Faith vs. Fear: Immigration Raids in Houses of Worship

Recently, 27 religious organizations representing various denominations filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop immigration raids in places of worship. This legal challenge has sparked a substantial debate around the intersection of religious freedom and government action, raising constitutional questions about the First Amendment's clauses on freely exercising religion. At the core of the lawsuit, these religious groups argue that immigration raids within their places of worship infringe on their religious freedom, instill fear, and hinder their ability to gather for prayer and provide services to their communities. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defends the raids, arguing that they are necessary for public safety and national security. The key issue is whether the government's need to enforce immigration laws outweighs constitutional protections for religious freedom.

The lawsuit is supported by several religious groups that have been directly impacted by immigration enforcement in places of worship. These organizations argue that raids targeting sensitive locations like churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples interfere with their religious practices. Among the plaintiffs are the National Latino Evangelical Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union, who claim that their congregants live in constant fear of deportation, which makes it difficult for them to engage in their faith entirely. The plaintiffs argue that these raids violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is designed to protect individuals' right to practice their religion without government interference. The Trump administration, through the DHS, views these enforcement actions as necessary to ensure national security and uphold immigration laws. While recognizing the sensitive nature of religious spaces, the DHS argues that these raids are an essential part of its broader strategy to combat illegal immigration and safeguard public safety.

The legal question at hand is whether immigration enforcement in houses of worship imposes a significant burden on religious freedom. The plaintiffs argue that these raids violate the Free Exercise Clause by instilling fear and making it harder for congregants to practice their religion without concern for deportation. They also contend that such actions infringe on the freedom of religious institutions, which should remain free from government interference. Additionally, the plaintiffs point to the RFRA, which requires the government to demonstrate that its actions serve a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve that goal.

To evaluate this case, we can look at prior Supreme Court decisions that have debated religious freedom against government action. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court established the "Sherbert Test," which requires the government to prove that its actions significantly burden an individual's religious practices and that the government has a clear interest in doing so through the least restrictive means. The plaintiffs could cite this case to argue that immigration raids at places of worship are an unjustified infringement on their religious freedoms. Another relevant case, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), protected the religious autonomy of the Amish community by ruling that the state could not force Amish children to attend school beyond eighth grade, as it interfered with their religious practices. This ruling highlights the importance of protecting religious communities from unnecessary and excessive state intervention. 

If the plaintiffs win, it could set a significant precedent limiting the government's ability to enforce immigration in religious spaces, potentially leading to greater protections for religious institutions. Contrarily, if the government wins, it may extend the ability of law enforcement's reach into sensitive religious settings, raising concerns about the loss of religious freedoms. This case ultimately emphasizes the tension between national security concerns and religious freedom. While the government has a legitimate interest in enforcing immigration laws, it must also balance that interest with the constitutional rights of religious groups to worship freely without fear of government interference. The outcome of this case will shape the boundaries between church and state in the U.S.

Religious institutions should stay independent from government interference, especially regarding worship. The First Amendment protects the right to exercise religion freely, meaning people can practice their faith in the most meaningful ways. Whether in a place of worship, at home, or within their community. For those who do gather in places of worship, it is essential that they can do so without fear of government control or intrusion. When the government steps in through surveillance, strict regulations, or disruptive actions, it invades these sacred spaces and creates fear and distrust. Congregants should never feel watched or judged for practicing their faith. Places of worship should be sanctuaries for peace, community, and spiritual growth, not places where the government’s presence causes disruption or fear. Protecting the free exercise of religion means respecting all forms of worship, whether public or private and ensuring that people can practice their faith openly and safely. I believe that the government can address national security concerns related to immigration in other ways than invading places of worship. By keeping religious spaces free from unnecessary government intervention, we honor the First Amendment and protect everyone’s right to worship however they choose.

https://www.aol.com/legal-bid-keep-immigration-raids-205515609.html

https://nypost.com/2025/02/12/us-news/legal-bid-to-keep-immigration-raids-from-houses-of-worship-likely-to-lose-at-every-step-expert/

https://ground.news/article/27-religious-groups-sue-trump-administration-to-protect-houses-of-worship-from-immigration-arrests

Baked and Belittled

    Cathy Miller, a Californian Christian bake shop owner, has been challenged by the Civil Rights Department of California for her denial to depict a same-sex couple on their wedding cake in the case of Civil Rights Dept. v Cathy’s Creations. Cathy’s Creations opened in 2013 with stipulations surrounding what she is comfortable decorating cakes with, excluding anti-Christian values such as LGBTQ+ marriages from possible designs. When a couple walked in the store to request such artwork on their own wedding cake in 2017, Cathy refused, sending them to a different bakery in town to have their cake made. However, the Supreme Court is now faced with the challenge of whether it is within Cathy’s religious rights (outlined by the Free Exercise Clause) to discriminate against a customer's design request based on her own religious beliefs. 

