- within Criminal Law topic(s)
Key Cases
Free Exercise
Unemployment Compensation Tax Exemption Unconstitutionally Applied
In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wis. Labor & Indus. Rev. Comm'n, 145 S.Ct. 1583 (2025), the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission determined that Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. and other charitable entities supervised by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior did not qualify for the religious employer exemption from paying taxes into the state's unemployment compensation system because they were not operated primarily for religious purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state unconstitutionally differentiated between religions along theological lines and, thus, practiced denominational discrimination by insisting that the exemption required eligible organizations to "engage in proselytization or serve only co-religionists." Catholic teaching forbids conditioning works of charity on proselytism. "A statute that excludes religious organizations from an accommodation" due to "fundamentally theological choices" "facially favors some denominations over others." The court also ruled that the exemption, as applied, was not narrowly tailored to the state's purported compelling interest in ensuring unemployment coverage for its citizens or in avoiding entangling the state with employment decisions touching on religious faith and doctrine. Concurring, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the state was also in error by virtue of holding that the relevant organizations for analysis was Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. and its affiliates rather than the diocese itself. Also concurring, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the religion exemption of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act depends on an organization's function, not religious motivation.
Notice and Opt-Out Required When Elementary Students Exposed to Controversial Storybooks
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, 145 S.Ct. 2332 (2025), parents of public elementary school students and an unincorporated association of parents and teachers sued, alleging the school board's refusal to provide notice when "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks would be taught without an opportunity to opt out of such instruction infringed their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion. The court ruled that the board's introduction of the storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice and not to allow opt-outs, burdened the parents' free exercise rights by substantially interfering with the religious development of their children. The board encouraged teachers to reprimand children who disagreed with the viewpoints expressed in the storybooks and required teachers to instruct them in a manner that contradicted their parents' religious views on same-sex marriage, sex and gender. The court wrote, "We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children." The court decided it was both equitable and in the public interest to grant a preliminary injunction requiring notice and an opportunity to opt out of instruction on the storybooks, pending completion of the parents' lawsuit. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Jackson dissented, arguing that the ruling invented a constitutional right to avoid exposure to "subtle" themes "contrary to the religious principles" that parents wish to instill in their children and would give rise to "chaos for this Nation's public schools" besides "costly litigation" as parents insist on exercising their opt-out rights.
Nondiscrimination Requirement for State Preschool Funding Upheld
In St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, No. 24-1267, 2025 WL 2778161 (10th Cir. Sept. 30, 2025), the Archdiocese of Denver, Catholic parishes and their associated preschools and parents of preschool-age children sued, alleging that a Colorado statute requiring preschools receiving state funds for universal pre-K (UPK) to sign a nondiscrimination agreement violated their free exercise and free speech rights. The nondiscrimination requirement requires each preschool to "provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level or disability, as such characteristics and circumstances apply to the child or the child's family." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs on the grounds that the nondiscrimination requirement is a neutral policy of general applicability, certain preferences that the statute contains for students with individualized education programs (IEP) or participating in Head Start did not undermine the statute's general applicability and the statute did not violate the preschools' expressive association right. The court distinguished recent Free Exercise Clause precedent as not involving the nondiscrimination requirement at issue in the case and because the state "did not exclude faith-based preschools from participating in UPK. Indeed, they welcomed and actively solicited their participation." According to the court, "[t]he restrictions imposed by the nondiscrimination requirement universally cover enrollment policies and conduct, but they are not a targeted burden on religious use."
Grant Nondiscrimination Requirement Upheld Except as Relates to Unfunded Programs
In Youth71Five Ministries v. Williams, No. 24-4101, 2025 WL 2385151 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025), a Christian ministry sued the director of the Oregon Department of Education and directors of the Department's Youth Development Division, alleging that a rule requiring grant applicants to certify that they do not discriminate in their employment practices with regard to, inter alia, religion, violated the ministry's free exercise, religious autonomy and expressive association rights. The ministry requires employees to sign a statement of faith and to confirm involvement in a local church. The ministry received seven grants over the period of 2017 to 2023 until the rule was implemented. In 2023, the ministry applied for a grant for its mountain-biking initiative serving youth in juvenile correction facilities and certified that it complied with the rule, thinking its religious hiring practices were exempt. After the ministry received a conditional award, the division received an anonymous report about the ministry's hiring practices and withdrew the grant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled, on the one hand, that the ministry was unlikely to succeed on its free exercise, ecclesiastical abstention and ministerial exception claims against the division. The court ruled the nondiscrimination requirement a neutral and generally applicable law not subject to individualized exemptions and determined that the division treats religious exercise no less favorably than comparable secular activity. The court ruled that ecclesiastical abstention and ministerial exception are affirmative defenses, not claims. The court ruled, on the other hand, that the ministry was likely to succeed on its claim that the rule violated the ministry's expressive association right for initiatives that received no division funding. The court explained, "Because 71Five seeks Division funds for only some of its projects, requiring it to certify that it does not discriminate in any of its projects is likely an unconstitutional condition." But for lack of any case establishing this beforehand, state officials had qualified immunity.
