Hospital Justified In Firing Nurse for Praying with Patients, Discussing Holocaust With Patient

In Sanders v. Kootenai Hospital District, (D ID, Feb. 20, 2026), an Idaho federal district court rejected various claims by Claudia Sanders, a nurse at a crisis center who was fired by her employer, a publicly operated hospital. Sanders duties included triaging patients. According to the court:

Sanders alleges two incidents in which she engaged in constitutionally protected speech or activity that were the cause of her termination. First, she maintains that on January 23, 2022, she “discussed the Holocaust in general terms” with a Jewish patient and provided the patient a copy of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, a book written by a psychiatrist who survived the Holocaust.... Second, she contends that she has previously prayed with patients who asked her to pray.

In rejecting Sanders' free speech claims, the court said in part:

The First Amendment does not protect speech made pursuant to a government employee’s official duties....

Sanders admitted that she prayed with patients under the belief that such conduct fell within her job responsibilities....

Sanders’ January 23 discussion on the Holocaust with a patient also was made pursuant to her official duties as a NICC triage nurse....  Because Sanders’ speech owes its existence to her position, she spoke as an employee—not as a citizen. Therefore, the Court concludes that Sanders did not engage in protected speech....

... It is not unreasonable for Kootenai to consider Sanders’ statements about the Holocaust, which implied that it either did not happen or that it was a good thing ...  disruptive to its ability to serve the community...

Kootenai was also justified in terminating Sanders for engaging in prayer with patients. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government has a compelling interest in avoiding the appearance of taking a position on questions of religious belief when the restriction applies to government employees engaging in religious speech while providing state-sponsored services.... 

... Sanders promoted religious messages while working with patients on Kootenai business, raising a legitimate Establishment Clause concern.....

The court also rejected Sanders' claims of wrongful termination, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and tarnishing of her reputation.

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.

City's Regulation of Donation Boxes Violates Christian Nonprofit's Free Speech Rights

In Arms of Hope v. City of Mansfield, Texas, (ND TX, Feb. 19, 2026), a Christian social service organization challenged the city's regulations on Unattended Donation Boxes (UDBs). The location and color requirements ban them from churches and schools and hide them from public view where they are allowed. A Texas federal district court held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the regulations under RLUIPA because it does not have a property interest in the sites where its Boxes are located. The court went on, however, to analyze plaintiff's 1st Amendment claims, holding that the regulations violate plaintiff's free speech rights, but not its free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Plaintiff first argues that Defendant has acted with animus toward Plaintiff.... The City’s actions, though concerning, do not appear to target Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s religious motivations....

When compared to non-religious UDBs, Plaintiff’s UDBs are treated identically. The Donation Box Law does not differentiate between those UDBs run by a religious organization and those run by a secular one. Accordingly, the Donation Box Law is a neutral law of general applicability and is facially constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause....

 Charitable solicitations are fully protected speech....

There is no evidence in the record before the Court that Defendant’s negative treatment of Plaintiff reflects a content preference nor the City’s disagreement with Plaintiff’s message.... Accordingly, the Court analyzes the Donation Box law under intermediate scrutiny....

... [W]hen asked “[i]s it that the City does not like the look of donation bins?,” the City’s representative responded, “No. We don’t like the accumulation of trash and debris or unmaintained areas.” The City reiterated that a clean, well-maintained donation box is “not an aesthetic harm”.... Because the City does not regard the medium of expression itself—UDBs—as the cause of visual blight, an outright ban on UDBs is not narrowly tailored to achieve the City’s interests.... 

Defendant fails to demonstrate how the Law’s permitting and maintenance requirements, which burden substantially less speech than the challenged provisions, would fail to achieve the government’s interests....

Given the City’s admission that it makes the “determination” as to color without providing a definite standard, the Court finds that the prohibition on “high-intensity colors” to be an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Eric A. Kades, Turning the Other Cheek, (January 30, 2026).
• Robert Katz, How Antisemitism Infects the Law, (December 09, 2024).
• Taleed El-Sabawi & Angelo Kishmish, Loving Thy Neighbor in the Shadow of the CSA: RFRA and the Case for Overdose Prevention Centers, (February 16, 2026).
• Gabrielle Girgis, The Establishment Clause After Kennedy: Principles and Applications, (February 13, 2026).

From SSRN (East Asian Issues):

• N. Vasudeva Srivamsi, Raamaraajya and the Indian Constitution: A Duty-Oriented Perspective, (September 17, 2025).
• Dewan Alif Ovi & Pronathi Ghosh, Rohingya Refugee Crisis in Bangladesh: A Socio Legal Analysis (January 31, 2026).
• Kelley Loper & Carole J. Petersen, The Evolution of LGBTQ+ Rights In Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, (February 07, 2026).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Arafat Rahman Akram, Lab-Grown Meat: An Issue-Based Islamic Jurisprudential Analysis in the Light of Qur’an, Sunnah, and Juristic Opinions, (January 16, 2026).
• Erfanul Alam Siddiquee, Imagining Indigenous Islamic Financial Modernity: What If Colonialism Never Disrupted Islamic Banking?, (January 31, 2026).
• Erfanul Alam Siddiquee, Zakat in Bondage: The Malê Model and Spirit of Islamic Finance, (February 02, 2026).
• Abdessamad Bourkibate, Family Cybersecurity Jurisprudence (FCJ): A Foundational Interdisciplinary Framework Integrating Islamic Legal Theory, Cybersecurity Engineering, and Digital Family Psychology, (January 19, 2026).

5th Circuit En Banc: Challenge to Louisiana Classroom 10 Commandments Mandate Is Not Ripe

In Roake v. Brumley, (5th Cir., Feb. 20, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc by a vote of 11-7 vacated on jurisdictional grounds a preliminary injunction that had barred schools from complying with a Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) The majority held that the case was not ripe, saying in part:

Asking us to declare—here and now, and in the abstract—that every possible H.B. 71 display would violate the Establishment Clause would require precisely what [prior Supreme Court precedent] ... forbids: the substitution of speculation for adjudication. It would oblige us to hypothesize an open-ended range of possible classroom displays and then assess each under a context-sensitive standard that depends on facts not yet developed and, indeed, not yet knowable. That exercise exceeds the judicial function. It is not judging; it is guessing. And because it rests on conjecture rather than a concrete factual record, it does not cure the ripeness defect—it compounds it....

Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that their constitutional objection to the Louisiana Ten Commandments law “may properly begin and end” with Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). 

That’s telling, because Stone turns entirely on Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)—and everyone agrees that Lemon is no longer good law after Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507, 534 (2022)....

Later Supreme Court opinions have further affirmed that passive religious displays are not coercive....

Plaintiffs present no historical evidence that remotely suggests that our Founders would have regarded a passive display of the Ten Commandments as an impermissible “establishment of religion.” ...

Judge Dennis, joined by Judges Graves, Higginson, Douglas and Ramirez, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Here, the legislative record demonstrates that a religious objective dominated. Sponsors repeatedly invoked teaching children “what God commands,” lamented the decline of Christianity, and openly framed opposition to H.B. 71 as an “attack on Christianity.” Another co-sponsor touted the law as a religious counterbalance to secular education....

...  Stone remains controlling because Louisiana vastly overstates Kennedy’s significance. Kennedy repudiated only the endorsement test—an offshoot of Lemon’s second prong—and left intact the broader framework of Establishment Clause doctrine: the requirement of a secular legislative purpose, the prohibition on policies whose primary effect advances religion, and the concern about excessive entanglement between church and state....

Judge Haynes filed a brief dissenting opinion.