To provide some legal context, the Free Exercise Clause serves the purpose of “secur[ing] religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.” This is a difficult feat, as any set limitations on Cathy’s right to refuse by the law could be considered inappropriate invasions by civil authorities. Her argument is that it is within her constitutional right to operate her business by her own means, including turning down customers whose requests do not suit her personal religious beliefs. However, it can also be argued that this refusal to serve customers for their contrasting religion (or lack of religion) also violates this same clause, which outlaws “penaliz[ation] or discriminat[ion] against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views.” Should it be considered constitutional for a same-sex couple to walk into a public American bakery and be denied service for the same beliefs the constitution guarantees them the right to have?

In my opinion, although Cathy is freely exercising her religion through these various refusals of service, the act of discrimination against someone’s religious (or non-religious) beliefs and lifestyles is unconstitutional in itself. This is outlined by the Equal Protection Clause, which serves as a safeguard against discrimination by the government or private entities that provide services to the public, such as businesses. It mandates that laws and policies must treat all people equally and fairly, regardless of personal characteristics. For example, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in places of public accommodation. This clause has been referred to countless times in similar cases to Cathy’s, such as Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), which ruled that the government’s interest in eliminating racial discrimination outweighs a religious institution’s claim to tax-exempt status when it engages in racial discrimination, even if the institution’s religious beliefs support such practices. This case can set a precedent for Cathy’s case, showing that religious claims should not supersede discrimination on a legal plane, and that there is a standard to which religious exemption has to meet in order to be considered constitutional by the court. 

So, although Cathy can be considered to be freely exercising her Christianity, she is, in turn, denying someone the right to practice their own (legal) secular beliefs in doing so. Her refusal of action that is impartial and unbiased to lack of religion does not only violate the Equal Protection Clause, but also the Jeffersonian mandate to “peace and good order” he established. Any act of discrimination where it is legal and safe to accommodate a request can be considered violent and a direct contrary to this notion. 

If businesses are allowed to reject customers’ requests based on personal beliefs, it could set a dangerous precedent where religious views supersede legal protections for individuals of different identities. The rights of LGBTQ+ couples to have their marriages respected, regardless of the personal religious beliefs of service providers, are also safeguarded by civil rights laws. The law should guarantee that no one is excluded from services based on their sexual orientation, just as it is written into the constitution that there is protection against discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. While respecting religious freedom is important, it cannot risk denying another person their basic human rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, so Cathy’s business should be shut down (or she should be required to service all customers regardless of religious belief). The Supreme Court must respect both the religious beliefs of business owners and the right of every individual to equal treatment under the law.

The First Religious Charter School? St. Isidore Case Could Reshape Church-State Boundaries in Education

 In a potentially landmark case that could fundamentally alter the relationship between religion and public education in America, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the consolidated cases of Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. St. Isidore. These cases call into question whether Oklahoma can open St. Isidore, an online Roman Catholic charter school. If affirmed, St. Isidore would become the first faith based charter school in the United States, blurring the line of the separation of church and state. 

In October 2023, Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s attorney general, filed suit against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to stop the establishment of St. Isidore, arguing that as a fully state-funded institution, the school would effectively represent government-sponsored religion, which would be in violation of state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of the attorney general. The school and charter school board then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the state court’s ruling takes away the school’s free exercise of religion by disqualifying them from government aid. 

There are two constitutional questions at issue. The first is whether a state-funded school teaching Catholicism constitutes the government supporting an established religion. Drummond argues that because charter schools “bear all the same hallmarks of a public school” they may not promote any religion. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with this notion, the Supreme Court has recently decided some cases which expand the boundaries of aid to religious schools. One such case is Trinity Lutheran Church Of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The 2017 case ruled that a Missouri law violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The Trinity Lutheran Church had applied for a grant to resurface their preschool playground, and was denied by The Department of Natural Resources because the preschool was operated by a church. The church sued, claiming that the denial violated the Free Exercise Clause, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, stating that the government cannot exclude churches from secular government programs based on their religious identity. 