Mandatory Violation of Confessional for Child Abuse Reporting Enjoined
In Etienne v. Ferguson, No. 3:25-cv-05461-DGE, 2025 WL 2022101 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2025), Roman Catholic clergy challenged a new Washington law requiring them to report child abuse or neglect regardless of how they learned about such information. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise claim because clergy would likely suffer irreparable harm by having to choose between violating state law and the Sacramental Seal of Confession and because the law treated religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity and even singled out priests in its title. A priest who violates the sacramental seal incurs automatic excommunication and thereby risks eternal damnation. Other groups of adults who may learn about child abuse, such as parents and caregivers and attorneys employed by an institution of higher education, are not required to report. The court awarded a preliminary injunction protecting the plaintiffs and all Roman Catholic priests in Washington.
Public Accommodations Law Enjoined Against Wedding Photography Services
In Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James, 784 F. Supp. 3d 557 (W.D. N.Y. 2025), a wedding photography business owner alleged that New York's public accommodations laws violated her free speech, free association and free exercise rights, as well as her right to due process. The court agreed with the owner that her wedding photography services are protected expressive activity and that the public accommodation law compels her to engage in activity she would not otherwise engage in. Consequently, the court enjoined enforcement of the law as related to the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim.
Church Autonomy
Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars RICO and Fraud Claims
In Gaddy v. Corp. of the Pres. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 148 F. 4th 1202 (10th Cir. 2025), former church members filed a putative class action lawsuit against the church, asserting violations of the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act (UCSA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as fraud. The former members claimed misrepresentations involving 1) the "First Vision," when the church's founding prophet Joseph Smith allegedly saw God and Jesus Christ, 2) the origins of the church's scripture, the Book of Mormon and 3) the translation of another text, the Book of Abraham. To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must adequately plead that 1) the defendant violated the RICO statute and 2) the plaintiff was injured "by reason of" that violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the church autonomy doctrine barred the RICO claim premised on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations of religious history and concealment of alternative versions of historical events relating to the church. The former church members tried to convince the court that the First Amendment prohibits only the adjudication of religious beliefs, not facts, but the court considered religious claims about intertwined historical events, facts and beliefs. Next, the former members argued the church must prove that it is "sincere" about its religious beliefs and teachings before the church autonomy doctrine applies, but the court ruled that "the functional relevance of the representor's sincerity falls away" when "a fraud claim rests entirely on a representation of religious doctrine or belief." They also argued that the church autonomy doctrine should never apply to fraud claims nor to members who join without "informed consent," but the court rejected these theories, too. Furthermore, the court determined that the members' conclusory allegations of personal reliance were insufficient to plead the causation element of RICO claims predicated on the church's alleged misrepresentations regarding use of tithing funds. The court explained, "Nowhere in their 203-page operative complaint do Plaintiffs allege that, after hearing a particular statement that the Church would not use tithing funds for commercial activities, Plaintiffs affirmatively decided to continue making tithing payments that they would not have otherwise paid."
Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Former Assistant Principal's Discrimination Claims
In Pulsifer v. Westshore Christian Acad., 142 F. 4th 859 (6th Cir. 2025), a former assistant principal of a private religious elementary school sued the school for race and sex discrimination under federal and state law related to his termination. The court ruled that the ministerial exception doctrine barred the claims. The plaintiff performed administrative tasks "typical of secular administrators," but also "was expected to be a spiritual leader to students" and to "express Christian values to students." He read a devotion with academy staff each morning and at school board meetings, led religious youth programs after hours, and frequently prayed over staff and at school board meetings.
Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Former Director's Interference, Defamation and Emotional Distress Claims Against Non-Hierarchical Church
In McRaney v. N. Am. Mission Bd. of the S. Baptist Convention, Inc., No. 23-60494, 2025 WL 2602899 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025), the former executive director of the defendant alleged tortious interference with business relationships, defamation and intentional infliction of emotion distress against his former employer. The Baptist Convention of Maryland and Delaware (BCMD) and the North American Mission Board (NAMB) entered into a strategic partnership agreement to "jointly develop, administer and evaluate a plan for penetrating lostness through church planting and evangelism." BCMD hired the plaintiff, an ordained minister, as its executive director. Conflicts between the plaintiff and NAMB arose soon after his arrival. NAMB informed BCMD that it intended to terminate the agreement due to the plaintiff's conduct. BCMD terminated the plaintiff, after which NAMB restored its relationship with BCMD. In his lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the NAMB defamed him and hence tortiously interfered with his employment contract with BCMD. He also asserts that NAMB's conduct caused other religious organizations not to hire him as a minister and to disinvite him as a speaker. He also alleged that the defendant posted a no-entry photograph of him behind the board's reception desk, causing him emotional distress. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the church autonomy doctrine barred his claims even though NAMB is non-hierarchical. The court explained that limiting the doctrine to hierarchical churches would violate the principle of denominational neutrality and run contrary to other precedents. The court added, "[a]lthough his claims are facially secular, their resolution would require secular courts to opine on 'matters of faith and doctrine' and intrude on NAMB's 'internal management decisions that are essential to [its] central mission'" (citations omitted). Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented, arguing that the church autonomy doctrine does not apply to this dispute because it is not an intra-church dispute and the plaintiff's claims involve a civil rather than religious dispute.
Licensing
California Child Day Care Facilities Act Licensure and Other Requirements Constitutional
In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, 148 F. 4th 1040 (9th Cir. 2025), churches seeking to open and operate preschools challenged the licensure provisions and implementing regulations of the California Child Day Care Facilities Act as in violation of the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that a requirement that facilities ensure the right of children to attend religious services or activities of their choice did not violate the churches' free speech rights. The court explained that 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 court added, "The notice requirement 'is reasonably related to' the State's 'substantial governmental interest'" in protecting children in day care facilities" and not "unduly burdensome" because it could be satisfied by a single 8.5x11 posted notice and handout. The court ruled that the churches lacked standing to assert a pre-enforcement free exercise challenge to the same requirement. The court also ruled that the licensure requirement does not violate their free exercise rights and that the exemption of certain recreation programs such as by the YMCA and Boy Scouts of America from the licensure requirement does not violate the Establishment Clause. The court explained that the exemption is programmatic (i.e., recreational) – not the kind of program the plaintiff operated. Last, the court ruled that the churches failed to state claims for violation of due process through imposition of unconstitutional conditions.
Law Subjecting Medical Licensees to Discipline Enjoined
In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, No. 1:23-cv-00939-DDD-SKC, 2025 WL 2218970 (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2025), a nonprofit faith-based medical clinic and medical professionals challenged a Colorado law subjecting licensees to discipline for providing medication abortion reversal as in violation of the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the statute was not generally applicable to other non-religious uses of progesterone, was subject to strict scrutiny and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The court explained, "Though it may be true that States have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and in protecting the people of this state from unauthorized, unqualified and improper application of services ... those broadly formulated interests do not suffice where, as here, religious practice has been singled out for differential treatment" (citations omitted). The court also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Colorado's Consumer Protection Act, prohibiting misleading advertising that implies the provider gives abortions or emergency contraceptives when it does not. Two years after adoption, the law still had not been applied to the plaintiffs.
Free Speech
Excluding Religious Content from Corrections Was Viewpoint Discrimination
In Schmitt v. Rebertus, 148 F. 4th 958 (8th Cir. 2025), a volunteer who taught "The Quest for Authentic Manhood" at a correctional facility sued the leadership of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC) after it terminated the program upon determining that it conflicted with its diversity, equity and inclusivity values by defining "manhood" through a biblical lens. Leadership stated that the department "did not oppose Schmitt teaching generally about manhood, or the study of masculinity; instead, it objected to Schmitt discussing the topic through a biblical lens of what a real man looks like or through what the MDOC perceived as through a lens of discrimination, exclusivity, gender biases and stereotypes" (citations omitted). The court concluded this was viewpoint discrimination and ruled that the volunteer was likely to succeed on the merits of his free speech, free exercise and denominational preference claims. Judge Jane Kelly dissented on the grounds that the department's rehabilitative programming constitutes government speech.
Employment Discrimination
Restrictive Interpretation of Maryland Religious Exemption Not Enjoined
In Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, 787 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D. Md. 2025), the plaintiffs sued the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights and attorney general of Maryland, challenging the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation of the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) religious exemption as applying only to those employees whose role directly furthered a religious entity's core mission. The plaintiffs argued that the interpretation violated the church autonomy doctrine as protecting employment decisions rooted in religious beliefs for all employee positions, the Establishment Clause to avoid excessive entanglement between government and religion, and the Free Exercise Clause as barring government regulation of acts engaged in for religious reasons. The court decided they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims as necessary to support a preliminary injunction, but that further factual development was warranted before final resolution of their claim that the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation violated the Free Exercise Clause or Establishment Clause (including the church autonomy doctrine) or their right to expressive association. The court dismissed the plaintiff's excessive entanglement, denominational discrimination, assembly and unconstitutional vagueness claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