Judge Higginson, joined by Judges Dennis, Graves, Douglas and Ramirez filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

We know from Louisiana lawmakers the chosen scriptural text was not happenstance. The legislators had definitive religious motivation when they selected a Protestant version of the Decalogue to display....

... Jewish plaintiffs and organizations voice that it violates their faith to make Jewish children stare at a Protestant “misappropriat[ion]” of their most sacred text....

Judge Ramirez, joined by Judges Stewart, Dennis, Graves, Higginson and Douglas, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part: 

Because H.B. 71 provides sufficient information about the mandatory classroom religious displays, and requires no other materials to be displayed, “no additional factual development” is required to determine the statute’s facial invalidity....

Louisiana’s argument that the court must know what other materials may accompany each Ten Commandments poster to evaluate H.B. 71’s constitutionality also ignores the nature of Plaintiffs’ facial claims—that H.B. 71’s minimum requirements render it unconstitutional in all applications.

Louisiana Illuminator reports on the decision.

State's Criticism of Pregnancy Resource Centers Did Not Violate Clinics' Free Speech or Free Exercise

 In A Woman's Concern, Inc. v. Healey, (D MA, Feb. 17, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected claims by a religiously affiliated pregnancy resource center ("Your Options Medical Centers" (YOM)) that the state Department of Public Health violated plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights when it disseminated information critical of pregnancy resource centers. In its 59-page opinion, court said in part:

The amended complaint fails primarily because it does not plausibly suggest that Defendants have targeted YOM for actual or threatened enforcement action, let alone to stifle its protected speech or viewpoint.  First, YOM has not plausibly alleged any unconstitutional regulatory action.  YOM takes issue with a guidance letter sent by DPH to every licensed physician, physician assistant, nurse, pharmacist, pharmacy, hospital, and clinic in Massachusetts reminding them to abide by various healthcare regulations.  This guidance highlighted several medical standards and requirements, some of which apply to YOM and some that do not.  No reasonable person reading the guidance would have believed it selectively targets YOM or other PRCs for their views.  The guidance aimed at enforcing numerous, neutral state laws, none of which YOM challenges.  Similarly, broad, public-facing campaign statements criticizing the practices of PRCs generally as “dangerous” “public health threats” constitute permissible government expression, not unconstitutional threats of enforcement against YOM.... The amended complaint also alleges no facts to suggest that state officials wielded threats of enforcement action as a mechanism to suppress YOM’s speech, rather than to crack down on violations of state law. 

Second, Defendants focused the campaign not on the pro-life, religious views of PRCs, but rather on the quality of their medical services and advertising practices.  None of Defendants’ statements suggest any hostility to religion.  No allegations plausibly show that Defendants targeted their enforcement decisions based on the views or religion of YOM specifically or PRCs generally.  Thus, the amended complaint fails, including YOM’s request for “[a] permanent injunction ordering Defendants . . . [to] ceas[e] any advertising activity or campaign that falsely accuses YOM of misconduct or of being a threat to public health.”... 

Universal Hub reports on the decision. 

Mayor's Statements About Prayer Event Sponsors May Have Violated Establishment Clause

Johnson v. City of Seattle, (WD WA, Feb. 18, 2026), is a suit by promoters of a worship event held in a Seattle park. According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that ... a large group of protestors came to the park to agitate, disrupt, and assault Plaintiffs for the views, message, and content of their event....  [S]hortly after the event had begun, event organizers were approached by the police and told to shut down the event because of violent protestors that the police could not control....  Two protestors attacked the event’s stage, ripped down the fabric banners and kicked over equipment, and other protestors exposed body parts, engaged in lewd behavior in front of minor children, threw urine-filled water balloons, sprayed attendees with pepper spray and tear gas, and harassed Plaintiffs with curse words and violent threats....

On the same day, Mayor Harrell issued a press release stating that Plaintiffs’ event was an “Extreme Right-Wing Rally”, and that Plaintiffs were responsible for the violence that had been perpetrated against them.... Plaintiffs allege that they were blamed for deliberately provoking the reaction “by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.”.... Mayor Harrell issued another press release ... which contained statements from the City’s “Christian and Faith Leaders” condemning Plaintiffs for their event and blaming them for the violence perpetrated against them.... According to the City’s faith leaders, Plaintiffs targeted the LGBTQ+ community....

The court refused to grant plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, saying in part:

Here, the dearth of allegations of intended future conduct, threat of future enforcement, or self-censorship, clearly does not satisfy a pre-enforcement injury in fact.

However, the court allowed plaintiffs to continue their lawsuit seeking other relief, including their Establishment Clause claim which defendants had asked the court to dismiss. The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs ... argue that the statements made by Defendant Harrell after the event was shut down are laden with hostility toward religion, and the condemning statements made by other religious sects and cited in the second press release demonstrates Defendants’ preference for other religions.... These statements were made in formal press releases from the “Office of the Mayor.”... Official expressions of hostility directly connected to Plaintiffs and their event, combined with the supporting hostile statements made by City religious leaders that are officially approved by the City, can have the effect of showing that the City is failing its duty of neutrality, invalidating the facial neutrality of an ordinance....

President Trump's Ash Wednesday Message

Yesterday, the White House posted a Presidential Message on Ash Wednesday (full text). It reads in part:

Today, the First Lady and I join the millions of Christians in the United States and around the world in observing Ash Wednesday—a solemn day of prayer and repentance and the beginning of the Lenten season.

Every Ash Wednesday, Christians receive ashes in the shape of a cross on their foreheads as a visible reminder of our belonging to Jesus Christ and our enduring need for penance....

... [W] are reminded that the practices of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving have been foundational to our strength from the earliest days of our national story.  From the Colonists who turned to prayer and fasting in the heart of the Revolutionary War to the unmatched compassion and generosity of America’s churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions, these righteous acts of faith over the centuries have always stood at the center of our identity, our heritage, and our way of life....

Above all, as we prepare for the triumphant resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday—the greatest miracle in the history of mankind—we pause to remember those sacred words:  “This is the time of fulfillment.  The Kingdom of God is at hand.  Repent, and believe in the Gospel.”

DOJ Opens Title IX Investigations of 3 Michigan School Districts

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has opened Title IX investigations into three Michigan school districts. The announcement said in part:

Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched investigations into three Michigan public school districts: the Detroit Public Schools Community District, Godfrey-Lee Public Schools, and the Lansing School District ... to determine whether they have included sexual orientation and gender ideology (SOGI) content in any class for grades pre-K-12. If they are teaching SOGI-related content, the investigations will examine whether the schools have notified parents of their right to opt their children out of such instruction. The investigation will also assess whether the Michigan School Districts limit access to single-sex intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, based on biological sex....

Reports on Religious Liberty, Christian Nationalism, and Antisemitism Released

On February 17, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released their "Annual Report on the State of Religious Liberty in the United States" (full text). In a press release announcing the new report, the USCCB said in part:

The report summarizes developments on national questions and federal policies affecting religious liberty in the U.S., including the role of religion in American public life, and the challenges and opportunities of the present moment. 

The report identified six areas of critical concern for religious liberty in 2026:  Political and anti-religious violence; Unjust terms and conditions on federal grants, and unreliability of government; Access to sacraments for ICE detainees and immigration enforcement at houses of worship; School choice and the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit; Repeal of provisions that prevent religious organizations from participating in government programs; Further repudiation of gender ideology.

