Supreme Court Says Street Preacher May Challenge Limit on Demonstrations Despite His Prior Conviction

In Oliver v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, (Sup. Ct., March 20, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a street preacher may move ahead with his challenge to a city ordinance that limits protests and demonstrations around the city's amphitheater to a designated area when events are scheduled at the amphitheater. The city argued that because the preacher had been convicted of violating the same ordinance several years earlier, the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars the suit. Heck prohibits the use of 42 USC §1983 to challenge a prior conviction or sentence in order to obtain release from custody or to obtain an award of damages. Today the Supreme Court held that this does not bar the street preacher's suit because he is only seeking an injunction to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance. The fact that a victory in his suit would mean that his prior conviction was unconstitutional does not mean that it is barred. Justice Kagan's opinion for a unanimous court said in part:

Olivier’s suit does not ... “collateral[ly] attack” the old conviction.....  It thus cannot give rise, as Heck feared, to “parallel litigation” respecting his prior conduct.... The suit, after all, is not about what Olivier did in the past...  Unlike in Heck, the suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution....

... [T]he City says, a judgment in Olivier’s favor would “necessarily imply the invalidity of [his] prior conviction[].”... To declare the city ordinance unconstitutional, as Olivier seeks, would be to imply that no one—including Olivier—should have been convicted under that law. 

The argument is a fair one, but hardly dispositive.  We have to agree that if Olivier succeeds in this suit, it would mean his prior conviction was unconstitutional.  So, strictly speaking, the Heck language fits. But that could just show that the phrasing was not quite as tailored as it should have been....

We think, with the benefit of hindsight, that ... the sentence relied on swept a bit too broad.  That language was used in Heck to identify claims that were really assaults on a prior conviction, even though involving some indirection.

Cert. Petition Filed in RLUIPA Zoning Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday seeking U.S. Supreme Court review in Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic. In the case, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that RLUIPA was not violated by denying a conditional use permit to a church that wished to build a grotto in Park Hills, Kentucky to honor the Virgin Mary’s appearance at a grotto in Lourdes, France. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that denial of a permit and variances did not impose a substantial burden on the church's religious exercise. (See prior posting.) First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Certiorari Denied in Unification Church Dispute

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon, (Docket No. 25-634, certiorari denied 3/9/2026) (Order List). In the case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final dismissal of a lawsuit surrounding a long-running schism and succession dispute in the Unification Church. (See prior posting.) The Petition for Certiorari identified the Question Presented as:

Where necessary to resolve a church-property dispute, does the First Amendment prohibit courts from examining church-related facts to determine who leads the church?

Supreme Court in Shadow Docket Case Rejects California's Policy on Informing Parents of Student's Gender Transition

On Monday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup. Ct., March 2, 2026), barred enforcement against objecting parents of a controversial California school policy that requires student consent before disclosing to parents a student's gender transitioning in school. A California federal district court had enjoined enforcement of the policy in a challenge by parents and teachers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, stayed the district court's injunction, thus reinstating the policy. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled for the parents.  It vacated the 9th Circuit's stay as to parents who object to the policy, but left the stay in place as to teachers. Justices Thomas and Alito would have vacated the injunction as to teachers as well. Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.

The per curiam opinion says in part:

We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.  California’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that provision because they substantially interfere with the “right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” ...  The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs....

The same is true for the subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds.  Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to “the upbringing and education of children.” ... The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health....

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The dissent questions how the Court can adhere to parental-rights precedent after its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization..... But Dobbs calls into question neither the doctrine of substantive due process nor the other unexpressed rights that the doctrine protects....

 ... [C]ontrary to the dissent’s charge, granting interim relief is not a sign of the Court’s “impatience” to reach the merits.... Instead, the grant reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.... 

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

Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction.  A case raising novel legal questions and arousing strong views comes to this Court via an application about whether to stay a district court’s injunction pending appeal. The ordinary appellate process has barely started; only a district court has ruled on the case’s merits. The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute.  It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse—a matter of weeks. And then the Court grants relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute. The Court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation....

As to due process particularly... I have no doubt that parents have rights, even though unenumerated, concerning their children and the life choices they make..... On the other side of ledger, of course, a State has critical interests in the care and education of children.  But California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line.  And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief. 

The Court, however, would be far better equipped to draw the appropriate line and to explain its legal basis—in short, to do law in the right way—if it had followed our ordinary processes....

Justice Sotomayor, without writing or joining an opinion, stated that she would have left the 9th Circuit's injunction in place both as to parents and teachers.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review of RFRA Claims by Military Who Refused Covid Vaccine

The Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Doster v. Meink, (Docket No.25-446, cert. denied 2/23/2026) and Poffenbarger v. Meink, (Docket No. 25-448, cert. denied 2/23/2026). (Order List.) Both cases involve Air Force members who on religious grounds refused to comply with the military's Covid vaccine mandate. In Doster, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed RFRA claims by 18 members of the Air Force as moot. (Full text of opinion.) In Poffenberger, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a claim under RFRA for compensatory relief on sovereign immunity grounds. (Full text of opinion). Military Times reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Cert. Denied In Church Autonomy Case

 The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in McRaney v. North American Mission Board, (Docket No. 25-807, certiorari denied 2/23/2026). 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. (See prior posting.) First Liberty Institute issued a press release commenting on the Court's action.

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.