Indiana and Tennessee Declare June as Nuclear Family Month

On June 1, the beginning of Pride Month, Indiana Governor Mike Braun issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring June 2026 as Nuclear Family Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

The nuclear family, consisting of one husband, one wife, and any biological, adopted or fostered children, is God's design for the family structure and has been the foundation of society since the creation of the world....

This follows similar action on April 9 by Tennessee Governor Bill Lee who signed House Joint Resolution 182 (full text) containing similar language and also declaring June as Nuclear Family month.

Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on these developments.

Tennessee Enacts Women's Safety and Protection Act

On May 22, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed SB0468, the Women's Safety and Protection Act (full text). The new law defines the terms "male" and "female" for purposes of any state law or administrative rule in terms of a person's biological reproductive system. It defines the term "sex" as an individual's biological sex as observed or clinically verified at birth. The law goes on to require public schools, domestic violence shelters, correctional facilities and juvenile detention facilities to designate each multi-occupancy restroom, changing room, and sleeping quarters for the exclusive use of either females, males, or members of the same family. With limited exceptions, it prohibits individuals from entering facilities designated for the opposite sex. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Challenge To Tennessee's Requirement That Charter Schools Be Non-Sectarian Moves Ahead

Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville v. Knox County Board of Education, (ED TN, May 22, 2026), is the latest court challenge to state laws that require publicly funded charter schools to be nonsectarian and nonreligious. Plaintiff seeks to open a Christian charter school. However, its letter of intent submitted to the Knox County Board of Education was rejected because the school could not affirm that it was not a "religious or church school". Wilberforce did not proceed to the next step of submitting an application because the application required a similar representation. Instead, it filed suit in federal district court contending that the nonsectarian requirement violates the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. The defendants moved to dismiss on standing and mootness grounds because Wilberforce had never filed an application to create the school. The court refused to dismiss, saying in part:

... Wilberforce was effectively presented with only two options: either falsely disclaim its religious status or continue submitting materials that KCBOE had already indicated would be deemed incomplete. Under these circumstances, requiring Wilberforce to proceed further in the application process would elevate form over substance....

... Although it is true that KCBOE may lack discretion to approve a religious charter school, it still may be held responsible for an alleged unconstitutional law it enforces....

Wilberforce has demonstrated a concrete interest in being able to apply and to compete on equal footing with secular organizations to become a charter school in Tennessee. Although it is true that it may not be able to open a charter school during the 2027-2028 school year, Wilberforce has alleged and shown that it is “able and ready” to apply to for charter-school status “for the earliest school year it could open.”...

Accordingly, Wilberforce’s claim presents a live case or controversy that is not moot.

Former Charismatic Religious Leader Sued for Sexual Exploitation

At the end of last month, three women filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court against the former religious leader of Global Outreach Developments International, also known as G.O.D. International. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe I v. Garner, (MD TN, filed 2/27/2026) alleges in part:

Between 2022 to 2025, Gregg Garner, the charismatic leader of G.O.D. International, sexually abused and assaulted multiple women who were members of G.O.D., coercing his victims to participate in numerous sex acts, including sexual intercourse. Garner also coerced his victims through the threat of serious harm into providing unpaid labor and services. Garner exploited his position of trust as the spiritual leader of G.O.D., using the tools of cult indoctrination, such as food and sleep deprivation, social isolation, and extreme emotional abuse, to further his psychological control of his victims. Garner controlled every aspect of his victims’ lives, including their schooling, their employment, their spouse’s employment, their housing, even the schooling of their children, and used this control to reward compliance with his abusive scheme and to ensure his victims’ silence. While Garner preached a message of sexual purity, his victims endured his acts of sexual prurience for years, terrified that any resistance would tear apart their lives.

Entities controlled by Garner as well as church leaders are also named as defendants.

Ministry Watch reports on the lawsuit.