On February 17, PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) released its Report "Mapping Christian Nationalism Across the 50 States" (full text) (Web friendly version). A press release announcing the release of the Report said in part:

... Based on interviews with more than 22,000 adults conducted throughout 2025 as part of the PRRI American Values Atlas, the new study examines the connections between support for Christian nationalism and Trump favorability, partisanship, religion, media habits, and more.

At the national level, a majority of Republicans (56%) qualify as either Christian nationalism Adherents (21%) or Sympathizers (35%), compared with one in four independents (25%) and less than one in five Democrats (17%). Overall, roughly one-third of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents (11%) or Sympathizers (21%), compared with two-thirds who qualify as Skeptics (37%) or Rejecters (27%). These percentages largely have remained stable since PRRI first asked these questions in late 2022....

On February 10, the American Jewish Committee released its Report "The State of Antisemitism in America 2025." The Report is comprised of three parts-- a Survey of American Jews, a Survey of the General Public, and a comparison of the views of the two groups. Links to all three parts are available at this website. On February 17, AJC released additional survey data on antisemitism experienced by Jewish college students. In an analysis of the data, AJC said in part:

The vast majority of American Jews feel less safe due to violent antisemitic incidents in America in 2025. Most American Jews believe that, since October 7, antisemitism has increased in the United States and that Jews are less secure than the previous year. About one in three were the personal target of antisemitism, and over half of American Jews changed their behavior in at least one way out of fear of antisemitism. Among the U.S. general public, there is overall awareness of antisemitism as a problem, while over four in 10 has personally seen or heard antisemitism in 2025....

Online and on social media is by and large where American Jews experience antisemitism the most....

 AJC’s 2025 Report shows how American Jews ages 18-29 experience antisemitism differently than those ages 30 and over....

Palestinian Authority Unveils New Draft Constitution

Times of Israel reported earlier this month:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas received a draft constitution [on February 5] ... that aims to transition the PA to a full-fledged state, Ramallah’s official Wafa media outlet said....

Abbas ordered that the draft constitution be submitted to the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee for review before being made available for public feedback, a process that could take months to over a year, a Palestinian official told The Times of Israel.

It will then have to go through a public referendum and receive a majority support in order to come into effect.

The "Draft of the Temporary Constitution of the State of Palestine" (full text) contains a number of provisions on religion and religious freedom. It provides in part:

Preamble: ... Palestine is the cradle of heavenly religions, where peace was preached and where the Messenger of God travelled; it is the land of prophets, the meeting place of religions, and the cradle of civilizations.  From its heart, this constitution draws the essence of humanity, where faith is a guide, tolerance is a lifestyle, and justice and peace are a goal for those who seek it....

Article 3, Sec. 2:  The state is committed to preserving its religious character and protecting its Islamic and Christian sanctities, as well as its legal, political, and historical status....

 Article 4, Sec. 1: Islam is the official religion in the State of Palestine.  

Sec. 2: The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation.  

Sec. 3: Christianity has its status in Palestine, and its followers' rights are respected.

 Article 37: Freedom of belief is absolute, and the freedom to practice religious rites and establish places of worship for followers of monotheistic religions is a right regulated by law. ...

Article 38 Sec. 3: The law prohibits any call for racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.

Article 69 Sec. 1: The law punishes the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression, and all serious and systematic violations of human rights. They are not subject to a statute of limitations and may not be pardoned.

 Article 132 Sec. 1: Sharia disputes and personal status are handled by Sharia and religious courts.

7th Circuit: "Moral" Objections Not Protected By Title VII

 In Bowlin v. Board of Directors, Judah Christian School, (7th Circuit, Feb. 13, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that moral objections that are not also religiously based are not protected by Title VII. The court said in part:

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Illinois required all school employees to either receive a vaccination or undergo weekly testing for the virus. Plaintiffs—three employees at different Illinois grade schools—refused to receive a vaccination, citing their religious beliefs. When the schools offered weekly testing as an accommodation, Plaintiffs claimed the testing also violated their moral consciences and refused. As a result, they were either placed on unpaid leave or terminated....

Although “a ‘religious’ objection can sound in both religious and non-religious terms,” ... here, Plaintiffs do not moor their objections to the testing requirement to any religious beliefs. Their only relevant allegation is that their “moral consciences … prevent them from submitting to health care procedures which they, competent adults, do not believe are medically necessary.” This, on its own, fails to plausibly allege that the request is “based in part on an aspect of [Plaintiffs’] religious belief or practice” because Plaintiffs do not identify what belief or practice the testing would violate.,,,

Nevertheless, even assuming Plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Defendants violated their religious beliefs, their claim still fails because the accommodation they request would require Defendants to violate the law, thereby imposing upon them an undue hardship,,,, 

HRD reported on the decision.

Suit Challenges Colorado's Blaine Amendment

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court challenging the Colorado Constitution's ban on use of state funds to support any religious school as violative of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The challenge was brought by a Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), a private entity which contracts with schools to provide them innovative educational services. BOCES can receive and administer state and federal education grants. The complaint (full text) in Education Re-Envisioned BOCES v. Cordova, (D CO, filed 2/13/2026), focuses on the inability of BOCES to contract with religious schools, alleging in part:

24. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) provides funding to ERBOCES for these contract schools....

33. In August 2025 ... ERBOCES entered a contract with Riverstone Academy to provide tuition-free education to the parents and children of Pueblo County, Colorado.  

34. After ERBOCES contracted with Riverstone, it submitted its annual request for state funding to CDE. ERBOCES included Riverstone Academy’s students in its request.  

35. In response to its funding request, ERBOCES received a letter from CDE stating that Colorado law requires ERBOCES to refuse to contract with any religious school....  

36. Specifically, the letter informed ERBOCES that providing funding to Riverstone Academy would violate the Colorado Constitution and Colorado statutory law because Riverstone is a Christian school....

73. The Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” Carson, 596 U.S. at 778....

76. State provisions prohibiting aid to “sectarian” institutions date back to the 1870s and were enacted out of hostility to certain religious groups. Such provisions were “born of bigotry” against religion, especially the Catholic church.....  

77. Colorado’s Blaine amendment shares this “shameful pedigree.”...

93. To the extent the Colorado Constitution and any implementing statutes require school districts and BOCES to scrutinize contract school applicants’ curricula to determine if they are religious, they violate the Establishment Clause. ...

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

New ICE Policy Allowing Enforcement Operations at Churches Violates RFRA

 In New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security, (D MA, Feb. 13, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration officials from enforcing a new policy on enforcement operations at churches. The new policy allows ICE agents to conduct arrests, searches, or interrogations in or near churches and other houses of worship at the agents' own discretion. It replaces a 2021 Policy that allowed enforcement actions near churches only in exigent circumstances or with prior approval from Agency headquarters. The court concluded that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court first concluded that some, but not all, of the 11 Christian church organizations that brought suit have standing because only they demonstrated injuries of decreased attendance at worship services or at social ministries or financial consequences. In deciding to issue a preliminary injunction, the court said in part:

The prospect that a street-level law-enforcement agent—acting without a judicial warrant and with little or no supervisory control—could conduct a raid during a church service, or lie in wait to interrogate or seize congregants as they seek to enter a church, is profoundly troubling.  Indeed, according to the new policy, agents could conduct a raid, with weapons drawn, at any type of church proceeding—including a regular Sunday service, a wedding, a baptism, a christening, or a funeral—subject only to the exercise of their “discretion” and “common sense.”   

