” and she cannot be compelled to have her DNA “harvested” and “tested on” because it is “the code of life given by God.”... The Ninth Circuit recently held that “[i]nvocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction” for purposes of a discrimination claim....  To allow Plaintiff’s claim simply because she invokes the concepts of bodily autonomy and God in the same sentence “would destroy the pleading standard for religious discrimination claims, allowing complainants to invoke magic words and survive a dismissal without stating a prima facie case.” ... 

Wisconsin Argues for Eliminating Religious Nonprofit Exemption from Unemployment Tax

 As previously reported, in June in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court, held that Wisconsin engaged in unconstitutional theological discrimination when its Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities Bureau does not qualify for the exemption from unemployment compensation tax that is granted by state statute to nonprofits "operated primarily for religious purposes."  The Court remanded the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for it to issue a remedial order.  In a Remedial Brief (full text) filed on October 20 in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state argued that the unconstitutional discrimination can be remedied by either expanding the exemption to cover organizations like Catholic Charities, or by eliminating the exemption for all religious organizations. The brief argues in part:

Two sources indicate a strong legislative preference for restoring equal treatment by eliminating this discriminatory exemption. First, the Legislature prefers that courts sever invalid statutory provisions, a presumption that applies here given how the unemployment insurance system would function just as well without this exemption. Second, striking the exemption would better advance the Legislature’s express desire for broad unemployment insurance coverage.

Also on October 20, Catholic Charities filed a Supplemental Brief (full text) arguing that:

Wisconsin’s immodest proposal is wrong for at least ten reasons, each of which separately requires the Court to extend the religious exemption to Catholic Charities....

... Catholic Charities did not bring an Equal Protection Clause case, it brought a Religion Clauses case. Catholic Charities’ injury is not mere unequal treatment; it is having to pay a tax despite a statutory entitlement to an exemption from that tax. Indeed, Catholic Charities has sought its own relief from the tax—not to force other groups to pay the tax, too....

Nullifying the Legislature’s religious purposes exemption would create a church autonomy violation by dividing Catholic Charities from the Diocese of Superior....

 Christian Post reports on these developments.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Claim Rutgers Engaged in Anti-Hindu Discrimination

In Bagal v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, (D NJ, Oct. 14, 2025), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit claiming the university, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, Title VI and New Jersey law, discriminated against plaintiff because of his Hindu religious beliefs. At issue is a Task Force Report recommending that the University add "caste" as a protected category in its antidiscrimination policy. The University rejected the recommendation, saying that its current policy is broad enough to protect against caste discrimination. Plaintiff claimed that the chair of the Task Force had a history of discriminatory animus toward the Hindu religion. The court said in part:

Defendants argue that Plaintiff alleges two distinct injuries...: (1) Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff for his religious beliefs because the Report connects an oppressive caste system with Hinduism; and (2) Plaintiff has refrained from engaging in certain religious activities and from discussing his religious beliefs in class....  Defendants argue that Plaintiff was only a remote participant in an online certificate program, so he has not suffered any concrete injury as a result of the Report’s publication, and that Plaintiff’s allegations of harm to other Hindu students at Rutgers is improper.... 

Here, Plaintiff has not pled facts to demonstrate how the Report—which cannot be and will not be enforced—is burdening Plaintiff’s ability to exercise his religious rights.  The Report was a non-binding recommendation that carries with it no disciplinary weight.  And Rutgers expressly declined to include the term “caste” in its Policy, so the complained of governmental action apparently burdening Plaintiff’s religious activities does not exist.  Stated differently, Plaintiff’s self-censorship is based on “hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”...

Plaintiff cannot manufacture standing by alleging a stigmatic injury, when that alleged stigmatic harm is not objectively reasonable based on the allegations...Simply being offended by the Report and Truschke’s alleged statements connecting Hinduism to the caste system are insufficient, without more, to confer Plaintiff with standing to bring his Establishment Clause claim....

Canceling Concert Because of Reaction to Jewish Musician's Pro-Israel Posting Is Not Religious Discrimination

In Pauker v. Heart Consciousness Church, Inc., (ND CA, Oct. 9, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed religious and racial discrimination claims brought by a Jewish musician against a concert venue that cancelled his Hanukkah concert because of negative community reaction to the musician's Facebook post in support of Israel. The court said in part:

All of Pauker’s claims require at least racial or religious discrimination to be actionable.  But the allegations in Pauker’s complaint fail to raise a reasonable inference of such discrimination.  To the contrary, the complaint offers an alternative basis for Harbin’s decision to cancel Pauker’s performance:  a severe, negative community reaction.  For that reason, among others, Pauker fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.....

The parties differ on whether Pauker’s Facebook post implicates his religion or race.  Pauker centers his allegations on his Zionist beliefs—insisting that Zionism is a proxy for Judaism or Jewish racial identity....  Heart rejects this argument, contending that Zionism is purely political....  The Court notes that the relationship between Zionism and Judaism is “hotly disputed.”...  But parsing this issue is ultimately unnecessary because Heart is correct that Pauker fails to allege Harbin targeted him because he is Jewish....  

... Pauker alleges that Harbin reiterated it was “canceling the event due to community complaints about” Pauker’s Zionism, particularly his Facebook post.... Harbin conveyed that the backlash to Pauker was widespread and came from “community members, including performers and presenters.”...Pauker does not allege that Harbin’s stated reasoning was pretextual or that Harbin commented critically on his beliefs or Jewish faith.

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

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.