Office of Personnel Management Says Federal Employee Religious Speech In Workplace Is Protected

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a Memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. The cover letter transmitting the Memo says in part:

The memo provides clear guidance to ensure federal employees may express their religious beliefs through prayer, personal items, group gatherings, and conversations without fear of discrimination or retaliation....

The memo builds on OPMʼs July 16 guidance on reasonable accommodations for religious purposes....

The Memo itself defines kind of religious speech that should be protected in the federal workplace, saying in part:

... Employees should be permitted to display and use items used for religious purposes or icons of a religiously significant nature ... on their desks, on their person, and in their assigned workspaces. 

... Agencies should allow ... employees to engage in individual or communal religious expressions in both formal and informal settings alone or with fellow employees, so long as such expressions do not occur during on-duty time...

... Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature. Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities. The constitutional rights of supervisors ...should not be distinguished from non-supervisory employees.... However, unwillingness to engage in such conversations may not be the basis of workplace discipline.   

...  [W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.....

Among the specific examples of protected employee speech set out in an Appendix to the Memo are:

• An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith. 
• On a bulletin board meant for personal announcements, a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church....
• A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer.
• A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery.....

The Hill reports on the Memo. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Blair Major, The Dignity of Religious Freedom (September 01, 2024).
• Pradeep Kumar Deepak, Slavery in Tripura: A Historical Overview (January 01, 2023).
• Richard W. Garnett & Alicia Cummins, Gerard V. Bradley and the American Law of Church and State, (Yes, ___ American Journal of Jurisprudence ___ (2025)).
• Luciano Meneguetti, The Imago Dei in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Theology of Human Dignity in Technological Times, (July 20, 2025).
• Gregor Puppinck, Conscientious Objection and Human Rights, a Systematic Analysis, (June 01, 2025).
• A.B.M. Asrafuzaman, Gender, Law, and Succession: A Comparative Examination of Women's Inheritance Rights in Bangladesh and the United States of America (USA) (July 25, 2025).
• Andrew M. Koppelman & Michael Judah, The New Establishment Clause Hallmarks Test: Sources and Distortions, (Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 25-41 (2025)).
• Emmanuel Ladji Inga, Safeguarding Muslim Women’s Religious Rights Through State Liability?, (July 15, 2025).
• Or Bassok, The Gods of the Constitution, From Kant to Kelsen: Democracy, Education, Peace (Francesco Di Donato, Sara Lagi, Flavio Silvestrini eds., Napoli, E.S., forthcoming)).
• Cekli Setya Pratiwi, Structural Violence and Unresolved Conflict: A Transcendence Approach to the Shia-Sunni Divide in Sampang, Indonesia (January 03, 2024).

From SSRN (Islamic law):

• George Henry, Cyber Law and the Insanity Defence: A Comparative Study of Medical and Islamic Legal Responses within the Framework of International Law, (July 14, 2025).
• Ayumiati, Heru Fahlevi, Muhammad Yasir Yusuf, & Syukriy Abdullah, Budget Management of the Aceh Government: An Analysis of the Maqāṣid al-sharī'ah Approach, (Samarah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga dan Hukum Islam, volume 8, issue 1, 2024).
• Gustiani Herli, Challenges and Opportunities of Sharia Business in the Global Economy, (July 09, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mary Marston, Diversity and Inclusion Trainings as a Public Relations Imperative: Addressing the Faragher–Ellerth Test via Interest-Convergence and Targeted Universalism, 32 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 317-348 (2024).
• John G. Culhane, Treacherous Rocks and Safe Harbors: Finding a Workable Compromise Between Constitutional Rights and Anti-Discrimination Laws, 31 Widener Law Review 23-44 (2025).