It hardly requires mentioning that freedom of religion is both a core American value and a basic liberty protected by the First Amendment and laws of the United States.  That freedom encompasses not merely the freedom to believe, but the freedom to worship, including the freedom to attend church and to participate in sacraments, rituals, and ceremonies.  If government interference with those freedoms is ever justifiable, it is only in relatively extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to public safety.  The routine enforcement of the immigration laws does not involve such a threat, and cannot justify the harm to religious freedom posed by the new policy.   

It is of course true that the presence of millions of illegal immigrants within the borders of the United States justifies a substantial government response.  But the need to address that problem cannot override the fundamental liberties on which our nation was founded....

In one important respect, the preliminary injunction is broader than the 2021 Policy.... The preliminary injunction issued by the Court will permit such operations only in exigent circumstances, regardless of supervisory approval.  The Court can conceive of no circumstance, outside of a true emergency, in which a law-enforcement operation to enforce the immigration laws inside a church would be justifiable under the First Amendment and RFRA. 

The preliminary injunction is also narrower than the 2021 Policy, in that it applies only to the plaintiffs in this case who have standing, and not nationwide....  The preliminary injunction will also, as noted, exempt immigration-enforcement actions taken pursuant to an administrative warrant or judicial warrant.

Democracy Forward issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to the original complaint filed in the case.

DOJ Investigating Medical College Over Accommodating Jewish Students When Exams Conflict with Holidays

The Justice Department announced on Friday:

Yesterday, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, launched an investigation into Lincoln Memorial University to determine whether the university is engaged in discrimination against its Jewish students. Among other concerns, the investigation will determine whether the university’s DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine is intentionally preventing Jewish students from completing their exams during the Spring semester.

Osteopathic Medicine programs are offered currently on the University's Harrogate and Knoxville, Tennessee, campuses. While DOJ's press release does not give details of the Department's specific concerns that led to its investigation, WBIR News has additional details. It reports that two Orthodox Jewish students in the Osteopathic Medicine program are concerned about changes that were introduced in the doctoral student Handbook for the first time at the beginning of the current Spring Semester. The newly revised handbook says: "Religious holidays and holy days do not qualify for an excused absence from examinations." Previously the students had been able to obtain religious exemptions. A statement from the University said:

Lincoln Memorial University firmly upholds the protections established by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We take seriously our responsibility to ensure equal access and non-discrimination in our educational settings.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Laura Portuondo, Free Exercise and the Redistribution of Liberty (February 04, 2026).
• James Morrison, Beyond the Curriculum: Free Exercise Limits on Public School Regulation After Mahmoud v. Taylor, (January 11, 2026).
• Harold Anthony Lloyd, Bowers v. Hardwick Postmortems at Forty: Timely Dissections of Its Tradition, Enumeration, and Other Errors, (February 07, 2026).
• John Greil, Some Optimism About Protecting Sacred Sites, (February 10, 2026).
• Michael J. Broyde, When Church Needs State: Protecting the Right to Worship from Disruptive Protest, (January 01, 2026).
• Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, When Constitutional Protection for Religious Liberty Gets Lost in Translation: A Case Study from Washington State, (February 02, 2026).
• John Parsi, Let’s Talk About the Biological Reality of Sex, Baby, (February 14, 2025).
• Jud Campbell, Fundamental Rights at the American Founding, (January 01, 2025).
• Naomi R. Cahn, Maxine Eichner & Mary E. Ziegler, "For Their Benefit": The Lost History of Parental Consent and Minors' Rights, (February 26, 2025). 

From SSRN (Non-U.S Law):

• Dawn Carla Nunziato, The EU Versus the Platforms and the First Amendment: Regulating Online Hate Speech (October 01, 2025).
• Jay Patil & Asmita Tikhe, Uniform Civil Code in India: A Legal and Empirical Analysis, (January 15, 2026).
• Joy Makhal, Finding a Room of One’s Own: Woman Autonomy and the Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Dishonour Crimes Adjudication in India, (October 22, 2025).

From SSRN (Religious Philosophy):

• Swapnil Bhagat, From Hymn to State: Political Ecology and Kingship from the Ṛgveda through the Aitareya to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, (September 06, 2025).
• Shamsaddin Amanov, The Manifesto of Omittoism: A Jurisdictional Declaration of Human Sovereignty, (January 11, 2026).
• Shamsaddin Amanov, Jurisdictional Sovereignty: A Consent-Based Critique of Divine Authority, (January 12, 2026).
• James Renfroe, Where the Lines Meet: Adoption as a Birthright and the Ritual Architecture of the Royal House (1842-1894), (January 16, 2026).
• Hershey H. Friedman, Beyond Rashi: Rashbam's Groundbreaking Peshat Approach and the Battle Over Biblical Truth (January 28, 2026).

From SSRN (Islam and Islamic Law):

• Zikra Hasan & Mohd Kamil, The Sachar Committee Report: A Socio-Legal Analysis of Muslim Marginalisation, State Policy, and Constitutional Equality in India, (December 15, 2025).
• Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema, Islamic Law of Inheritance in the Age of Generative AI: An Analysis of ChatGPT and DeepSeek (January 30, 2026).
• Shahid Mahmood, New Atheism and Islam: (A Critical Examination of Scientism, Morality, and Islamic Intellectual Responses in the Post-2000 Era), (January 21, 2026).
• Karim Gabriel Mussa, Religious Fatwas and Social Cohesion: A Case Study of Public Reactions in Tanzania, (January 21, 2026).
• Asad Zaman, Reclaiming Economics as a Moral Science: An Islamic Approach to Monetary Reform, (January 25, 2026).
• Ahmad Munif, Irwan Abdullah, Misbah Zulfa Elizabeth & Muhammad Zainal Mawahib, Controversy Over Religious Authorities in Sharia Financial Regulation, (June 27, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Jessica Gibree, Faith or Fairness: The Legal Battle over LGBTQ Rights in Adoption and Foster Care, 35 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 1-40 (2025).
• Jeremias Brusau, Religious Exemptions from Abortion Bans?, 35 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 41-84 (2025).

Court Orders Access for Clergy to ICE Facility on Ash Wednesday

In Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership v. Noem, (ND IL, Feb. 12, 2026), an Illinois federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring federal immigration authorities to allow plaintiffs, Catholic clergy, access on Ash Wednesday (Feb. 18) to the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. The court agreed that denial of access likely substantially burdens plaintiffs' religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an important religious practice.  Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is itself not essential to the practice.”  RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened is “essential.”

The Hill reports on the decision.

Child Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese Moves Ahead

In Doe XXV v. Archdiocese of New York, (NY Sup.Ct. NY Cty., Jan. 21, 2026), a New York state trial court denied a motion to dismiss a suit under the Child Victims Act in which plaintiff alleged that he was sexually abused as a child by a janitor at a Catholic school operated by the Archdiocese. The court rejected defendant's free exercise defense, saying in part:

Plaintiff’s cause of action asserts liability against the Archdiocese for the negligent hiring, retention and supervision of Tremaroli, a janitor. The Archdiocese fails to demonstrate why the present dispute cannot be adjudicated “solely upon the application of neutral principles of law, without reference to religious principles”....

The court also rejected other defenses raised by the Archdiocese, saying in part: 

The Archdiocese further argues that it owed Plaintiff no duty under theories of negligent hiring, retention and supervision because the Archdiocese did not directly hire, retain or supervise Tremaroli. The Court disagrees.  

Generally, an element of negligent hiring, retention and supervision is that the defendant was the employer of the alleged tortfeasor. However ... agency relationships between a junior organization and a senior organization may impute liability onto a senior organization when the senior organization could also have been responsible for the hiring, retention or supervision of an employee....