Another precedent that could apply to this case is Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing. In Everson, a taxpayer challenged a New Jersey law that permitted local school boards to reimburse parents for the cost of school transportation, including to religious schools, stating that this violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it forced taxpayers to indirectly support religious schools. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey law did not violate the Establishment Clause, because it was neutral towards secular and religious schools. 

St. Isidore presents a uniquely challenging case that goes beyond previous precedents. Earlier cases that may have decided in “favor” of religious causes did so in a neutral way, primarily giving aid to parents and students rather than religious institutions directly. In this case, St. Isidore is requesting direct funding from the state to operate their charter school, which would explicitly teach Catholicism. In the Trinity case, the church was merely asking for funds to fix a playground, not for funds to go towards the church or its teachings. In Everson, reimbursement funds were going directly to families, and then it was up to these families to decide how they spent that money. Once again, no money was being given directly from the state to any religious institution. Both cases are not strong enough precedents to favor St. Isidore in this case. 

The implications of a ruling in St. Isidore’s favor would be far-reaching. Allowing Oklahoma to fund a public charter school that is explicitly teaching a specific religious view will completely change our country’s idea of the separation of church and state. I strongly believe that this case should be ruled in favor of Drummond. Charter schools are fundamentally public schools, funded entirely by state money. This makes St. Isidore a state actor, regardless of any private ownership. Having a state actor teach Catholic doctrine would clearly violate the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the previous Supreme Court cases that may be used as a precedent for this case involved indirect funding and general public benefits that were neutrally applied to both secular and religious clauses. St. Isidore receiving direct state funding specifically to teach religious doctrine would go far beyond allowing religious schools access to generally available benefits. Lastly, I feel that ruling in favor of St. Isidore would set a dangerous precedent for state funding of religious indoctrination. While the Free Exercise Clause prohibits discrimination against religion, the Establishment Clause prevents direct state funding of religious teachings. Religious groups would still be free to operate private schools, so the state of Oklahoma would not be discriminating against religion by maintaining public schools as secular institutions. For these reasons, I believe that the court would not be violating the Free Exercise Clause by ruling in favor of Drummond, and that it is necessary to rule in this way to protect the Establishment Clause. 

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-to-hear-oklahoma-case-involving-nations-first-religious-public-charter-school

https://theconversation.com/can-a-charter-school-be-religious-the-supreme-court-decision-about-st-isidore-a-catholic-school-in-oklahoma-could-redraw-lines-around-church-and-state-in-education-248383

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Face Compelled Speech Law in Delaware

    Pro-life pregnancy centers in Delaware are challenging a recent law mandating a certain disclaimer to be included with advertisements stating that they are not a medical facility licensed by the state of Delaware. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings is brought forth by NIFLA, a charitable organization dedicated to providing legal protection and education to pregnancy centers that offer alternatives to abortions, and A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center, Inc., a Christian non-profit run by licensed medical professionals to provide resources to men and women “making decisions about their pregnancies.” As a religious non-profit, A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center receives no financial aid from the government, but according to Delaware state law is classified as a “limited services medical provider,” which would require them to include the disclaimer as mentioned above.

    The complaint filed states that the new law violates the Freedom of Speech Clause because it forces certain speech and unfairly targets the pro-life viewpoint; and it also violates the free exercise of religion clause because it forces the pregnancy clinics to “present misleading information” and “drown out their religiously motivated messages.”

    The question this case is centered around is this: is it constitutional for Delaware to pass a state law compelling the pro-life pregnancy centers to include disclaimers that work against their religious ideals in order to disclose the state’s classification of the center as a facility unlicensed by the state?

    The answer to this question has actually already been answered in a previous case brought forth in California. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to institute a law that forced pregnancy centers to “provide free advertising for the abortion industry.” This was taken as a violation of the Freedom of Speech Clause, but is being repeated in Delaware’s law - known as Senate Bill 300 - forcing particular speech, which is to “take effect in March” and “imposes government-impelled speech.”

    There are multiple aspects of Senate Bill 300 that are shown to directly impact pregnancy care centers more than other facilities. One is the fact that while this law in particular does not label registered nurses as “licensed medical providers,” the nurses working in these facilities are in fact registered nurses, licensed by the Delaware Board of Nursing, they are simply not included in the acceptable list in this bill. The law then classifies pregnancy centers as “limited services medical facility” which includes a lack of a “licensed medical provider on staff who provides or directly supervises, in person, the provision of each service provided at the facility,” which is misleading when every employee who is involved in medical procedures within the clinic is licensed according to law for the scope of their jobs, such as the registered nurses and medically licensed doctors.

