Religion Clause

Monday, August 25, 2025

Ban on Faith Statements by Colleges Participating in Program for High Schoolers Violates Free Exercise Clause

Loe v. Jett, (D MN, Aug. 22, 2025), is a challenge to a 2023 Amendment to Minnesota's Post Secondary Education Option (PSEO) statute. The statute allows high school students to enroll in nonsectarian college courses in colleges in the state. The state reimburses colleges for the credits earned by high schoolers. The challenged amendment disqualifies colleges that require faith statements from PSEO students, or which discriminate in admission of PSEO students on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation or religious beliefs or affiliations. The court held that the Faith Statement ban violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, saying in part:

[University of] Northwestern requires PSEO applicants to agree to a Declaration of Christian Community, by which applicants attest to “honor Christ,” “seek Christ‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that the Bible clearly condemns.”... Such an admissions requirement is facially proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban. Now, consider a hypothetical secular private college that participates in the PSEO program. If that secular school required that all PSEO applicants attest to “honor reason,” “seek reason‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that rationalism clearly condemns,” such an admissions requirement would seemingly not be proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban.

The only difference between the two statement requirements is that Northwestern’s is of a religious—and not a secular—nature. Such a distinction on the face of the Faith Statement Ban is not neutral to religion, and thus triggers strict scrutiny....

In sum, the Faith Statement Ban is unconstitutional on its face under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it burdens religious exercise, is not neutral and generally applicable, and is not narrowly tailored to achieve MDE’s compelling interest. Necessarily, this means that the Faith Statement Ban is also unconstitutional under the Freedom of Conscience Clause of Article One, Section Sixteen of the Minnesota Constitution. ...

The court also held that the Amendment's nondiscrimination provision is inseparable from the Statement Ban, so that it too must be struck down. It also rejected the Department of Education's counterclaims against the religious schools that were among the plaintiffs.

MPR News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Friday, August 22, 2025

Pastor's Suit for Reinstatement Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kyles v. Church of God in Christ, (TX App, Aug. 21, 2025), a Texas state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff, Rufus Kyles, should be reinstated as pastor of the Evangelist Temple Church of God in Christ in Houston, Texas. The court explained in part:

Kyles alleged wrongdoings by multiple bodies of the church during investigations into complaints against him and the resolution of those investigations. The CGC filed an answer, alleging that Kyles was charged in the church with sexual misconduct in 2014, that the church conducted an internal investigation and internal judicial processes in which Kyles participated, and that the internal judicial processes resulted in Kyles being removed from the offices of bishop and pastor....

Here, Kyles’s lawsuit would require the review of the ecclesiastical judicial process, analysis of the CGC’s internal church governance and procedure, and a determination regarding the appropriateness of the CGC’s disciplinary actions against Kyles. In other words, Kyles’s lawsuit cannot be resolved by only applying neutral principles of law; instead, it would require the application of principles of church governance, procedure, and discipline... To prevent courts from impermissibly influencing church governance, courts may not second-guess the decisions reached by a church judicatory body in the application of its own rule, custom, or law....

School Counselor's Office Display of Anti-Trans Books Is Permissible Only When No Students Are in His Office

In Theis v. Intermountain Education Service Board of Directors, (D ORA, Aug. 20, 2025), a social worker employed by the district to administer standardized tests individually to students sued claiming his constitutional rights were violated when the district found that his display of two particular books in his office violated the district's bias policy. The district found that the display of the books-- titled He is He and She is She--constituted a hostile expression toward a person because of their gender identity. Plaintiff was ordered to stop displaying the books.

The court concluded that the district's policy did not violate plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

... Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant’s Speech Policy is not neutral. There is no indication that the ESB Policy restricts any religious practices because of their religious motivations. Indeed, the policy explicitly seeks to prevent discrimination or harassment based on religion. And even if the ESB Policy adversely impacted religious practices, it is addressing the legitimate concern of ensuring an open and welcoming school environment for all students and employees.

Plaintiff also has not shown that Defendants were “hostile” towards his religious beliefs....

The court however agreed in part with plaintiff's free speech claim, saying that "only his display when no students are present is protected under the First Amendment." It explained:

When no students were present in Plaintiff’s office, the message of the books would not be reasonably attributable to IMESD, and the display could not press Plaintiff’s views on impressionable or captive students.

Thursday, August 21, 2025

Court Enjoins Compliance with Texas Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, Aug. 20, 2025), a Texas federal district court in an unusual 55-page opinion that defies brief summarization issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The court said in part:

... [T]o succeed on the merits under Kennedy, Plaintiffs must show that the practice at issue–permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms–does not “fit within” and is not “consistent with” a broader tradition existing at the time of the founding....