Muslim Group Sues Over Denial of Zoning Permit for Mosque

Suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the denial of a special use permit to a Muslim religious organization that wished to build a mosque on land that it owns. The complaint (full text) in Bartlett Muslim Society v. City of Bartlett, Tennessee, (W TN, filed 7/25/2025),

3. After the Plaintiff complied with these extensive, expensive procedural requirements—and despite City staff’s recommendation of approval—the City denied the Plaintiff’s Special Use Permit application based on arbitrary, predetermined reasons and religious animus. 

4. The City has approved similarly situated churches ... for a Special Use Permit under comparable or less favorable circumstances. 

5. In denying the Plaintiff’s Special Use Permit application, the City has imposed a substantial burden on the Plaintiff’s religious exercise, treated it unequally, and discriminated against it based on religion.... 

7. Accordingly, the Plaintiff files this civil-rights action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-407.

Tennessee ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tennessee Law Barring Recruitment of Minor to Obtain an Abortion Is Unconstitutional

In Welty v. Dunaway, (MD TN, July 18, 2025), a Tennessee federal district court enjoined enforcement of a Tennessee statute that prohibits "recruiting" an unemancipated minor to obtain an out-of-state abortion that is legal where performed. The court said in part:

... [P]laintiffs have established that §39-15-201(a) unconstitutionally regulates speech based on content and is facially overbroad.

Axios reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors

In United States v. Skrmetti,(Sup.Ct., June 18, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 6-3 upheld Tennessee's law that bars both hormonal and surgical gender transition procedures for minors. The case generated 5 separate opinions spanning 118 pages. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion held that the Tennessee law does not trigger heightened scrutiny. He said in part:

This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status. As we have explained, SB1 includes only two classifications: healthcare providers may not administer puberty blockers or hormones to minors (a classification based on age) to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence (a classification based on medical use). The plaintiffs do not argue that the first classification turns on transgender status, and our case law forecloses any such argument as to the second....

... [T]here is a rational basis for SB1’s classifications. Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence. SB1’s ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty....

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying in part: 

This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct.

Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here. Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children’s gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. They have dismissed grave problems undercutting the assumption that young children can consent to irreversible treatments that may deprive them of their ability to eventually produce children of their own. They have built their medical determinations on concededly weak evidence. And, they have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends.

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Because the Court concludes that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status, it does not resolve whether transgender status constitutes a suspect class.... I write separately to explain why, in myview, it does not....

Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys’ and girls’ sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of “closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices” in all these domains....

Justice Alito filed an opi nion concurring in part, saying in part:

I do notjoin Part II–A–2 of the opinion of the Court, which concludes that SB1 does not classify on the basis of “transgender status.” There is a strong argument that SB1does classify on that ground, but I find it unnecessary to decide that question. I would assume for the sake of argument that the law classifies based on transgender status, but I would nevertheless sustain the law because such a classification does not warrant heightened scrutiny. I also do not join Part II–A–3 of the Court’s opinion because I do not believe that the reasoning employed in Bostock v. Clayton County ... is applicable when determining whether a law classifies based on sex for Equal Protection Clause purposes.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Jackson and joined in part by Justice Kagan, saying in part:

Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” might justify it... Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims....

Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I take no view on how SB1 would fare under heightened scrutiny.... So I would both start and stop at the question of what test SB1 must satisfy. As JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR shows, it is heightened scrutiny...

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Jury Must Decide Reason for Evangelists' Exclusion from Pride Event

In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, June 3, 2025), in an opinion covering three consolidated cases, a Tennessee federal district court held that because disputed questions of fact remain, the cases must go to trial rather than the court issuing summary judgment for either side.  At issue are claims by five Christian evangelists that they were wrongly removed, asked to leave or denied entrance to the 2023 Franklin Pride Festival in violation of their 1st Amendment free speech rights. Those who entered the Festival particularly spoke with representatives of churches that supported LGBTQ+ rights. The court concluded that plaintiffs were engaged in protected speech that did not constitute "fighting words" and that they were not attempting to make their views part of the Festival's message. The court also concluded that the city park remained a quintessential public forum even though the city had issued it a permit to use the park for the Pride Festival. The court then concluded:

... [T]here is a genuine dispute of fact on the rationale for the City and Officer Spry restricting Plaintiffs’ speech that precludes a finding of summary judgment in any party’s favor.... [A]lthough there is evidence in the record suggesting that the City and Officer Spry restricted Plaintiffs’ speech on account of the Franklin Pride staffers’ disagreement with their religious messages, Defendants present conflicting evidence that they restricted Plaintiffs’ speech based on Franklin Pride’s request that they do so to maintain their use of their permit, prevent Plaintiffs’ disruptive behavior, and enforce Franklin Pride’s ban on distributing outside materials. Any one of these content-neutral reasons for curbing Plaintiffs’ speech ... would satisfy the applicable standard.... Given this critical material dispute of fact in the record, the Court finds that the question of what motivated Plaintiffs’ exclusion from the Park must be decided by a jury.  Accordingly, both Plaintiffs’ and the City’s motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims must be denied on this ground.

Tennessee Enacts Conscience Protections for Health Care Providers

On April 24, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed the Medical Ethics Defense Act, SB 955 (full text). The new law provides in part:

A healthcare provider must not be required to participate in or pay for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service that violates the conscience of the healthcare provider....

[However, this] Does not permit a healthcare payer to decline payment for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service it is contractually obligated to pay for under the terms of a contract with an insured party. 

 Any political subdivision ... shall not reprimand or sanction a healthcare provider, nor deny or revoke, or threaten to deny or revoke, a license, certification, or registration of a healthcare provider for engaging in speech, expression, or association that is protected from government interference by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, unless the political subdivision demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the healthcare provider's speech, expression, or association was the direct cause of physical harm to a person with whom the healthcare provider had a practitioner-patient relationship within the three (3) years immediately preceding the incident of physical harm.

WBIR News reports on the new law.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply To Pastor's Defamation Suit

In Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention, (TN App., Jan. 8. 2025), a Tennessee state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply to a defamation suit brought by a Baptist pastor against the Southern Baptist Convention and various of its officials and staff. At issue are oral conversations and a letter from an SBC staff member suggesting that allegations of sexual misconduct had been made against Preston Garner, a pastor at Everett Hills Baptist Church. The court said in part:

The conduct at issue is the Appellants’ purported publication of written and oral statements that Mr. Garner was “an individual with an alleged history of abuse” and that the allegation was credible, while failing to also state that “the allegation[ was] made through an anonymous online portal” and that the Appellants “had not made any inquiry into the veracity of the anonymous report, or that no evidence supported the anonymous report.”  ... [T]he Appellants in this case have not raised any argument that their conduct resulted from the application or interpretation of any religious canon.  Moreover, any argument by the Appellants that the Letter was sent as part of a pastoral disciplinary process is undercut by the concession of the SBC and the Credentials Committee that “[t]he Credentials Committee does not ‘investigate what occurred or judge the culpability of an accused individual,’ but rather only reviews ‘how the SBC church responded to sexual abuse allegations and make[s] recommendations as to whether those actions or inactions are consistent with the SBC’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse.’”

... [C]onsidering the Garners’ claims will not require the trial court to resolve any religious disputes or to rely on religious doctrine. 

The court also concluded that the Tennessee Public Participation Act applies to the lawsuit, but that plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof needed to avoid early dismissal of the case.

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on DOE's Interpretation of Title IX to Include Gender Identity Discrimination

Yesterday the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in State of Tennessee v. Cardona. In the case, a Kentucky federal district court barred enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia of the Department of Education's rules that interpret Title IX's ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Bloomberg Law reports on the oral arguments.