Tremaroli was ... employed as a janitor at the Church; however, his employment as conditional upon the authority of the pastor, who was appointed to the Church by the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese has thus failed to eliminate triable issues of fact that it lacked an employer/employee-like relationship with Tremaroli....

In any event, issues of fact also exist as to the Archdiocese’s notice of Tremaroli’s propensity for abuse or actual abuse of children....

Thus, if certain employees at the Church or School were “acting on the . . . Archdiocese defendants’ behalf” when they learned of the subject abuse, their knowledge would be imputed to the Archdiocese....

Child Evangelism Fellowship Sues School District Over Discriminatory Treatment

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that fees charged to it for after-school use of school facilities and its exclusion from literature distribution forums and Backpack Nights forum violate its rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Illinois, Inc. v. Moline-Coal Valley Unified School District #40, (CD IL, filed 2/10/2026), alleges in part:

For more than five years, Defendants have categorized CEF as a “Category II” church and church-affiliated group, treating them differently than similarly situated nonreligious organizations. Defendants’ discriminatory policies target religious organizations like CEF’s Good News Club, compel them to pay discriminatory facility use fees, prevent them from distributing literature to students to take home to their parents, and bar them from Backpack Nights. In other words, Defendants have unconstitutionally relegated CEF to constitutional orphan status and discriminatory treatment in all forums available for similarly situated organizations in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Carrie Prejean Boller Removed from Religious Liberty Commission for "Hijacking" Antisemitism Hearing

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, chair of President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission announced on X yesterday:

Carrie Prejean Boller has been removed from President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. No member of the Commission has the right to hijack a hearing for their own personal and political agenda on any issue. This is clearly, without question, what happened Monday in our hearing on antisemitism in America. This was my decision.

OSV News reported on the aspects of the hearing that led to Boller's ouster, saying in part: 

... Prejean Boller, a former Miss California USA, began a tense exchange with witnesses by asking if “speaking out about what many Americans view as a genocide in Gaza should be treated as antisemitic?” ...

Prejean Boller’s line of questioning also included her argument that “Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know. So are all Catholics antisemites?” ...

Prejean Boller, who was wearing a pin that jointly displayed U.S. and Palestinian flags, went on to press witnesses on whether they would consider her an antisemite for not supporting the political state of Israel, which she called “a foreign country.”

Elsewhere in the hearing, Prejean Boller also had a tense exchange with Seth Dillon, CEO of conservative Christian satire website The Babylon Bee. Dillon took aim at conservative media figures who he said have failed to speak out against antisemitism, such as that from podcaster Candace Owens. 

When Prejean Boller argued that Owens — who became Catholic in 2024 — was not an antisemite, Dillon replied, “You should look up more of her statements.”... 

(See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: In a Feb. 11 response on X, Carrie Prejean Boller said in part:

The Commission was created by Executive Order of President Donald J. Trump. Members were appointed by the President and serve as his appointees. Nothing in the Executive Order grants you the power to remove presidential appointees. Unless and until I receive written notice from the President of the United States requesting my removal, I will continue to defend religious freedom for all religions on this Commission.

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Supreme Court's Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing titled Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor.  A video of the entire hearing, written prepared statements of the subcommittee chairman and four witnesses, as well as the Committee's "Hearing Recap" are all available here on the Subcommittee's website. Three of the witnesses strongly supported the Supreme Court's Mahmoud decision, while one of the witnesses argued that Mahmoud went too far in permitting parental opt outs. UPI reported on the hearing, saying in part that "Republicans expressed concern ... about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination." [Thanks to Zalman Rothschild for the lead.]

RLUIPA Claim for Polluting Burial Sites of Enslaved Ancestors May Move Ahead

In Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish, (ED LA, Feb. 9, 2026), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss claims against St. James Parish contending that plaintiffs have been harmed by land use decisions that have concentrated polluting industrial sites in majority black areas between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The affected area has a particularly high cancer rate. Plaintiffs are an advocacy organization, a Baptist church whose members claim descent from formerly enslaved people, and a faith-based organization advocating for an end to petrochemical industries in the area. The court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution.  It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that defendants' actions have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs in the case allege that Defendants “have implemented land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.” ... Plaintiffs specifically designate three of Defendants’ acts that “have burdened Plaintiffs’ members’ ability to pray upon the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved ancestors by permitting the construction of industrial facilities upon these cemeteries.”...

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not meet the definition of “claimants” under the statute because they have not alleged an ownership or other property interest in the land at issue in the case....

... Plaintiffs allege that “plantation owners were legally required to set aside land for burying the people they enslaved, . . . that graves were often marked by trees to identify them for loved ones and descendant communities, and preserved by laborers and farmers.”.... These allegations are more than sufficient to create a plausible claim that these pieces of land were “dedicated” as cemeteries for their ancestors, cemeteries which have since “been transformed into an industrial site, to be exploited for material gain.” However, even absent these specific and well-researched allegations, the fact that the plantation owners buried the bodies of the people whom they enslaved on these plots of land seems sufficient to constitute an intention to dedicate. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have a property interest in the plots of land at issue—the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved people on the Formosa and SLM plots—to assert a plausible claim under the RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden clause....

The second claim under RLUIPA has been brought against Defendants by only one Plaintiff, Mount Triumph Baptist Church. Specifically, Mount Triumph alleges that Defendants have implemented land use regulations that protect Catholic and majority-white churches from industrial development through required buffer zones, but that also permit such development in the immediate vicinity of majority-black churches with no such protection. Because Defendants have not specifically moved to dismiss this claim, the Court does not feel the need to discuss this claim, other than to say that Mount Triumph has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face....

Suit Challenges Michigan Ban on Discrimination Because of Pregnancy Termination

Last week, two pro-life organizations filed suit in federal district court against Michigan officials challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds 2023 amendments to state anti-discrimination laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of termination of pregnancy. The law already included a ban on discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth. The 82-page complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 2/6/2026) alleges in part:

Recent changes to Michigan’s employment law force religious and pro-life groups to employ and associate with persons who do not share or live by—and may even oppose—the organizations’ beliefs on human life. This violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs Right to Life of Michigan (Right to Life) and Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) recruit, hire, and retain only employees who adhere to, agree to abide by, and can effectively communicate their pro-life views. This employment policy puts them at odds with Michigan’s new law. Right to Life and PRC bring this suit to ensure they can continue to serve Michiganders without diluting their pro-life views through the lukewarm or hostile hires Michigan’s law demands....

The complaint alleges seven causes of action ranging from infringing free speech and free exercise rights to infringing the right to refrain from taking human life. Zeale reports on the lawsuit.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense Raised by Protesters Charged With Trespass

In Hubersberger v. State of Arizona, (AZ App., Feb. 9, 2026), an Arizona state appeals court, rejecting a free exercise defense, refused to dismiss complaints charging four protesters with criminal trespass. According to the court:

 ...  Appellants, motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, participated in a protest against Raytheon because of its role as a weapons supplier to Israel and the bombings occurring in Gaza.  Appellants’ demonstration occurred on private property, and their stated purpose was to disrupt Raytheon’s daily operations by blocking Raytheon workers from entering the facility....

Appellants moved to dismiss the complaints against them pursuant to FERA [Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act], arguing that because their protest was motivated by their religious faith, their arrest and prosecution substantially burdened their free exercise of religion....

Appellants do not dispute on appeal that the government had a compelling interest to protect the peace and Raytheon’s private property rights.  We therefore only address the second prong of the FERA analysis: whether the arrest and prosecution of Appellants was the least restrictive means in which the government could have furthered its interests in this case....