The Court heard from and is very appreciative of the testimony of Dr. Steven Green and Dr. Mark Hall, which was an extensive augmentation of the Court’s 20 years of Methodist Sunday School and theology, political philosophy and constitutional history courses at Texas Lutheran University. The Court finds Dr. Green’s opinions concerning the intent of the Founders regarding the First Amendment to be more persuasive than Dr. Hall’s testimony....

The court's conclusionary section provides a flavor of the opinion:

Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque. They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government run schools.

Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do. Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: “Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?” Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, ... and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.

Notwithstanding the sausage making process of legislation, to avoid religious rancor and legal wrangling the Texas Legislature alternatively could require the posting of:

1. Multiple versions of lessons of behavior from many cultures melded into the American motto of “E pluribus unum,” a concept currently in decline. For example, the Five Moral Precepts of Buddhism: abstain from killing, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying and intoxicants; or

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Be kind. Be respectful.; or

3. All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: “Share everything. Play Fair.Don’t hit people. . . . Clean up your own mess. Don’t take things that aren’t yours. Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. . . . Live a balanced life. . . . When you go out into the world, . . . hold hands, and stick together.”

CBS News reports on the decision.

8th Circuit: Evidence Did Not Support Dismissal of Jail Administrator's Title VII Religious Discrimination Case

In Naylor v. County of Muscatine, Iowa, (8th Cir., Aug. 19, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a county jail administrator who was fired because of his online postings. The court said in part:

At the district court, Muscatine County argued it would suffer two types of undue hardship if it continued to employ Naylor as jail administrator. First, the County argued that keeping Naylor on would cause the jail undue hardship because the publicity surrounding his online commentary—which included disparaging views of Muslims and “the gay lifestyle”—had harmed its public image....

We assume, but need not decide, that public image effects can present issues for an organization sufficient to rise to the level of an undue hardship under Title VII. Here, the County has simply not provided sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment on this ground....

As a second, related type of undue hardship, Muscatine County argued to the district court that retaining Naylor as the jail administrator would imperil its business relationships. The district court agreed, relying on evidence that two outside entities—USMS and Johnson County—considered ending their agreements to send their overflow detainees to the jail as a result of Naylor’s online commentary, and that the loss of these relationships would cause a significant financial burden to Muscatine County. While a reasonable jury could find this evidence sufficient to establish an undue hardship, the evidence is insufficient to support the grant of summary judgment.

Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Austrian Court Approves Arbitration Award Rendered by Panel Applying Islamic Law

The European Conservative reported this week that the Regional Court for Civil Law Matters in Vienna, Austria has confirmed an arbitration decision reached by arbitrators who applied Islamic law (Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah principles). Parties to a contract had agreed to submit their contract dispute to the Muslim law panel. According to the news report:

The court ... confirmed the arbitration decision without reviewing which specific Islamic rules were applied, stating that it only needed to ensure the outcome did not violate the ”fundamental principles” of Austrian law.

The court's decision is controversial in Austria. According to another European Conservative report:

Although the court said its decision only applies to property disputes, opponents fear it will encourage the wider use of Sharia-based agreements in Austria.

Good News Clubs Must Have Equal Access to School Facilities

In Child Evangelism Fellowship NorCal, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, Aug. 15, 2025), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Oakland School District from denying Christian Evangelism Fellowship and its Good News Clubs access to school facilities after school on an equal basis with the access provided similarly situated nonprofit organizations. Plaintiff had been denied use of school facilities, in part because all space was being used by two broad afterschool programs that choose subcontractors to provide content. The court said in part:

Even assuming that afterschool space is now controlled by the lead agencies, as OUSD seems to urge, Plaintiff has provided an example of a lead agency similarly denying CEF access as a subcontractor because of its religious affiliation....

In short, the Court finds that the law and facts clearly favor Plaintiff’s position that OUSD violated CEF’s free speech rights.

Catholic News Agency reports on the decision.

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

EEOC Highlights Its Actions to Protect Employees' Religious Freedom

The EEOC yesterday issued a lengthy press release titled 200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work. The Release says in part:

To date, the EEOC has recovered over $55 million for workers impacted by these [vaccine] mandates—most recently, this week’s $1 million settlement with Mercyhealth. During the Biden Administration, almost all of the agency’s important work enforcing Title VII in the wake of COVID-19 vaccine mandates happened both silently and too slowly. No longer. Under the Trump Administration, the EEOC is taking bold and aggressive steps to remedy the widespread civil rights harms during the pandemic—the first public fruits of which are reflected below....

It also highlighted initiatives involving religious accommodation for employees, antisemitism in colleges, protection of federal employees' religious rights and the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.