Court Enjoins Disciplining of Doctors Performing Certain Abortions in Tennessee

In Blackmon v. State of Tennessee, (TN Chanc. Ct., Oct. 17, 2024), a Tennessee state Chancery Court issued a temporary injunction barring the state from instituting disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff physicians for performing abortions in any of four specified medical situations. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenges under the right to life, liberty or property and the equal protection clauses of the state constitution and in their vagueness challenge. The court said in part:

The question remains ... whether the Medical Necessity Exception, as currently written, serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.  Given the range of interpretations proffered through the expert declarations ..., the Court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear, notwithstanding the “reasonable medical judgment’ of the physician standard set forth in the Exception.  This lack of clarity is evidenced by the confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care.  The evidence presented underscores how serious, difficult, and complex these issues are and raises significant questions as to whether the Medical Necessity Exception is sufficiently narrow to serve a compelling state interest....

Plaintiff Patients, as pregnant women, claim they are similarly situated to non-pregnant women who seek and are in need of emergency medical care.  Yet because of the criminal abortion statute, pregnant women are treated differently than non-pregnant women because their access to emergency medical care is restricted....

While the court enjoined disciplinary proceedings, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the state's criminal abortion statute. The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Tennesse County Sued by Woman Who Was Required to Remove Hijab for Booking Photo

Suit was filed this week in a Tennessee federal district court by a Muslim woman who was required by Knox County, Tennessee Sheriff's Office employees to remove her hijab for a booking photo. Plaintiff was arrested along with others who were participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration on the University of Tennessee campus. The photo was subsequently posted on the Sheriff Office's public website in violation of Sheriff's Office policy. The complaint (full text) in Solliz v. Knox County, Tennessee, (ED TN, filed 10/7/2024), alleges in part:

The Defendants’ mistreatment of Mrs. Soliz and their disrespect for her religious rights has scarred her.  The Defendants’ misbehavior was also illegal.  The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ... and... Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act—flatly prohibited the Defendants from burdening Mrs. Soliz’s free exercise of her religion in the manner they did.

Longview News-Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in United States v. Skrmetti, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 23-477, certiorari granted 6/24/2024). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, reversed a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The majority rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the state law. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

6 More States Fend Off Enforcement of Title IX Transgender Discrimination Rules

Four days after a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new sex-discrimination rules under Title IX against Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho (see prior posting), a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion barring enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which were plaintiffs in the case. DOE's new rules interpret the Title IX ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Intervenors in the Kentucky case are an organization of Christian educators and a cisgender high school girl who objects to a transgender female who was on her Middle School track team. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, June 17, 2024), the court in a 93-page opinion said in part:

The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended....

For purposes of Title IX, “sex” is unambiguous.  Therefore, there is no “implicit delegation from Congress” to the Department to change or expand its meaning.... But even if the word were ambiguous, there would be significant reason for pause before assuming that Congress “had intended such an implicit  delegation.”...  Education is one of the most important functions of state and local governments and is an area where states “historically have been sovereign.” ...  Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress would have intended to delegate the authority to deviate from Title IX’s original purpose “in so cryptic a fashion.”...

The major questions doctrine assumes that Congress speaks clearly when it delegates to an agency the authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.”...

The court also concluded that the new rules violate teachers' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [P]rivate and public institutions, as well as the students, faculty, and staff therein, will be forced to convey a particular message that may contradict moral or religious values....  For example, the Final Rule’s definition of harassment will likely compel “students and teachers to use ‘preferred’ rather than accurate pronouns.” ...

It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX....

The court also focused on parental rights and privacy rights, saying in part:

Although the Final Rule gestures at retaining a certain role for parents, it does not provide that parental opposition to their child’s selective gender identity requires schools to exempt that student from Title IX’s new mandate.  To the contrary, it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.