We, like the superior court, find nothing on the record to indicate that Appellants would have left Raytheon’s private property without state intervention....

Appellants next assert ... that the arrest alone was sufficient to further the government’s interest, therefore their continued prosecution necessarily does not meet the least restrictive means test....

We also conclude that analyzing whether the prosecutor should or should not bring charges “would plunge courts far too deep into the business of reviewing the most basic exercises of prosecutorial discretion.”... 

Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing On Antisemitism

The Religious Liberty Commission yesterday held a hearing on combating antisemitism and upholding religious freedom. A video of the full 5-hour hearing, held at the Museum of the Bible, is available here from C-Span. JNS reported on the hearing, saying in part:

A U.S. Religious Liberty Commission hearing on antisemitism in Washington, D.C., on Monday featured testimony about the challenges facing Jews in American society that digressed, at times, into questions about whether it is antisemitic to oppose Israel.

The commissioners, whom U.S. President Donald Trump appointed in May, questioned witnesses from religious organizations, college campuses and the administration about their experiences and possible legal and cultural remedies to Jewish bigotry during four hours of panels.

One of the commissioners, Carrie Prejean Boller, a former Miss California who is now a conservative activist and commentator, peppered witnesses about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and her interpretation of the Roman Catholic position on Zionism....

Lawsuit Challenges Makeup and Operation of Trump's Religious Liberty Commission

Yesterday, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Interfaith organizations filed suit challenging the legality of the Religious Liberty Commission that President Trump created last May. The complaint (full text) in The Interfaith Alliance v. Trump, (SD NY, filed 2/9/2026), contends that the Commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, alleging in part:

3. This case challenges the composition and secrecy of the Religious Liberty Commission. While this body is ostensibly designed to defend “religious liberty for all Americans” and celebrate “religious pluralism” it actually represents only a single “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint. It held its first three meetings at the Museum of the Bible and has closed its meetings with a Christian prayer “in Jesus’ name.” Only one of its members is not Christian and the Christian members do not represent the full diversity of the Christian faith. The Commission’s meetings have repeatedly referenced the belief that the United States was founded as a “Judeo-Christian nation” and the membership reflects that viewpoint. All members of the Commission advocate for increased religiosity, and specifically their brand of “Judeo-Christian” religiosity, in public life....

8. The Commission has also disregarded basic transparency requirements, including by failing to disclose transcripts, agendas, and other materials that would allow Plaintiffs and the public to follow and understand the Commission’s work.....

The suit asks the court, among other relief, to:

Order Defendants to employ good faith efforts to appoint a properly qualified representative from the excluded viewpoints; ...

Enjoin Defendants to attach to any reports or recommendations produced by the Commission a disclaimer stating that the report was produced in violation of FACA’s requirement that the Commission’s membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented....

Interfaith Alliance issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Arizona Trial Court Strikes Down 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Isaacson v. State of Arizona, (AZ Super. Ct., Feb. 2, 2026), an Arizona trial court struck down three Arizona statutes that restrict a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.  A 2024 Amendment to Arizona's state constitution prohibits the state from restricting pre-viability abortions unless the law is for the limited purpose of maintaining the health of the person seeking an abortion and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision making. The court held that this provision invalidates (1) Arizona's ban on seeking an abortion because of a fetal abnormality; (2) Arizona's requirement a physician perform an ultrasound and deliver state-mandated information to a person seeking an abortion 24 hours before carrying out the procedure; and (3) Arizona's ban on use of telemedicine to provide abortion inducing drugs.

Arizona's Attorney General in a press release said in part:

Today's ruling is a major victory for Arizona women, families, and their doctors. The court has affirmed what we've known all along: the abortion restrictions challenged in this case are unconstitutional.

According to AP, Republican legislative leaders had intervened in the case to defend the restrictions. Senate President Warren Petersen's office said the decision will be appealed.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ministerial Exception Bars Student Chaplain's Title IX and FLSA Claims

In Davenport v. Episcopal Health Services, Inc., (ED NY, Feb. 5, 2026), a New York federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title IX and Fair Labor Standards Act claims by a student chaplain in an Episcopal hospital. The court said in part:

Plaintiff Archbishop Russell Davenport served as a chaplain at St. John’s Episcopal Hospital South Shore [EHS]... as part of the hospital’s clinical pastoral education program.  But he claims the hospital never paid him for spiritual and clinical counseling that he performed for patients after his shift ended.  He separately claims that the hospital improperly rejected his sexual harassment complaint against a fellow chaplain but suspended him when another employee filed a complaint against him....

Plaintiff contends that EHS is not a religious group because the complaint “makes no allegations about the religious origins or continuing religious purpose of the hospital.” ...

Like the Department of Pastoral Care, the CPE program offers “pastoral services to patients and community members.” ...  Its chaplains perform religious rituals and rites, worship with patients, and offer spiritual counsel....  The CPE’s work therefore also vests in Defendants a critical aspect of its religious entity—even if its services are not strictly Episcopalian.  That indisputably religious service renders St. John’s and EHS religious groups....

Plaintiff insists that the ministerial exception does not apply to students.  But he adduces no authority why the exception excludes those who administer religious services simply because they obtain “professional training and education for ministry” part-time....

The ministerial exception applies to Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims.  Just “as the initial function of selecting a minister is a matter of church administration and government, so are the functions which accompany such a selection,” including “determination of a minister’s salary.”...

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Joanmarie Davoli, Infusing Catholicism In Teaching And Writing, (December 01, 2025).
• Michael Quinlan, NSW Greens Introduce a Bill of Rights to Protect Their Preferred Rights, (News Weekly Issue No. 3204, December 20, 2025 12-13).
• Angshul Majumdar, Halakhah as a Gödelian System: Why Oral Law, Disagreement, and Authority are Structurally Necessary, (January 20, 2026).
• Robert Katz, Antisemitism and the Law, (Carolina Academic Press, 2025).
• Zachary Price, Constitutional Symmetry in the 2024-2025 Term:  Mahmoud and Skrmetti's Missteps, (January 31, 2026).
• Gagas Tri Anggoro, Inclusive Human Rights: A Paradigm for Dignity in Diversity, (January 10, 2026).
• Robert Katz, The Pearl and Troy Feibel Lecture on Judaism and Law: "American Law's Jewish Question: Religion, Race, and Free Speech in an Age of Campus Antisemitism", (January 31, 2026).
• Nancy A. McLaughlin, Donor Standing To Enforce Charitable Gifts In The 21st Century (February 03, 2026).
• Jacqueline Stevens, How John Searle and the Chicago Supermob Took Out Northwestern University: The Case of the 'Mislaid' Methodists and Proposals to Reform Nonprofit Laws, (January 20, 2026).
• Daniel B. Rice, Tradition Without Text?, (75 Duke Law Journal Online __ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Lyric Helena Emerson, Discrimination in 2025: Racism, Islamophobia, Gender, and the Reorganization of Social Hierarchy, (January 30, 2026).