Cert. Petition Seeks Overturning of Obergefell Decision

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the Supreme Court last week in Davis v. Ermold, (Sup. Ct., cert filed 7/24/2025). 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. (See prior posting.) The petition for review asks the Court to decide whether she, as a public official, has a First Amendment free exercise defense to a claim for damages for emotional distress stemming from her refusal. More broadly, it asks the Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges which gave constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

RFRA and Free Exercise Clause Apply to Corporate Entities Exercising Religion

In United States v. Safehouse, (3d Cir., July 24, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause apply to corporate entities, and to non-religious entities exercising religion. The United States contended that defendant's offering of supervised illegal drug use violates federal law. Defendant argued that its overdose prevention services reflect its Board members' religious belief in the value of human life. The court said in part:

RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine are clear that those statutory and constitutional protections extend to non-natural persons, including so-called non-religious entities. In so holding, we express no view about whether threatened prosecution of Safehouse substantially burdens its exercise of religion. We likewise decline Safehouse’s invitation to determine in the first instance whether it has plausibly stated RFRA and Free Exercise claims. We only address the proper object of RFRA’s and the First Amendment’s protections: that object includes a non-natural entity allegedly exercising religion, even if the entity itself is not religious. 

Adoptive Parent Rule on Transgender Children Violates Plaintiff's Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights

 In Bates v. Pakseresht, (9th Cir., July 24, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Oregon's requirement that to be certified as an adoptive parent, a person must agree to respect and support an adopted child's gender identity and gender expression and use the child's preferred pronouns. Plaintiff contended that it violated her Seventh Day Adventist religious beliefs to use a child's preferred pronouns or take the child for gender transition medical appointments. In a 2-1 decision, the court agreed that the requirement violated plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights. The majority, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

We deal here with two vital such rights: the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion.  These rights work together, with “the Free Exercise Clause protect[ing] religious exercises, whether communicative or not,” and “the Free Speech Clause provid[ing] overlapping protection for expressive religious activities.”...  Fundamental as basic freedoms, these rights spring from a common constitutional principle: that the government may not insist upon our adherence to state favored orthodoxies, whether of a religious or political variety....

We hold that Oregon’s application of § 413-200-0308(2)(k) to Bates, in denying her certification to be an adoptive parent, triggers strict scrutiny for both her free speech and free exercise claims.  In Part A below, we explain why strict scrutiny applies to Bates’s free speech claim.  In Part B, we do the same for Bates’s Free Exercise Clause claim.  And in Part C, we explain why applying Oregon’s policy to Bates does not survive strict scrutiny.  Bates has therefore shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that denying her certification under § 413-200-0308(2)(k) violates the First Amendment.

Judge Clifton dissented, saying in part in a 40-page opinion:

The only limitation imposed by the state in declining to approve her application to foster a child concerns her treatment of the child, not what she personally believes, how she speaks to the world, or how she practices her faith. Oregon should be permitted to put the best interests of the child for which it is responsible paramount in making the decision to place one of its children in the custody of a foster applicant. Parents would not be expected to entrust their children to caregivers who volunteer that they will not respect the child’s self-determined gender identity, if that is something the parents have decided is important. Oregon should not be powerless to protect children for whom it has parental responsibility and for whom it has decided respect should be given. 

Cutoff of Medicaid Funds to Planned Parenthood Clinics That Do Not Offer Abortions Is Unconstitutional

In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, July 21, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood members that do not offer abortion services, but whose Medicaid funding was cut off by recent Congressional legislation.  The court concluded that this cutoff likely violated the expressive association and equal protection rights of these Planned Parenthood clinics. The court said in part:

To the extent that Section 71113 may be applied to Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the law impermissibly conditions the receipt of Medicaid funding on these Members foregoing their right to associate with Planned Parenthood Federation and other Members. Members who do not provide abortions cannot escape the law’s burden except by disassociating from Members that do. And because Section 71113 may be applied to Members who are affiliates of each other via the structure, governance, and membership requirements of Planned Parenthood Federation, disassociating with other Members requires disassociating from Planned Parenthood Federation itself.  

While Defendants contend that Section 71113 does not regulate speech, the record demonstrates that Members’ affiliation via their membership in Planned Parenthood Federation is expressive. Planned Parenthood Federation advocates before Congress, provides education and information about sexual and reproductive health, and through Planned Parenthood Action Fund, communicates with the public regarding lawmakers’ voting records, supports campaigns for ballot initiatives, and supports candidates for federal, state, and local officials who will support reproductive freedom in furtherance of its mission....

