Certiorari Denied in Chabad's Suit Against the Russian Federation

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-909, certiorari denied 1/20/2026) (Order List). The case is part of the long-running attempt by Chasidei Chabad of the United States to force Russia to return two collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts which it expropriated decades ago. In 2010, Chabad obtained a default judgment against the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) In 2013, the D.C. federal district court held the Russian Federation in contempt for failing to comply with the order to return the books and imposed $50,000 per day sanctions on the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) Those sanctions have now accrued to over $175 million. Most recently, Chabad has attempted to collect these amounts by attaching the property of three companies it claims are owned and controlled by the Russian Federation. In a 2024 opinion (full text), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Russian Federation had sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that the default judgment entered in 2010 was invalid. Without a valid judgement, according to the D.C. Circuit "there is no predicate for Chabad to attach the property of companies the Federation allegedly owns and controls." It is this decision that the Supreme Court today refused to review.

This may not end the case, however, because the D.C. Circuit said that it was not reversing the district court's finding of jurisdiction over the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archive which currently hold the book collections. The D.C. Circuit also said that Chabad may be able to sue the Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications.

Parents Seek Emergency Order from SCOTUS Reinstating Trial Court's Voiding of School Policy on Disclosure of Students' Gender Transition

As previously reported, last December in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. On January 5, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction. Now plaintiffs in the case have filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to vacate the 9th Circuit's stay. (Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup.Ct., filed 1/8/2026). (Full text of 9th Circuit's stay order and Application to Supreme Court).

Education Week reports on these developments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow In Transgender Athlete Cases

Tomorrow (Tuesday), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving alleged illegal discrimination against transgender women athletes. At issue in Little v. Hecox is whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Act prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women's sports teams in public elementary schools, high schools and public colleges. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Idaho's ban. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the question is whether West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it does.  The law bans transgender girls and women from participating on girls'/ women's sports teams in public high schools or state colleges where team members are chosen on the basis of competitive skills or in contact sports. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

Audio of the oral arguments in the cases will be streamed live by the Court beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. Transcript and recording of the oral arguments will become available later in the day at this link.

Supreme Court Grants Review of Falun Gong Members' Suit Against U.S. Company for Aiding Chinese Surveillance

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-856. cert. granted 1/9/2026) (Order List.). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, held that Falun Gong victims of human rights abuses carried out by China can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity of Falun Gong members. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the questions of whether the Alien Tort Statute and/or the Torture Victim Protection Act allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

The SCOTUblog case page contains links to all the pleadings filed in the case. Reuters reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Review Sought In Church Autonomy Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/6/2026). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, held that the church autonomy doctrine bars civil courts from adjudicating tortious interference, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims by a Baptist minister who was fired from his position as Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/ Delaware. The certiorari petition frames the Question Presented as follows:

In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit held that the “church autonomy doctrine” provides a defendant “immunity” from claims by a plaintiff who never worked for the defendant, never served as a minister for the defendant, and never submitted to the authority of the defendant with respect to any ecclesiastical or secular matter.   

The Question Presented is:  Does the church autonomy doctrine apply to, and foreclose, civil law claims which are not disputes about the internal affairs or self-governance of a religious institution?

[Thanks to Scott Gant for the lead.]

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. 

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

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

Supreme Court Hears Street Preacher's Appeal Today

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in Olivier v. City of Brandon. In the case, at issue is whether a street preacher who was previously convicted of violating an ordinance barring protests outside a public amphitheater can sue to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, or whether allowing that would improperly undermine his prior conviction.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 AM, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Links to the transcript and audio of today's oral arguments are available from the Supreme Court's website here.  The Hill reports on the oral arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cert. Denied in Football Pre-Game Public Prayer Controversy

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, (Docket No. 24-1261, certiorari denied 11/17/2025). (Order List.). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise claims by a Christian school that was refused the use of a stadium's public address system for a pre-game prayer at the FHSAA state championship football game in which it was playing. The court held that pre-game PA announcements at state championship games are government speech and government control of its own speech does not violate rights of private individuals. (See prior posting.)

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Denies Review in Same-Sex Marriage Case

In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Davis v. Ermold, (Docket No. 25-125, certiorari denied 11/10/2025) (Order List.)  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $100,000 damage award to a same-sex couple who were refused a marriage license by Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. The certiorari petition asked the Court to decide whether she, as a public official, had a First Amendment free exercise defense to a claim for damages for emotional distress stemming from her refusal. More broadly, it asked the Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges which gave constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. AP reports on the court's action.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in RLUIPA Damages Case

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments this morning in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. At issue in the case is whether an action for damages lies under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in a suit against a prison official in his personal capacity. Plaintiff, a Rastafarian, had his dreadlocks forcibly shaved by prison guards.  The Supreme Court has previously held that a damage action under RFRA can be brought against federal prison personnel, but the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it would violate the Spending Clause to recognize a similar remedy under RLUIPA, which is a statute based on Congress' Spending Clause authority. Oral arguments can be heard live at 10:00 AM at this link. Links to all the briefs and pleadings in the case, as well as related material can be found on the SCOTUS blog case page for the case. A transcript and audio of the full oral arguments will be available later today on the Supreme Court's website here.