... [D]espite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity.  This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Tennessee Passes Law Banning Religious and Ideological Discrimination by Banks and Insurance Companies

The Tennessee legislature this week gave final approval to HB 2100 (full text) which prohibits banks and insurance companies from denying or cancelling services based on a customer's religious beliefs, practices or affiliations or the customer's political opinions, speech or affiliations. The bill also bans financial institutions and insurance companies from discriminating against customers based on a number of other factors such as firearm ownership, failure to meet environmental standards, or support of the government in combatting illegal immigration, drug trafficking or human trafficking. However, the bill permits financial institutions or insurance companies that claim a religious purpose to provide or deny service based on a customer's religious beliefs, exercise, or affiliation. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. ADF issued a press release on the passage of the legislation.

Satanic Temple Sues School Board Over Discriminatory Rental Fees for Satan Club

The Satanic Temple filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court complaining that the Memphis-Shelby County School Board is placing hurdles in the way of its renting space for use by an After-School Satan Club. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Shelby County Board of Education, (WD TN, filed 3/19/2024), alleges in part:

160. ... MSCS has demonstrated a widespread custom and practice of unnecessarily delaying approval or denial of the Satanic Temple’s rental applications....

169. ... MSCS is unconstitutionally discriminating against the Satanic Temple on the basis of its disfavored viewpoint and the content of its speech by charging the Temple a discriminatory hourly rental rate for its monthly ASSC meetings and ... an arbitrary and exorbitant security fee while not charging the same rates or security fees to the Good News Club....

170. ... MSCS’s discriminatory actions are ... arising from disagreement with, and hostility toward, the viewpoint and/or content of the Satanic Temple’s speech, as well as hostility towards the Satanic Temple’s religion by school board members, MSCS administrators, MSCS officials, community members and others....

196. The Satanic Temple’s before- and-after school clubs are a vital part of its religiously motivated mission to provide a safe, inclusive, and welcoming club for students whose parents are members of the Satanic Temple, as well as other students who may not feel welcomed or comfortable at other available before- or after-school religious clubs.

197. MSCS’s widespread custom and practice of discriminating against the Satanic Temple and attempting to constructively block and deter the ASSC from meeting ... substantially burdens the Satanic Temple’s exercise of its sincerely held non-theistic religious belief.

Freedom From Religion foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tennessee Legislature Passes Healthcare Sharing Ministries Exemption

Yesterday the Tennessee legislature took the final procedural steps needed to send HB 1163, Healthcare Sharing Ministries Freedom to Share Act (full text) to the Governor for his signature. It exempts from state insurance regulation tax-exempt plans under which members who share a common religious or ethical belief provide for the medical or financial needs of other members through their financial contributions.

Tennessee Governor Signs Law Allowing Potential Officiants to Refuse to Solemnize a Marriage

Yesterday, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law HB 878 (full text) which adds to the Tennessee Code section which lists who may solemnize marriages (clergy as well as various current and former public officials) language that provides:

 A person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.

As originally introduced, the bill would have allowed refusals only by those who had objections based on conscience or religious belief.  CNN reporting on the bill notes that LGBTQ advocates criticized the bill for allowing public officials to discriminate based on their personal beliefs.

County Revises Policy on Religious Head Coverings in Booking Photos in Settlement of Suit by Muslim Woman

In a Settlement Agreement (full text) in Johnston v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, (MD TN, 1/18/2024), the county has agreed to pay $100,000 in damages to a Muslim woman who authorities required to remove her hijab for a booking photo. Sophia Johnston was stopped by police for having a taillight out and was arrested when it turned out she had a 6-year-old outstanding warrant for failing to appear on charges of driving with a suspended license. (Background.) In the Settlement Agreement, the county also agreed to delete from its records photos and video of Johnston without her hijab. Johnston will have a booking photo wearing her hijab retaken. Under the Agreement, the county has also adopted a new policy on Religious Accommodations for Head Coverings During Booking Process (full text) and has updated its Detention Center Protocols (full text) to allow booking photos to be taken with religious head coverings so long as the head covering is first removed for a search.  WZTV News reports on the settlement.