    This law is also “not neutral or generally applicable” because it exempts facilities that “are licensed because they perform abortions.” This means that a burden is being placed on an organization that, again, is not funded by the government, nor falsely advertising the services they do provide, while elevating facilities that provide abortions and the world view that comes with their ideologies. Since Senator Bill 300 was created to “regulate crisis pregnancy centers,” which are pro-life in practice and belief, it is a form of control and discrimination against that world view.

    Not only do the pregnancy centers have to “discredit themselves by dishonestly stating they have no licensed medical providers on site,” but the disclaimer also subverts their mission to live out their beliefs regarding pregnancy. Even if they were to send a message regarding only religion and not medical services, such as “Merry Christmas,” they would be forced to include the disclaimer within that announcement. According to Rachel Metzger, the executive director of A Door of Hope, the new law is “an unlawful attempt to restrict our free speech simply because we hold a pro-life viewpoint.”

Exhibit C: Example post from A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center next to post with added disclaimer.

    According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which means that it cannot burden pregnancy facilities with a viewpoint that opposes the majority, particularly when the health and safety of those who willingly choose to utilize them are not at risk. The pro-life pregnancy clinics feel religiously obligated to provide alternatives to abortion for expecting parents trying to make decisions about their unborn children. The government also cannot promote or favor the opposing viewpoint even if it may be the majority opinion, or else that may be taken as an establishment of a belief.

    The goal of the First Amendment is to protect minority beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are. The pro-life clinics do not force families to choose their facilities, and are not endangering lives, and so their right to act on their beliefs ought to remain intact. The compelled speech involved with this new disclaimer is a violation of their constitutional rights and should not be instituted.

Should Oklahoma allow the creation of public religious schools?

     This past Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a bid by Oklahoma City officials to approve the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school, a move that may signal further weakening of the barrier between Church and State. The case revolves around a dispute between the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would serve Oklahoma City youth while being officially of the Catholic denomination, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled that the proposed school violates both the State and Federal constitutions. The Court announced that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose opinion would otherwise be integral to the ruling due to her religious background and education, would not participate. Although they didn’t announce why, speculation is that this is because her Alma Mater, Notre Dame Law School, is representing the school in the case.

    First proposed in 2023, the plans for the school were drafted by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, and endorsed by the governor, but opposed by the state attorney general, citing claims of religious non-neutrality. As of June 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board has approved the school’s application, despite widespread concerns over the aforementioned case. Following the school’s approval in June of 2023, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, took immediate action, asking that the Oklahoma Supreme Court intervene and rule the school’s creation unconstitutional. He explicitly cited in court filings that the state constitution mandates that schools in Oklahoma be “free from sectarian control”, and that no public funding should ever be used to support the creation or operation of such schools. The counterargument, which comes from the school and the state board, is that Oklahoma is inhibiting the free exercise of religion under a separate provision of the First Amendment. Because the court’s current composition is 6-3 with a conservative majority, many concerned residents and officials alike are voicing their dissent, stating that using public funds to fund a religious school violates the constitutional neutrality toward religion established in the First Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson notoriously referred to as a “wall of separation between church and state.

    The board is being defended by Alliance Defending Freedom, a notoriously conservative Christian legal group. Some of the arguments to be considered surrounding the case include whether or not the school is to be considered a proxy of the state because it is receiving funding. That is to say, because the school is being funded by the state, and because its operations rely upon public funding, is it effectively a “state actor”, or an arm of the government? This past June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Drummond’s argument, citing that, “Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school… As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian… However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state.” it also found that by receiving public funding, the school would be “acting as be acting as a surrogate of a state”, meaning that it would be considered a state actor. In recent related cases, the court has enabled the funneling of taxpayer money into religious entities, including schools under certain circumstances, further convoluting the case against this particular institution. Comments by Conservative justices on the court have also signaled that government officials have sometimes gone too far in avoiding the establishment of religion, going so far as to be effectively impeding the free practice of religion and thus free exercise of rights at times. In another related case, the court ruled in favor of a public high school football coach, who was suspended from his position for leading students in Christian prayer on the field. 