9th Circuit: Oregon Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for Grantees Is Mostly Valid

In Youth 71Five Ministries v. Willliams, (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2025), a Christian youth program sued after the Oregon Department of Education's Youth Development Division withdrew the conditional award of a grant. Plaintiff requires that its board members, employees, and volunteers agree to a Christian Statement of Faith and be involved in a local church. The Division contended that this violates its religious non-discrimination policy. Plaintiff contended that the withdrawal violated its free exercise, religious-autonomy, and expressive-association rights.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in part:

... [T]he Rule does not deny funding based on a practice exclusive to religious organizations. Government agencies, secular corporations, and religious ministries alike might engage in religion-based employment discrimination....

Based on the evidence properly before the district court, it was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the Division likely treats comparable secular and religious activity the same....

... 71Five argues that merely tailoring services to a target demographic is comparable to 71Five’s categorical exclusion of non-Christians. We disagree....

The Division adopted the Rule to, among other reasons, better reflect its “commitment to equitable access, equal opportunity, and inclusion.” That is a legitimate interest.... The Rule rationally furthers that interest by ensuring that Division-funded initiatives are equally open to employees, volunteers, and participants regardless of race, sex, religion, or any other protected characteristic. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that 71Five is not likely to succeed on the merits of its free-exercise claim....

71Five claims that the Rule abridges its expressive association by requiring it to accept employees and volunteers “who disagree” with its message “or would express a contrary view.” ... We hold that 71Five has established that it is likely to succeed, at least in part. As to Division-funded initiatives, the Rule is likely permissible as a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulation of expressive association in a limited public forum—the Grant Program. But to the extent that it restricts 71Five’s selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through initiatives that receive no Division funding, the Rule likely imposes an unconstitutional condition....

71Five’s complaint does not allege a violation of any clearly established right under the First Amendment, so the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court did not err in dismissing 71Five’s damages claims with prejudice.

Judge Rawlinson concurred only in the judgment and did not join the majority's opinion, saying in part:

I concur in the judgment because, and only because, of our truncated review of a district court's decision granting or denying injunctive relief, and our obligatory deference to a district court's discretionary decision to decline consideration of arguments and evidence presented in a Reply Brief. ...

I decline to join the majority opinion's analysis because it relies heavily on the premise (mistaken, in my view), that Youth Five's website evidenced discrimination, while websites from the secular organizations applying for grants did not evidence discrimination....

[Thanks to Steven Sholk for the lead.]

Monday, August 18, 2025

9th Circuit Rejects Christian Day Care's Challenge to Licensing Requirement

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), Foothills, a Christian day care center, challenged a California licensing provision requiring that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious services or activities of their parents' choice. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the regulation on free exercise grounds because the state has repeatedly taken the position that the regulation does not prohibit operating a day care center with a mandatory religious curriculum, where parents are made aware of this in advance of enrollment.

However, the court held that Foothills does have standing to challenge the general licensing requirement on the ground that some secular child day care centers are exempt from licensing. But the court rejected that claim on the merits, saying in part:

Foothills contends that the Act’s exemption of “recreation programs conducted for children by” the YMCA “or similar organizations,”... But this provision only exempts recreation programs from the licensure requirement; it explicitly does not exempt “child day care programs conducted by” the same organizations and so creates no mechanism for granting individualized exemptions for such facilities....

Foothills points to the exception for any “child daycare program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day.”... This exemption applies to, among other things, Sunday schools. But a program that oversees children for only four hours a week does not present a threat to children’s health and safety comparable to that of a facility that can operate up to 24 hours a day....

Foothills alleges that the Act’s exemption of certain sectarian organizations—such as the YMCA and Boy Scouts of America—from licensing gives preferential treatment to certain religions in violation of the Establishment Clause....

If Foothills sought to operate a recreation program, it would not be subject to the Act. And if the YMCA or the Boy Scouts sought to operate a child day care facility, they would. This exemption draws no lines based on religion....

The court also held that the required disclosure to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice does not infringe Foothills' free speech rights, distinguishing the Supreme Court case of Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra , saying in part:

Because the Act merely requires Foothills to inform parents of their children’s rights and does not “convey a message fundamentally at odds with its mission,” the required disclosure is not controversial....

Friday, August 15, 2025

8th Circuit: Rejection of Prison Course on Manhood From Christian Biblical Lens Violated Volunteer's 1st Amendment Rights

In Schmitt v. Robertus, (8th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Minnesota prison officials likely violated the 1st Amendment in refusing to allow plaintiff, a volunteer, to teach a program titled The Quest for Authentic Manhood at the Minnesota Correctional Facility. The program defines manhood through a Christian biblical lens. Officials rejected the program as violating the prison's diversity, equity and inclusivity values, saying in part:

Throughout all sessions reviewed, men were only identified as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women. It is evident that throughout this curriculum, manhood can only be achieved through heterosexual relationships.