Congress may set conditions “that define the limits” of a spending program by “specify[ing] the activities Congress wants to subsidize,” but Congress may not set “conditions that seek to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself.”...

... Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do.... Therefore, restricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion....

... Section 71113 ... declines Medicaid funding on the basis of affiliation, and thus draws a classification that burdens a fundamental First Amendment right. Where Defendants have not shown the law is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim....

Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts posted an update explaining the court's holding. Fox News reports on the decision.

Russian Supreme Court Bans Satanist Organization

As reported by Mediazona:

Russian Supreme Court Judge Oleg Nefedov has granted a request from the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice to designate the “international Satanist movement” as “extremist”. In November 2023, the same judge made a similar ruling against the non-existent “international LGBT movement”.

On the morning of July 23, Russia’s Supreme Court designated Satanism as “extremist” and banned its activities with immediate effect. The case was heard behind closed doors, with neither the public nor journalists present....

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, first mentioned the “International Satanist movement” in January 2025, when he called for a legislative ban on Satanism in Russia....

In early July, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice filed a suit with the Supreme Court to have the “international Satanist movement” declared extremist.

According to Politico:

Despite the official-sounding name, the “International Movement of Satanists” does not appear to exist, at least not under that moniker.

Russia's Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement (full text) yesterday:

Today, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation satisfied the claim of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Igor Krasnov to recognize the International Movement of Satanists as extremist and ban its activities in Russia.

As established, the movement is based on extremist ideology, hatred and enmity towards traditional religious confessions.

Its participants publicly call for extremism, as well as for the destruction, damage and desecration of Orthodox churches, chapels, worship crosses, etc.

The followers of the movement adhere to the general principles of Satanism, use the same symbols and attributes, and perform occult rites. The conceptual basis is made up of publications recognized as extremist materials.

The movement is closely associated with manifestations of radical nationalism and neo-Nazism.

Along with ritual murders, participants also commit other crimes, including against minors.

Challenge To California's Investigation of Caste Discrimination Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, July 18, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed on various procedural grounds a suit contending that the California Civil Rights Department is violating the constitutional rights of Hindu Americans by "conflat[ing] a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion" in an investigation of Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual plaintiffs in the case include employees of Cisco.

The court first concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine requires it to dismiss the case because it would pose "a serious risk of direct interference with state court proceedings...." The court went on to find a lack of standing to pursue plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

In the present case, the Individual Plaintiffs do not allege that they were direct targets of the Department's enforcement action but instead allege that they learned of it through, among other things, conversation or reading about the State Action.... Plaintiffs contend in conclusory fashion that the Department's conduct has chilled their participation in "the political community," but do not identify what political community they refer to in this regard.... Instead, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Department's conduct has led to conversations at discrete, unidentified social events.... In this way, plaintiffs' allegations merely state an abstract stigmatic injury, rather than an injury caused by direct contact with the Department's actions and are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert their claim under the Establishment Clause....

The court also found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, saying in part: 

Plaintiffs cannot persuasively maintain that there "exists some conflict between one of [their] religious convictions and a challenged governmental action[]" precisely because they contend that caste discrimination is not one of their religious convictions....

Because plaintiffs have not alleged that they plan to engage in religious conduct which could arguably be the target of an enforcement action brought by the Department, the court concludes that they have not shown standing to bring a pre-enforcement action pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause....

The SAC now includes allegations from the Individual Plaintiffs regarding how they feel stigmatized, however, it includes no allegations that the Department has pursued any discriminatory action against the Individual Plaintiffs....

The court similarly found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. It also concluded that the Hindu American Foundation lacks organizational or associational standing, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory appears to be that the Foundation was forced to respond to the Department’s actions insofar as it spent any resources responding to those actions rather than on other initiatives.  The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such a theory of standing.