It is my personal opinion that the Supreme Court should oppose the creation of the Christian school, whose operations depend upon public funds. Because the school is reliant upon taxpayer money to operate, it is considered a public school, and has appropriately been deemed a “state actor”. Because of this, in order to uphold religious neutrality, the Supreme Court should cite that state actors, such as public schools, should remain secular, and have no religious ties or affiliations so as to avoid violation of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The opposing argument makes the claim that because the school is not being allowed to participate in a state program, it is preventing the free exercise of religion, but this is false as the school’s creation is only being denied on the basis that it relies upon public taxpayer funding. Should the school seek creation on its own private and personal financial merits, the state would have no right to oppose its existence, though because it is explicitly using taxpayer money to endorse the education of a specific religion, this qualifies as a governmental establishment of religion and should be thus ruled against.

Can the Government make Companies Hire Someone?

Aubry McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.

Aubry McMahon was offered a position as a customer service representative at World Vision Incorporated, a Christian nonprofit organization. The nonprofit required employees to engage in many religious actions such as praying with donors and engaging in religious training in order to assist the organization in carrying out their mission as Christians. McMahon had managed to advance beyond the beginning interview stage and had seemed to have made a great impression, however when the nonprofit learned that McMahon is currently in a marriage with another woman, they rescinded their offer. World Vision claimed that the basis for doing so was that McMahon would be violating their Standard of Conduct which, among other religious based policies, prohibited same sex marriage for their employees. 

McMahon subsequently the filed a lawsuit against World Vision claiming that they had violated both Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). World Vision argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine protected their right to terminate her employment on the basis of her marriage. McMahon countered that the Church Autonomy Doctrine did not protect them because they had violated the laws that were put in place to protect her civil rights. 

The Legal issue here is whether World Vision’s actions to fire McMahon, based on her marriage to a member of the same sex, violated the protections given to her by Title VII and the WLAD or if World Vision has the right to fire her because they were exercising their constitutionally protected religious freedom. 

At the heart this issue is the Free Exercise Clause which protects citizens rights to religious expression, however it does not always extend to the actions that may come along with the beliefs one may hold. Take for example Reynolds V. US [98 U.S. 145 (1878)], James Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints who had married two separate women because of his religious obligation to so. However, Reynolds was in direct violation of a federal statute that prohibited polygamous marriages and Reynolds was charged with committing bigamy. When Reynolds fought the case to the supreme court, they decided that; “It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion: it was still belief, and belief only.” [98 U.S. 145 (1878)] This reveals that only beliefs are protected by the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and as such laws can be made to prohibit certain practices that may pose a danger to societal order. While this case may have been decided in such an early part of American history, it still holds merit in emphasizing that there can, and has been, an extent to which one is able implement their faith into their actions. 

Furthermore, in Everson V. Board of Education [330 U.S. I (1947)] in which it was decided that the New Jersey statute permitting reimbursement of transportation costs to public and parochial school attendees. They cited the fact that; “Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools” [330 U.S. I (1947)] as evidence that the mentioned law was protected by the Constitution. In other words, the fact that the law was religiously neutral protected it under the constitution would imply that laws have the ability to impede on certain freedoms to promote societal durability, as long the law is facially neutral. 

As these two case studies apply to the case at hand, the WLAD and Civil Rights act are both laws that protect certain minorities from discrimination and, because the government is allowed to impede religious freedom in the name of promoting good order, both of the laws should apply against World Vision for firing McMahon. Since the laws were enacted aiming to protect workers from discrimination, without disproportionately affecting any individual group or organization, the constitutionality of these laws should not be questioned. There is ample precedent for such restrictions to religion. If World Vision were permitted to discriminate on the basis that they claim to be religious, where is line as to who they can reasonably deny? Additionally, what is preventing a large swath of business owners from claiming that their religion prevents them from hiring people who were Atheists? Such a situation would cause systematic oppression of a group of people who would now find it quite difficult to find employment anywhere. By restricting employment, one restricts nearly every aspect of an individual’s life, thus cases involving employment should be treated with the utmost care. 

A Bakery Debate: Religious Freedom vs. Discrimination

    Civil Rights Department of California v. Tastries 

    In a fight to keep her bakery in business, Cathy Miller, a baker out of California and a dedicated Christian, fights for her right to deny cake designs that violate her religious faith and morals. Miller started her bakery in 2013, baking cakes, pastries, and cookies as well as designing cakes for special occasions. As a dedicated Christian, she tied her faith throughout her bakery business. She even set guidelines for designs she would not do because of her beliefs, including same-sex marriage deceptions. However, in the case scenarios where she felt her faith was violated by a design, she would direct the customers to another nearby bakery. Until a same-sex couple wanted her to design their wedding cake in 2017, and she directed them to a nearby bakery to do their design instead. The Civil Rights Department of California then filed their case against Tastries and Cathy Miller for her denial of the same-sex couple. 