UPDATE: Heare are the links to the transcript and recording of oral arguments in the case. And SCOTUSblog has a review of the oral arguments.

Supreme Court: Trump Administration Rules on Passport Gender Markers Can Go into Effect While Appeals Move Forward

In Trump v. Orr, (Sup. Ct., Nov. 6, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote granted an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction that had been entered by a Massachusetts federal district court.  The district court had enjoined, pending appeal, enforcement of the Trump Administration's policy of requiring U.S. passports to display the sex assigned to the passport holder at birth rather than the sex marker that matches their current gender identity. The challenged policy was put in place in compliance with a 2025 Executive Order on ... "Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."   In staying the injunction, the Supreme Court's majority said in part:

Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

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

What the Government needs (and what it does not have) is an explanation for why it faces harm unless the President’s chosen policy is implemented now....

 ... [The government] provides no evidence of harmful confusion or other problems caused by transgender Americans who are using passports with sex markers corresponding to their current gender identity.  To the contrary, as the plaintiffs’ experiences demonstrate, it is gender-incongruent passports that cause confusion and fail to provide a meaningful basis for identification.

 As for the Government’s suggestion that the President is harmed by not being able to impose a uniform definition of sex across various regulatory schemes, that assertion is just another species of the far-fetched contention that the President must be injured whenever he is prevented from doing as he wishes....

Politico reports on the decision.

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.

Supreme Court Denies Review of School Policy on Hiding Students' Gender Dysphoria from Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, (Docket No. 25-89, certiorari denied (10/14/2025) (Order List). In the case, parents of two 6th graders sued a Colorado school district for damages after their children were invited by teachers to a Gender and Sexuality Alliance meeting. After the meeting, one of the students decided that she was transgender and the other started to suffer from suicidal ideations. The parents claimed that the school's policy of discouraging disclosure to parents of a child's transgender status violates parents' substantive due process rights. The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit because plaintiffs had not alleged the existence of a school policy that was the moving force behind their constitutional injury. Parents' petition for Supreme Court review framed the question presented as:

Whether a school district may discard the presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children and arrogate to itself the right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children

In denying certiorari, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, filed a concurring Statement, saying in part:

I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do not challenge the ground for the ruling below.  But I remain concerned that some federal courts are “tempt[ed]” to avoid confronting a “particularly contentious constitutional questio[n]”: whether a school district violates parents’ fundamental rights “when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process.”... Petitioners tell us that nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s gender identity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and influence on those choices.... The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the “great and growing national importance” of the question that these parent petitioners present....

CBS News reports on the Court's action

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Conversion Therapy Ban Case on Tuesday

Tomorrow (Oct. 7), the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.)  Only the free speech issue was raised in the petition for review by the Supreme Court. At issue tomorrow is whether the ban on talk therapy for minors aimed at changing their gay or transgender identity is fully protected speech. Or may that therapy be regulated as primarily professional conduct that the legislature deems to constitute substandard medical care.

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page that provides link to all the briefs and motions filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case. The oral arguments will be live streamed by the Court at this page beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Links to a recoding and written transcript of the arguments can be accessed here later in the day on Tuesday.

Supreme Court Review Sought by California Baker

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Miller v. Civil Rights Division, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 8/26/2025). In the case, a California state appellate court held that a bakery, Cathy's Creations, and its owner violated the anti-discrimination provisions of California law when they refused to sell a predesigned cake to a customer because the cake would be used at a same-sex wedding reception. The California court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses. (See prior posting.) The California Supreme Court denied review. Washington Times reports on the petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

Cert. Filed In Challenge to Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Kane v. City of New York. (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 7/21/2025). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of petitioners' applications for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff. (See prior posting.) The certiorari petition seeking Supreme Court review of the decision describes the question presented in part as follows:

After the pandemic, Respondents issued a vaccine mandate for public-education employees. It exempted “Christian Scientists” and others affiliated with “recognized” religions that “publicly” opposed vaccination. But it refused accommodation for anyone with “personal” religious beliefs or anyone whose faith leader—like Pope Francis— had publicly endorsed the vaccine. 

... In sum, the Second Circuit approved a discretionary religious-accommodation scheme that disfavors personal religion.

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

Supreme Court Review Sought on Parents' Rights to Know of School's Social Transitioning of Their Child

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (Sup.Ct., cert. filed 7/18/2025). In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held (full text of opinion) that petitioners' parental right protected by the 14th Amendment were not infringed by a school Protocol requiring staff to use a student's requested name and gender pronouns in school without notifying parents of the request unless the student consents. The petition for review of the 1st Circuit opinion says in part:

Petitioners do not have a religious objection to their school district’s indoctrination and transition of their children without their knowledge. Theirs is a moral belief, backed by well-supported scientific opinion, that a so-called gender transition harms their children. But their constitutional rights to direct the upbringing of their children remain just as fundamental. The Court should grant the petition and make clear that parents’ fundamental rights do not depend on whether they are religious.

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