From SSRN (Biblical Interpretation):

• Essien Oku Essien, Apocalyptic Diagnostics of the Divine Letters to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor, (January 23, 2026).
• Essien Oku Essien, A Constructive Reading Of Matthew 16:18 In Canonical And Patristic Perspective (January 21, 2026).
• Dov Fischer, The Value of Silence and Purposeful Communication: Lessons from Genesis (37:13), (December 07, 2025).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Arafat Rahman Akram & Sharat Fatema Angelic, Admissibility of Iqrar in Proving Criminal Cases: A Comparative Study of Malaysia, Pakistan, and Brunei, (January 10, 2026).
• Seyyed Abdol Hojjat Moghadas Nian, AqilaSadat MoghadasNian & Moghadas Nian SeyyedAbdolHamed, Optimizing Digital Transformation in Waqf Institutions: A Strategic KPI Framework for Enhanced Transparency and Sustainability, (April 19, 2025).
• Dr. Mohamed El Bachir Berroho, Waqf and Trust: A Comparative Analysis, (October 21, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Iza Hussin, Book Review. Between Empires: Arab, Asian, and European Legal Orders in the Nineteenth-Century Indian Ocean. Sovereigns of the Sea: Omani Ambition in the Age of Empire, by Seema Alavi, 50 Law & Social Inquiry 935-940 (2025).

Texas AG Sues to Close Down CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood in State

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit in a Texas state trial court against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood asking for an injunction barring these organizations from engaging in any activities in the state of Texas. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Muslim Brotherhood, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/5/2026), alleges in part:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical terrorist organization that exists to usurp governmental power and establish dominion through Sharia law. For three decades, it has covertly operated in the United States under the name “CAIR”—the Council on American-Islamic Relations—as its American affiliate. The group is not peaceful. It is not tolerant. It does not respect the freedom to practice other religions or sects, including Christianity and Judaism. Instead, ... the Muslim Brotherhood ... has systematically engaged in political assassinations and terrorist attacks to accomplish its goal of a global Islamic caliphate....

Last November, the governor of Texas issued a Proclamation declaring CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to be a Foreign Terrorist and Transnational Criminal Organizations under Texas law. (See prior posting.)

The Texas Attorney General has issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Dispute with Pennsylvania Town

In June 2025, the Justice Department instituted an investigation of alleged RLUIPA violations by the Borough of Kingston, Pennsylvania. At issue has been the application of a 2023 Kingston zoning ordinance to attempts by the Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization to locate sites for places of worship and other religious facilities for its growing population. (See prior related posting.) On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Kingston.  To implement the agreement, the government filed a lawsuit against Kingston and along with it filed a proposed consent order (full text). The complaint (full text) in United States v. Borough of Kingston, (MD PA, filed 2/4/2026), alleges in part:

107. Kingston acted in violation of RLUIPA by “impos[ing] or  implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42  U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l)....

110. Kingston’s enactment and application of the 2023 Zoning Ordinance, and Kingston’s conduct described in this Complaint, constitute the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction in violation of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B). 

 The consent order requires Kingston to make various amendments to its zoning ordinance.

Trump Announces May Event to "Rededicate America as One Nation Under God"

President Trump yesterday delivered lengthy remarks (full transcript) at the National Prayer Breakfast held at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. His remarks included the following announcement:

In the last 12 months, young Americans attended church at nearly twice the rate as they did four years ago.... Some churches are seeing a 30 percent, 50 percent, or even 70 percent increase in the number of converts, and also the number of people going to church every week.

To support this exciting renewal this morning, I’m pleased to announce that on May 17th — 26th — that we’re inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to — We are going to do something that everyone said, like, that’s tough. We’re going to rededicate America as one nation under God.

Education Department Issues Guidance on School Prayer

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education issued a 9-page "Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools" (full text). An accompanying Press Release included this summary:

Key Points of the Guidance:

• Students, teachers, and other school officials have a right to pray in school as an expression of individual faith, as long as they’re not doing so on behalf of the school.
• Public schools may not sponsor prayer nor coerce or pressure students to pray. For example, a school principal may not lead a prayer at a mandatory school assembly.
• Public schools can regulate student speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” For example, a student can’t pray out loud during math class in a way that prevents others from learning, provided such disruptions are handled consistently with other forms of speech.
• Religious speech should be treated the same as secular speech. For example, an essay with religious content should be graded by the same academic standards as a secular essay of similar quality.
• Religious student organizations should likewise be treated the same as secular student organizations. For example, if a school offers support or recognition to secular student clubs, it must provide the same support to religious student clubs.

9th Circuit: Prison May Not Revoke Religious Diet Privilege Because Inmate Did Not Strictly Adhere to It

In Harris v. Muhammad, (9th Cir., Feb. 4, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a Buddhist inmate who had been taken off of the prison's Religious Meat Alternative Program (RAMP) because he often purchased non-Halal food from the prison commissary. Plaintiff was a Nichiren Buddhist. On advice of the prison chaplain, Harris chose RAMP, a halal compliant diet, as the closest to his Nichiren Buddhist belief that he should eat natural foods that are not highly processed. His precise diet that was unavailable did not require halal certification. The district court held that taking Harris off of RAMP was not a substantial burden on his religious exercise since his religion did not require him to limit his intake to halal meat. The 9th Circuit said in part:

By conditioning his ability to receive the diet which most aligns with his beliefs on whether he keeps Islamic dietary laws, Harris has shown a substantial burden on his religious exercise. ...

Holding otherwise imposes a judicial assessment of what diet is required by Harris’s Nichiren Buddhist faith....  

Judges ought not be Pharisees, decreeing from on high what practices are relevant to a prisoner’s understanding of his own faith.  See Matthew 23:23. ...  And if external forces cause Harris to fall short of the exact dictates of his religion, it is for him and his conscience, not us as courts, to decide what compromises are appropriate.  Thus, it is sufficient that Harris asserts that he sincerely believes that the RMAP program “is closest to his spiritual needs.”  In holding that an Islamic diet is not required by Harris’s Buddhist faith, the district court erred by discounting Harris’s own understanding of his faith....

... Harris’s departures from the Islamic diet—or even a Buddhist diet—do not demonstrate that his beliefs do not require him to adhere to that diet if possible. “[A] sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance; for where would religion be without its backsliders, penitents, and prodigal sons?”  ...

Each man’s faith is his own, and judges must avoid questioning whether a prisoner has strictly abided by the letter of his own sincere belief.

The district court erred by considering these backslides as part of a centrality inquiry (i.e., concluding that expulsion from RMAP would not affect Harris’s ability to practice his own religion)....

Although courts may not determine what actions are dictated by a plaintiff’s personal religious beliefs, a court may determine whether those beliefs are sincerely held..... RLUIPA does not entitle insincere believers in the “Church of Surf ‘n’ Turf” to luxury lobster and steak dinners.  But it also protects the rights of sincere believers, who may not fully adhere to their stated beliefs.  

Neither the district court nor the prison inquired into the sincerity of Harris’s beliefs, only their centrality to his religion.  The district court should consider that issue in the first instance....

New York Mayor Selects Director of Liberal Jewish Advocacy Group as Antisemitism Office Head

Numerous media sources report that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has chosen Phylisa Wisdom to head the New York Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism. Wisdom is currently executive director of the liberal Jewish advocacy group New York Jewish Agenda. The Forward reports:

Wisdom, 39, has aligned herself with some of the positions Mamdani has taken on countering antisemitism, including opposition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which considers most forms of anti-Zionism as antisemitic. Mamdani has thus far declined to say how his administration will define antisemitism when determining which cases to investigate or pursue. While leading a Zionist organization, Wisdom has also called for more sympathy toward Palestinians, and in November 2023, Wisdom’s group, under her leadership, spearheaded a statement by liberal Jewish elected officials calling for a bilateral ceasefire in Gaza.