    The main legal issue here is whether Miller has the right to exercise her religious beliefs and deny customers designs and orders when they do not align with her morals. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause states that people are allowed to practice and hold their religious beliefs without interference from the government. This case ties to the U.S. Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis, which establishes that “business owners have the right to refuse to express a particular message to which they categorically object” (ACLU). Similarly for Miller, she refused the message of same-sex marriage on the wedding cake design which was in her right to do so, according to this case. However, this Supreme Court case also established that it would not allow businesses to refuse customers based on their identity. This differentiation puts Miller against herself, same-sex marriage goes against her beliefs but she is also denying them because of their identity. Did Miller deny the couple because of their identity as a same-sex couple because she was trying to be discriminatory or because she felt they violated her morals and beliefs. 

    In my opinion, Cathy Miller while seeming discriminatory in her action of not contracting with the same sex couple, she was following the moral convictions of her religious beliefs. While she denied giving them service and designing their cake, she recommended another bakery nearby that would contract their cake and designs. She was very clear in her design standards that she would not contract for anything that she was not comfortable with. For example, violence, drug use, same-sex marriage, and inapporiate designs. She had a range of designs that she refused to contract for but was more than willing to recommend a place that would. I do not think she was purposefully refusing identities or ethnicities but that she was following her beliefs that happened to include same-sex couples. This was a case of inaction rather than action, she refused to do the design and directed elsewhere versus doing the design and targeting the couple. With her being so clear on her standards and very up front about her religious beliefs, I do not think that she was being discriminatory in her actions and if she was not being discriminatory she should have the right to refuse to endorse a message on her design/product. I believe that in her case, she should be able to operate her bakery freely with her religious design standards, if customers do not like these standards they can go to the bakery that she recommends nearby. 

    Cathy Miller’s case is now being appealed to be heard by the California Supreme Court following a decision against her on February 11, 2025. Miller continues to fight for her religious freedoms in an effort to be able to operate her bakery fully again. 

Maryland: Inclusion as Exclusion

In October of 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland mandated the inclusion of “inclusive” LGBTQ+ storybooks for its English Language Arts curriculum. These storybooks, which would be used in pre-k through eighth-grade classrooms, celebrate gender transitions and pride parades, feature characters related to gender identity and sexual orientation, and introduce students to same-sex marriage, pronoun preferences, and gender transitioning. The Supreme Court states “the storybooks themselves are ideological, stressing that “[n]ot everything” about gender “needs to make sense,” that children should be free to use their preferred bathroom, and that “pronouns are like the weather” and may “change depending on how [children] feel.” In mandating these storybooks, the school board promised parents that they would receive notice and have the option to opt their children out of lessons involving these books. This would allow religions that hold beliefs that do not align with these gender and sex ideals, to be accommodated. Historically, this promise has been consistent with Maryland and its school boards' policies. The school board notifies parents and gives them a choice to opt out of their children in sex-ed classes, allowing them to exercise their parental rights. However, in March of 2023, the Board reversed their policy, eliminating, without any explanation, the opt-out option and all notices to parents. Students, therefore, are required to receive language arts instruction that involves storybooks as a part of their education. Despite this, the Board still allowed parents to have the opt-out option of sex education in the state-mandated health classes.

Parents from different religious backgrounds, (Muslim, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox), including Tamer Mahmoud, sued the Board under the Free Exercise Clause in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, arguing that “the denial of notice and opt-out options violated their religious freedom and parental rights.”  In arguing this, the parents emphasized that they did not aim to challenge the contents of the books nor have them banned. Rather, they argue that they are entitled to the parental right to maintain control over when their children are exposed to beliefs that go against their religious teachings on marriage, sexual orientation, and gender. They reason that children, who lack the mental capacity to understand these sensitive topics, are impressionable and can be influenced by these storybooks.

A district court denied the parent's request for a preliminary injunction, asserting that the parents failed to demonstrate a free exercise burden. They assert that there is no religious burden until the students are compelled “to change their religious beliefs or conduct.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed this in a 2-1 decision. However, in the Eighth Circuit, children cannot be forced to participate in activities that violate their religious beliefs.