The Mooknayak reports on the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lewis S. Davis, Religion, Differential Trust and the Rule of Law: Evidence from Rainfall Data. (2025).
• Libin Zhang, Papal-American Tax Problems and a Solution, (June 16, 2025).
• A.B.M. Asrafuzaman, Shirin Sultana, Rubiaat Hasan Sawon & Sadman Rizwan Apurbo, Muslim and Hindu Women's Inheritance Rights in Bangladesh: An Empirical Study, (July 16, 2024).
• L. Ali Khan, The Prophets of Punjab: Guru Nanak and Ghulam Ahmad. (July 07, 2025).
• A.B.M. Asrafuzaman, Comparing Women's Inheritance Rights in Hindu and Buddhist Communities: Insights from Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, (January 16, 2025).
• Luke W. Goodrich, Religious Hiring Beyond the Ministerial Exception, (101 Notre Dame L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Sheikh Inam Ul Mansoor, Islamic Law in the Age of Blockchain: Exploring Shari’ah Compliant Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets, (May 19, 2025).
• Jonathan M. Leganza, The Effects of Tax Incentives to Donate Wealth to Charity: Evidence from Qualified Charitable Distributions, (July 07, 2025).
• David S. Cohen, Greer Donley & Rachel Rebouche, Abortion Shield Laws in Action, (JAMA Internal Medicine, (June 39, 2025)).

Recent Books:

• Peter S. Wenz, Abortion Rights as the Free Exercise of Religion: The Constitutional Case for Choice, (McFarland, 2025).
• John Witte Jr and Andrea Pin, The Legal Foundations of Religious Freedom, (Notre Dame Press, (forthcoming April 2026).
• Matthew Tapie, The Mortara Case and Thomas Aquinas’s Defense of Jewish Parental Authority, (Catholic University of America Press, May 2025).

Court Enjoins Newly Mandated Child Abuse Reporting By Priests

In Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, July 18, 2025), a Washington federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's new law requiring priests to report suspected child abuse learned in the Sacrament of Confession. The injunction applies to all priests supervised by the archbishop and bishops who are plaintiffs in the suit. The court said in part:

There is no question that SB 5375 burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.  In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law....

SB 5375 modifies existing law solely to make members of the clergy mandatory reporters with respect to child abuse or neglect....  However, other groups of adults who may learn about child abuse are not required to report.  Parents and caregivers, for example, are not mandatory reporters.  Moreover, the Washington legislature passed Substitute House Bill 1171... exempting attorney higher education employees from mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect as it relates to information gained in the course of providing legal representation to a client”....

Thus, SB 5375 is neither neutral nor generally applicable because it treats religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity....

The state, in removing the privileged communication exception for clergy but expanding it for other professionals, cannot demonstrate the narrow tailoring strict scrutiny requires....

Becket Law issued a press release announcing the decision.

One Plaintiff Has Standing to Challenge Kentucky Abortion Ban on Religious Grounds

In Sobel v. Coleman, (KY App., July 11, 2025), a Kentucky state appeals court partially reversed a trial court's decision and held that one of the plaintiffs challenging Kentucky's abortion ban has standing to pursue her claim that the law violates her rights under Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

The primary argument of this case revolves around the embryos created with IVF.  During IVF, multiple eggs of a woman are fertilized.  This can lead to excess embryos that are not implanted in the woman.  These extra embryos are either frozen and stored, disposed of, or donated.  Appellants claim that the destruction of any unviable or unused embryos could lead to criminal charges relating to the death of an unborn child....

Appellants ... claim that their Jewish faith requires them to increase their family and multiply.  They argue that restricting their access to IVF due to the unclear notion of unborn child and unborn human being violates their religion.  They also claim that their faith prioritizes the life of a mother over the life of a fetus; therefore, restrictions on abortion violate their faith.  Further, they claim that their faith does not support the idea that life begins at conception, rather that a fetus becomes a child only once it exits the mother’s body.  They claim that the laws in Kentucky surrounding abortion are Christian in nature and do not take into consideration their faith....

Ms. Kalb has taken active steps to get pregnant.  She has nine embryos in frozen storage ready for her use and she scheduled, but ultimately canceled, an embryo implantation in 2022.  Ms. Kalb’s actions show imminence in a potential injury sufficient to satisfy standing for her religious-based claims.

The Forward reports on the decision.