In her new role, Wisdom will serve as Mamdani’s point person to the Jewish community. Her appointment is another signal that Mamdani’s anti-Zionist posture will continue to factor importantly into his leadership of the city, which is home to the largest concentration of Jews outside Israel. Her challenge will be facilitating dialogue with people who hold widely diverging viewpoints, without overriding a mayor whose positions on Israel are deeply held and long-standing.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Can Move Ahead Against School Officials on Two Counts

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia, (D DC, Feb. 3, 2026), the D.C. federal district court found that Fellowship of Christian Athletes' (FCA) claims against D.C. public schools and two school officials were not moot even though the school system revised its rules to allowed religious student organizations to give preference to members of the organization's religious affiliation. The school had originally revoked recognition of FCA because FCA required that students serving in a leadership capacity subscribe to a Statement of Faith and a policy of sexual purity. The court held that the individual defendants had qualified immunity as to FCA's various 1st Amendment claims, to their claims under RFRA, the Equal Access Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The court said, however:

Chancellor Ferebee and CIO Ruiz are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Counts VI and VII.  FCA alleges that the defendants selectively enforced DCPS’s Anti-Discrimination Policy on the basis of viewpoint (Count VI) and that enforcement of the policy against FCA violated FCA’s First Amendment right to expressive association (Count VII)....

In light of this Supreme Court and circuit case law, the Court concludes that the law was “sufficiently clear” that a “reasonable official” would have known that the challenged actions violated FCA’s First Amendment free speech and expressive association rights....

RFRA Defense to Indictment of Church Leader for Distributing Ayahuasca Fails

In United States v. Codi, (ND AL, Feb. 2, 2026), an Alabama federal district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss a criminal indictment charging her with possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute and with conspiracy. Defendant operated a website on behalf of her church, the "Temple of Umi", which sponsored ayahuasca retreats. Defendant claimed that the indictment violated her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Equal Protection clause. The court said in part:

... [T]he parties stipulated that the court could - for the purposes of the hearing - assume without deciding that Defendant is able to establish a prima facie case under RFRA. As such, the only issues left to be decided at this stage based on the hearing testimony were (1) whether the government had a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against Defendant and (2) whether the criminal prosecution of Defendant was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest....

... Defendant had been offered a plea agreement which would allow for pre-trial diversion and tolling of the Speedy Trial Act so long as she took the steps to obtain permission to legally handle DMT - either by filing a lawsuit or applying for a DEA exemption.... Defendant had been given that offer as recently as a week before the hearing and rejected the offer each time it was presented.  The Government argues this shows that prosecution is the least restrictive means necessary because Defendant was provided with a reasonable, less restrictive alternative, but rejected it....

... The Government has shown there is a compelling interest in preventing the diversion of DMT to secular users because, based on the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, there is a realistic probability and historical evidence of such diversion....

The Government presented evidence ... that the Temple of Umi is a business open to the public, with a nominal sign-up process. There was also evidence that emphasizes the non-religious benefits of ayahuasca and ayahuasca ceremonies put on by the Temple. In addition, the Government presented evidence that participants in the ayahuasca consumption ceremonies are not screened for their religious beliefs and thus it is easy for secular participants to obtain DMT at these ceremonies....

Journalist Don Lemon Indicted Under FACE Act Because of Church Anti-ICE Protest

As announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi on X last Tuesday:

At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Here is the full text of the January 29 grand jury indictment against journalist Don Lemon and the others. A federal magistrate judge had previously rejected a criminal complaint against Lemon saying that federal officials lacked probable cause to arrest the defendants.  In the Grand Jury indictment, defendants are charged with violating the federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC §241 and with violating the FACE Act 18 USC §248(a)(2). The FACE Act provides for penalizing any person who

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

The indictment alleges in part:

3. After the service commenced, a group of approximately 20-40 agitators, including all of the defendants named in this Indictment, entered the Church in a coordinated takeover-style attack and engaged in acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction alleged herein. 

4. As a result of defendants’ conduct, the pastor and congregation were forced to terminate the Church's worship service, congregants fled the Church building out of fear for their safety, other congregants took steps to implement an emergency plan, and young children were left to wonder, as one child put it, if their parents were going to die....

As reported by NBC News: 

... Lemon ,,, said from inside the church, “We’re not part of the activists, but we’re here just reporting on them.”

Protesters say the church’s pastor, David Easterwood, is the acting director of an ICE field office in the city.,,,

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Hakan Ibrahim Apaydin, Prophet and King Figures in Sacred Texts: Theological Inconsistencies and the Problem of Textual Construction, (January 02, 2026).
• David M. Engel, Village Law in a Changing World: Justice and Alienation in Thailand, (January 15, 2026).
• Russell Bell, Unfalsifiable Claims and Unaccountable Power: Why Theocracy Requires Thought Control, (January 21, 2026).
• Mathew Akinlabi Onifade, Epistemic Injustice in Africa: A Philosophical Dialogue with the Science of Religion, (November 17, 2025).
• Steven Collis, Public Employees as a Reflection of a Religiously Diverse Culture, (99 Notre Dame L. Rev. Reflection 229 (2024)).
• Lawrence O. Gostin, The Supreme Court's 2026 Term-Public Health in Jeopardy, (JAMA Health Forum, volume 7, issue 1, 2026).
• Samuel Singer & Gillian Smith, From Mistake to Malice: Misgendering in Canadian Legal Proceedings, (January 19, 2026).
• Gokula Krishnan B, India’s Transgender Policy in Global Context: A Comparative Study with South Asia., (Social Science & Humanities Open, 2026).
• Jeffrey A. Pojanowski, Natural Law and Reading Positive Law: Moments of Moral Judgment in Legal Interpretation, (American Journal of Jurisprudence, Volume 71 (forthcoming 2026)).
• Julia Hunter, Transgender Rights Federalism: Protecting Gender-Affirming Care in State Court, (UC Law Journal, Volume 77 (Forthcoming April 2026)).
• Jason Brownlee, Efforts to Weaponize Title VI against Pro-Palestine Speech on University Campuses, (December 31, 2024).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Abu Hayyan Saeed,, Islamic History , Fact or Fiction, (January 02, 2026).
• Sharat Fatema Angelic & Majdah Zawawi, Shurb Al-Khamr Under Islamic Criminal Law: Harm, Punishment, and Modern Legal Challenges, (January 04, 2026).
• Samiul Hasan, Executives in the Muslim Majority Countries: Practices and Lessons for Harm Prevention, (January 16, 2026).
• Ekaterina Ryzhkova, Religion As the Basis and Force of the Financial Policy of Muslim Countries, (November 25, 2025).
• Haseeb Fatima Saikhu & Rasham Armab Saikhu, Systematic Analysis of Inheritance Rights of Khuntha (Simple Hermaphrodite) and Khuntha Mushkil (Problematic Hermaphrodite) under Islamic Law and Pakistani Legal System, (Manchester Journal of Transnational Islamic Law & Practice Volume 21, Issue 4: 148-164, 2025).
• Sharat Fatema Angelic, Validity of Muslim Marriage Conducted via Video Call: An Islamic Jurisprudential Analysis, (January 16, 2026).
• Timur Kuran & Fasih Zulfiqar, Uneven Modernization in the Muslim World, (Annual Review of Economics, volume 18 (2026)).
• Arun Muralidhar, A Sharia-Compliant, Heterogeneous-Agent, Asset Pricing Model: With Asset Allocation and Risk-Adjusted Performance, (January 24, 2026).
• Shahid Mahmood, Artificial Intelligence and Human Identity: (Islamic Ethical Challenges), (January 06, 2026).
• Ming Sen Thong, Blockchain for Islamic Social Financing and Islamic Financial Institutions, (January 04, 2026).

From SmartCILP:

• BYU Law Review, Volume 50 (2024-2025), Issue 5.