The constitutional issue in Mahmoud v. Taylor deals with the Free Exercise Clause, which “protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.” The parents argue that requiring students to participate in instruction on sexuality and gender that goes against their religious convictions burdens their religious exercise. Essentially by refusing to notify parents and not giving them an opt-out option in these lessons, the school board is infringing upon parents’ rights to teach their children religion.

In the Fourth Circuit, there was a 5-1 circuit split over “when” forced public school instruction violates the Free Exercise Clause. To denounce this split, the Board tried to dispute the ruling of Florey v. Sioux Falls School, which is a case that involved “students sitting through activities like a Christmas assembly with a “religious theme.” In the case of Florey, which was brought up in this case, Yoder was cited and it was stated that “forcing any person to participate in an activity that offends his religious beliefs will generally contravene the Free Exercise Clause.” In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court ruled that Amish children could not be forced to attend public high school past eighth grade, as it violated their right to free exercise. The court ruled that individuals' interests under the free exercise clause outweigh the state's interests in requiring children to attend school beyond eighth grade. Both cases, but more specifically Yoder, recognized a parent's right to guide the religious upbringing of their children. 

When Yoder is applied to the case at hand, there are stark parallels. In both cases, the school policy infringes upon the right of parents to guide the religious upbringing of their children. In Yoder, the school had required Amish students to attend public school until graduating. The Amish parents argued that the “values taught there were in marked variance with Amish values expos[ed] the children to a ‘worldly influence,’” and pressure[d] them to “conform” to their peers.” The court ruled in favor of Yoder. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the school mandated the inclusion of storybooks into the curriculum that contain topics that go against many religious beliefs. In both cases, parents argued that requiring their children to engage in material that violates their religious beliefs without giving them the option to receive notice or opt their kids out, places a burden on the right to freely exercise religion. Notice, however, that in Yoder, parents were not denied their right to freely exercise their religion because their children had not been compelled to change their religious beliefs. Yet in Mahmoud, the court ruled that there was no religious burden until the students were compelled “to change their religious beliefs or conduct.” This ruling seemingly contradicts the ruling of Yoder.

I strongly believe that this case should be ruled in favor of Mahmoud. A ruling in favor of the parents, who come from different religious backgrounds, would establish a precedent that further enables there to be a separation between church and state. Despite the Board claiming that the storybooks are “neutral” and therefore don't inflict religious beliefs onto children, there is nothing neutral in telling young children to “let go of doing gender correctly” and that “there is no single way to be a boy, girl, or any gender.” The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals from the government burdening their religious practice. By requiring students to participate in lessons that go against their religious convictions, the government is doing just the opposite. While the state has the role of promoting inclusivity in education systems, it cannot mandate the teachings of ideological views of gender and sexuality to young children. If the Board were to give parents back their parental right to receive a notice and the ability to opt their children out of lessons containing the storybooks, the inclusion of the storybooks in the curriculum would not violate the Free Exercise Clause. It would allow parents to retain their right to guide the religious upbringing of their children.

Ultimately, this case holds huge implications for the future. In Montgomery County, parents of over 160,000 students are cut out of the new policy. If the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is upheld, parents will no longer have the right to control their children's religious upbringing. This case would set the precedent that mandating ideological teachings that go against religious convictions in schools is constitutional. In the future, millions of parents will be unable to protect their young, vulnerable children from ideological ideas that are instructed toward them.

Therefore I ask you all to consider this question. When public schools require elementary school children to participate in instructions on sexuality and gender, are they placing a burden on parents' religious exercise if the instruction goes against their religious beliefs and happens without notice or the option to opt their children out? What do you guys think? Does this violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Classroom Crucifix Controversy: Balancing Religious Expression and the First Amendment

Marisol Arroyo-Castro vs. Connecticut District Court    

In a case that raises important questions about religious expression in public schools, a 7th grade Middle School teacher in Connecticut, Marisol Arroyo-Castro, was recently suspended for displaying a crucifix on her desk. This case, which has not yet reached the Supreme Court, brings to the forefront the delicate balance between the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion and the prohibition against government establishment of religion.

 Marisol has been a Consolidated School District of New Britain employee for more than 20 years, and has hung the same crucifix near her desk for a decade (see image below). She had placed the religious symbol in her classroom as a personal expression of faith, and she would “reflect on the crucifix when things were going well in class and particularly when they weren’t”. She included that “having it there was just natural to me”. Marisol had been told by the district to remove the display after receiving a complaint, and when she failed to do so, the district decided to suspend her, citing concerns over the separation of church and state and the potential for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Marisol, in turn, filed a lawsuit against the district, alleging religious discrimination. The lawsuit accuses leaders of the district of using the First Amendment’s establishment clause as an “excuse to abridge the free speech and religious free exercise rights” of teacher Marisol Arroyo-Castro. Her legal team contends that the display of the crucifix is an expression of her personal beliefs, and not an attempt to impose religion on her students. The district, however, defends its decision by stating that the display could be seen as endorsing a particular religion in a public school setting, which may run in conflict with constitutional principles. Clearly, it is a complex scenario.