Ban On Pride Flag on City Poles Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, (ED MI, July 14, 2025), a Michigan federal district court held that a ban on religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags on city flag poles does not violate the plaintiffs' free speech rights or the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

The plaintiffs also bring a claim under another part of the First Amendment, positing that the enactment of Resolution 2023-82 that effectively banned display of the Pride flag violated the Establishment Clause because it was promulgated “to accommodate a segment of the Hamtramck community which was hostile to the rights of the gay community based on their personal religious views.”  The plaintiffs cite several statements in this record by city councilpersons condemning homosexuality and expressing hostility to the sentiments that the Gay Pride flag may symbolize.   

However, the plaintiffs’ “evidence” of subjective motivation to advance a religious viewpoint is irrelevant to the analysis of alleged Establishment Clause violations....

The justifications advanced here — foreclosing public controversy and avoiding contentious litigation over displays of competing viewpoints — have been found to be constitutionally valid by courts that upheld regulations with indistinguishable limitations on flagpole displays.

Christian Bookstore Challenges Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by a Christian bookstore challenging on free speech, free exercise, equal protection and due process grounds recent amendments to Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint (full text) in Doxa Enterprise, Ltd. v. Sullivan, (D CO, filed 7/16/2025), alleges in part:

2. Colorado recently passed HB25-1312 (the “Act”) and amended the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) to define “gender expression” to include “chosen name” and “how an individual chooses to be addressed.” The Act then declares that Coloradans have a right to access “public accommodations[] and advertising” free of discrimination on that basis— except if the requested language is “offensive” or made for “frivolous purposes.”  Under this revised CADA language, it is now illegal for public accommodations like independent bookstores to refer to transgender-identifying individuals with biologically accurate language in their publications and customer interactions. 

3. This puts CADA on a collision course with the First Amendment rights of Plaintiff Doxa Enterprise, Ltd (“Born Again Used Books” or the “Bookstore”), a Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs that sells Christian literature, homeschool curricula, and classics. The Bookstore also publishes a website and social media accounts to promote its Christian faith and products.

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

Christian Evangelist Challenges Town's Permit Requirement for Carrying Sign

Suit was filed this week in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the application of Chapin, South Carolina's "Parades, Demonstrating, Picketing" Ordinance to plaintiff's carrying of a religious sign on public rights of way. The complaint (full text) in Giardino v. Town of Chapin, South Carolina, (D SC, filed 7/15/2025), alleges in part:

2. Chapin interprets and applies the Ordinance regulating “demonstrations” to engulf Giardino’s use of religious signs while standing on public rights-of-way in town limits, requiring him to (i) apply for a permit to hold a sign on a public way, (ii) supply fourteen-day advance notice of his use of a sign, (iii) divulge identity and content of his sign, (iv) conditioned on standardless approval of the Mayor, and, if approved, (v) limit his time holding a sign to thirty minutes, and (vi) to move to a different spot after fifteen minutes...

12. Giardino is an evangelical Christian driven by his faith to share the good news of Jesus Christ (gospel) with others. 

13. He wants to inform others of the salvation they can find by believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as their savior.   

14. To convey this evangelistic message, Giardino holds a 20-inch by 24-inch sign attached to a short handle containing a short, pithy statement about the gospel while standing on a public sidewalk or public right-of-way in the town limits of Chapin, South Carolina.

The complaint alleges that enforcement of the Ordinance violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and due process rights, as well as South Carolina's Religious Freedom Act. Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

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

Office of Personnel Management Issues Memo On Religious Accommodations

Yesterday, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management released a Memorandum on Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Purposes (full text) instructing executive branch agencies and departments to "adopt a generous approach to approving religious accommodations." The Memorandum in particular discusses Telework, compensatory time off and Maxiflex work schedules as methods of accommodating religious practices. The Memorandum reads in part:

Upon receiving a request for a religious accommodation, agencies must engage in a good-faith interactive process with the employee to explore reasonable accommodations. Agencies should further assess whether an accommodation imposes a substantial burden on operations. Agencies should document their analyses to ensure compliance with Title VII and applicable law. Agencies are also reminded that religious accommodations may involve multiple, complementary or hybrid approaches to fully address an employee’s religious needs. For example, combining telework and a maxiflex work schedule could be particularly effective for practices such as Sabbath observance, where religious obligations may span only part of a workday. Agencies should consider tailored solutions in ensuring compliance with Title VII.