Additionally, throughout many of the sessions, women are also identified as the problem for creating “soft males[,”] described as indecisive and weak....

The 8th Circuit focused on the test in prison cases announced by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley. Under that test prison regulations must have a valid rational connection to a legitimate governmental interest. The 8th Circuit said in part:

The first Turner factor, however, requires more than a legitimate penological interest. “[T]he governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”... “This means that the proffered mechanism by which the regulation promotes the legitimate government interest must be ‘unrelated to the suppression of expression.’” ...

Here, although the MDOC set forth a legitimate government interest, its termination of Quest was not “in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression.”...

Judge Kelly dissented, saying in part:

As I see it, it is common sense that a prison, like a school, can curate the programming it provides. ...

It thus seems natural to me to conclude that MDOC’s rehabilitative programming constitutes government speech, casting doubt on Schmitt’s free-speech and free-exercise claims....

5th Circuit Allows San Antonio Park Development To Move Ahead Over Religious Objections of Lipan-Apache

In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., Aug. 13, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a trial court's refusal to enjoin San Antonio's development plan for a city park. Plaintiffs are members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church. Certain of their religious ceremonies can take place only at a particular river bend in the park and require the presence of cormorants in the trees there. The development plans involve removing and relocation of trees and modifying bird habitats to deter birds from nesting in highly urbanized areas of the park. Plaintiffs claim that removal of trees and the bird deterrence program violate their religious freedom protected by the 1st Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution. In a prior opinion, the 5th Circuit certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Constitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In response, the Texas Supreme Court said that the constitutional provision does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands.

In this week's decision, the majority, refusing to grant an injunction pending further appeal, held that the project did not violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

... [T]he City’s development plan only indirectly impacts Appellants’ religious conduct and expression. Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. The record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year....

Appellants did not meet their burden to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the plan constitutes a substantial burden of their religious exercise. Even if they did, that would not change the outcome of this appeal because the City’s plan advances a compelling interest through the least restrictive means—and thus survives strict scrutiny.

The majority also held that the city's program did not violate the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The parties’ dispute under the Free Exercise Clause centers on which standard of constitutional review applies to the instant case, rational basis or strict scrutiny. Appellants argue that the City’s plans for tree removal and rookery management measures are not neutral and generally applicable and, therefore, must be analyzed under the more exacting strict scrutiny standard. The City contends that its planned Park improvements are neutral and generally applicable and that the more deferential rational basis standard of review applies. Assuming strict scrutiny applies, we conclude that the challenged government action in this case withstands Appellants’ Free Exercise challenge, as illustrated infra in the TRFRA claim analysis.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, saying in part:

Despite my respect for the majority’s analysis, I continue to think that Appellants’ religious exercise is substantially burdened and that the City of San Antonio ... failed to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs in the least restrictive manner. I would therefore hold that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“TRFRA”) requires the City to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs across two “items of relief” requested in the complaint: the City’s tree-removal (“Item 2”) and anti-nesting (“Item 3”) measures....

Appellants’ testimony shows that services at the riverbend would be “meaningless” without the trees or the cormorants, and that disruption to either will “unravel” the land’s spiritual ecology—a sine qua non for Church members’ religious exercise. Just as importantly, Appellants’ testimony confirms that these services cannot “be performed anywhere else.”...

To the extent the majority suggests that Appellants can obtain spiritual fulfilment by exercising their religious beliefs in a manner contrary to their testimony, such reasoning is forbidden.

School Officials Lack Standing To Sue Advocacy Group For Interfering With Their Duties

In Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (ED OK, Aug. 13, 2025), Oklahoma education officials, in an interesting twist, sued to enjoin the advocacy organization Freedom From Religion Foundation from interfering with Plaintiffs’ statutory authority to govern Oklahoma’s public schools. FFRF had sent letters complaining about Bible reading and prayer in classrooms in one district and appointment of a football team chaplain in another. The court held that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, saying in part:

... [T]he Complaint does not explain how these letters have interfered with day-to-day operations in any real way.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint also vaguely alludes that Plaintiffs’ injury is the “chilling effect” caused by Defendant’s letters....

... [T]he Complaint does not allege that it has stopped executing its duties or ceased administration of Oklahoma’s public schools because of Defendant’s letters.2 Nor does the Complaint allege that the schools have ceased any policies or practices because of Defendant’s letters.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show an injury in fact.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]