Constitutional Issues: Free Exercise vs. Establishment

This case presents two significant problems with regards to interpreting the constitution and the first amendment: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Free Exercise of Religion: Under the First Amendment, individuals are guaranteed the right to freely exercise their religion. This includes the ability to express one's religious beliefs in personal and public spaces. Marisol’s argument is rooted in this right. She claims that displaying a crucifix in her classroom is an act of personal religious expression that should not be prevented by the district. By suspending her for this display, she argues that the district is infringing upon her ability to practice and express her religion freely.

On the other hand…

Establishment Clause: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government entities, including public schools, from endorsing or establishing a religion. The school district’s argument is based on the notion that displaying a crucifix could be interpreted as an endorsement of Christianity, which could make students or staff from other religious backgrounds feel excluded or uncomfortable. Public schools, as state institutions, are expected to maintain a neutral stance on religion to avoid the appearance of endorsing one faith over another.

Analysis: Balancing Religious Expression and the Separation of Church and State

While Marisol's suspension is concerned with regards to religious freedom, it is also connected to the important issue of religious establishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that public schools should not engage in religious promotion. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court ruled that prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause, and in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), the Court found that student-led prayers at football games could not be allowed due to concerns about government-endorsed religious activity. The government has previously established that in the public sphere, religious action has been regulated in order to prevent the establishment of religion. 

However, there are also legal precedents that recognize individual expression in public spaces. A recent, highly relevant case is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a public high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games. The Court stated that the coach’s prayer was a personal act of religious expression protected under the Free Exercise Clause and did not constitute government endorsement of religion. Additionally, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court ruled (in essence) that students and teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter public schools. 

In this case, Marisol could (and should) argue that her crucifix is within the realm of personal religious expression, and should therefore be protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment.

The challenge, though, is in determining whether the crucifix being displayed within a public school classroom is to be seen as an individual act of religious expression or as an endorsement of Christianity by the school district - raising the question of whether the government has a duty to regulate that religious symbols associated with its educational institutions. I personally do not think the school is endorsing Christianity.

Implications:

The outcome of this case has the potential to impact the future regulation of religious expression in not only public schools, but other public spaces as well.

If the court sides with Marisol, this would expand the rights of government employees to express religion publicly, potentially weakening past rulings that emphasize school neutrality on religion. It might also blur the line between personal expression and government endorsement, allowing more religious symbols and speech in public schools and other public spheres as well.

A ruling in favor of the school district, however, could reinforce the strict separation of church and state, making it clear religious expression must remain in the home. In doing so, it could reveal the unfair restriction of public employees with respect to their personal religious beliefs, leading to both 1) accusations of hostility toward religion rather than neutrality, and 2) inadvertently giving preference to secular individuals and their expression. This doesn't sound very fair to me. The Supreme Court’s recent shift toward expanding religious rights, as seen in Kennedy, leads me to believe that future rulings may favor free exercise over strict church-state separation.

Overall, There is an incredibly fine line between protecting individual rights and ensuring that the government does not appear to endorse or support a particular religion. And so if this case makes its way to the Supreme Court, hopefully this may provide some further information about how courts balance the competing interests of free religious expression and the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state.

To me, Marisol's suspension was an unjustified restriction of her First Amendment rights. While public schools must remain neutral, neutrality should not mean suppressing religious expression altogether. Kennedy v. Bremerton established that public employees retain their right to personal religious expression, and the same principle should apply here. If the courts rule against Marisol, it could set a dangerous precedent of non-tolerance, forcing public employees to hide their faith while allowing other secular ideas to flourish. True constitutional neutrality does not mean eliminating religious symbols - it means allowing all viewpoints to coexist without favoritism or suppression, secular ideas or otherwise.

For those reasons, I believe that Marisol’s lawsuit is justified, and that the court should rule in her favor. Doing so would cement the First Amendment’s protections for religious expression and ensure that personal faith is not treated as a liability in public schools.

Additional link for alternate interpretation of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)