Fox News reports on the Memorandum.

Court In India Says Elephant's Welfare Takes Precedence Over Its Use in Religious Rites

In  Bhattarak v. Union of India, (Bombay High Ct., July 16, 2025), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of Bombay in India upheld an order issued by Indian officials to a Trust operated by a Jain religious organization requiring the transfer of an elephant owned by the Trust to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, an elephant care center. Petitioner contended, among other things, that the elephant was used for Jain religious ceremonies. The court said in part:

Before we part, we deem it appropriate to record that we have considered and chosen the survival of the elephant and its right to quality life, over and above the rights of men to use the elephant for religious rites.  We have no doubt that the Petitioner-Math may have had no deliberate intent to cause injury to the elephant however, in the given circumstances of conflict between the rights of an elephant and the rights of Petitioner-Math to use the elephant in the discharge of its religious activities, priority must be given to the elephant’s welfare. The Court has duty under the doctrine parens patriae to secure the rights of the voiceless and hapless Mahadevi.  We cannot but reminisce the words of Lawrence Anthony in his book ‘The Elephant Whisperer’, 

“But perhaps the most important lesson I learned is that there are no walls between humans and the elephants except those that we put up ourselves, and that until we allow not only elephants, but all living creatures their place in the sun, we can never be whole ourselves.” 

Live Law reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: FDA Regulation of Mifepristone Does Not Pre-Empt West Virginia's Abortion Ban

In GenBioPro, Inc. v. Raynes, (4th Cir., July 15, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of appeals in a 2-1 decision, held that federal law regulating the abortion drug mifepristone does not pre-empt West Virginia's Unborn Child Protection Act which bans almost all abortions. The suit was brought by a manufacturer of generic mifepristone. The majority said in part:

We begin by addressing GenBioPro’s field preemption theory. GenBioPro argues that the FDAAA “occupied the field of regulating access to REMS drugs with safe-use elements.”... In its view, West Virginia’s abortion law intrudes into this field by restricting access to mifepristone.  

We disagree. West Virginia’s abortion law and the FDAAA operate in different fields. West Virginia’s law regulates the incidence of abortion. It determines whether an abortion may be performed at all, prohibiting the procedure in all but a few specific circumstances. In contrast, the FDAAA permits the FDA to regulate how mifepristone must be prescribed and dispensed if and when a medication abortion is performed....

And even were we to assume the state and federal laws regulate the same field, that field is not one that Congress has occupied....

We last address GenBioPro’s contention that the West Virginia law conflicts with the FDAAA....

The company claims that it cannot comply with both federal and state law because the FDA has authorized the sale of mifepristone while the state has banned its use. It likewise argues that the West Virginia law poses an obstacle to the FDAAA’s goal of ensuring drug access. In its view, Congress struck a careful balance between drug safety and access, and West Virginia’s abortion law disrupts this balance by burdening access to mifepristone. 

Both of these theories rely on the same flawed premise: that Congress intended to guarantee nationwide access to mifepristone when it enacted the FDAAA. We see no indication that it did....

Judge Benjamin dissented, saying in part:

By criminalizing medical providers and prohibiting medication abortions, then, West Virginia has exceeded the ability to regulate abortion as established in Dobbs and has trespassed on the FDA’s authority to regulate the safe use of and unburdened access to mifepristone.  

Stated simply, the majority’s conclusion on this point focuses on regulation of abortion generally, despite the issue here being the state regulation of an otherwise federally approved drug—a much narrower focus.  The federal government has clearly occupied the drugs with REMS and elements to assure safe use field, and West Virginia overreaches by seeking to add additional regulations to the same.  Accordingly, field preemption applies....

Because the UCPA burdens patients and healthcare systems and imposes inconsistent regulation of mifepristone in ways not intended by Congress, conflict preemption also precludes the state law.

Metro News reports on the decision.