Dorsey: Amazon and Employee Discrimination

Meet Connor Dorsey of Mississippi. Dorsey, a devout Catholic, is considering filing a suit against Amazon for denying him a religious accommodation that would allow him to observe the Sabbath, Holy Days of Obligation, and refrain from laboring on Sundays. His current schedule as an L5 Area Manager is what is called “Back Half Nights.” It goes from Wednesday through Saturday, and/or Thursday through Saturday/Sunday with overnight hours from 10:00 pm to 5:00 am; this equates to four days and 10 hours per day shift. Dorsey has requested numerous times to be switched to a “Back Half Days” schedule, which would allow him to have off Sundays. Despite the position being open and Dorsey fitting the job description, a Human Resources manager told him, “If we set that precedent [granting accommodations], then we’ll have to grant those requests any time we receive them.” (First Liberty Institute) That same HR manager also told Dorsey to “find a job that works out for his personal situation.” (First Liberty Dorsey Demand Letter) Dorsey’s complaint was emailed to Amazon by First Liberty Institute on April 1st, 2026, with a response deadline of April 15th; to my knowledge, Amazon has not responded. 

This case questions the precedents on the Free Exercise Clause set by numerous cases, including Sherbert v. Verner. Sherbert was a case in which the plaintiff, Adeil Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was fired from her job in South Carolina after refusing to work on her Sabbath Day, Saturday. The Employment Security Commission denied her unemployment benefits because of her refusal to work on her Sabbath. Interestingly, South Carolina law held that employers were not allowed to require work on Sundays. Another case similar to Sherbert is Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida. The plaintiff, also a Seventh-day Adventist, informed her employer that because of her sincerely held religious beliefs, she would not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday because it was her Sabbath day. Her employer then dismissed her, and consequently, Hobbie filed for unemployment compensation. Her compensation was denied. 

In both Sherbert and Hobbie, the Supreme Court held that both cases violated the Free Exercise Clause and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Sherbert’s outcome created the Sherbert test and set the precedent that a substantial burden cannot be placed on someone, and impede the free exercise of their religion. Hobbie set the standard that a state cannot deny unemployment compensation to someone dismissed because of religious conflicts with their employer. 

More recently, in Groff v. DeJoy, Groff, a Christian USPS worker, was fired after refusing to work Sundays because of his religious beliefs. After being scheduled on Sundays, Groff and USPS would fail to find coverage, and Groff would not work. After being fired, he sued USPS for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating that the company failed to reasonably accommodate his religion because the shift swaps were unsuccessful and did not solve the conflict. Title VII, in section A, states that “All personnel actions affecting employees…in the United States Postal Service…shall be made free from any discrimination based on…religion…” (Department of Labor) Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religion unless it would cause “undue hardship.” The Court ruled in favor of Groff because USPS did not demonstrate a substantial burden, or substantial increased costs, by granting his accommodation requests. 

Dorsey’s case relies on the precedents set in other cases, specifically concerning the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the view of First Liberty Institute and Dorsey, Amazon is required to grant his religious accommodation, unless it can prove that doing so would cause substantial increased costs. Despite multiple attempts at solutions by Dorsey, Amazon has ignored his requests in addition to scheduling him this past Easter Sunday. Due to instances like this, Dorsey has had to use numerous PTO days; he has taken one every Sunday since January 19th, 2026. 

My intuition in this case is that Amazon will be very unlikely to show any undue hardship, like in Groff, because of Dorsey’s absences on Sundays. His PTO days have been approved every Sunday for multiple months, and he has not faced any disciplinary actions for taking off every week. In addition, Amazon is the second-largest private employer in the country, and as a private employer, subject to scrutiny under Title VII. Amazon has clearly demonstrated knowledge of Dorsey’s sincerely held religious beliefs through multiple meetings with HR. I believe that it is unconstitutional for Amazon to place a substantial burden on Dorsey by giving him no other solution besides draining his PTO days and denying him the free exercise of his religion. Denying him these rights would overturn all three cases described: Sherbert, Hobbie, and Groff. This case has not yet made it to court, and I am curious to see what Amazon’s defense is. 

https://firstliberty.org/cases/connor-dorsey/#simple1

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/136/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-174

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-of-1964

Sincerity of Nick Rolovich's Religious Beliefs

In October 2021, former Washington State Football Coach Nick Rolovich was fired because he refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Rolovich had claimed that as a Catholic, he was exempt from the state’s vaccine mandate, but his exemption request was denied by the school, which eventually led to his termination when he still refused to get the vaccine. In 2021, Washington State had given religious and medical exemptions for the vaccine mandate, but not ones based on personal and philosophical reasoning. Washington State found that Rolovich’s religious convictions were not sincere and thus did not provide him with a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Subsequently, on November 14, 2022, Rolovich filed litigation against the school over the denial of the religious exemption, where they deemed his beliefs as not being sincere. Fast forward a few years, in January 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice ruled that Washington State could not accommodate Rolovich’s religious exemption without undue hardship because of his position that involves him directly interacting with students, coworkers, donors, the media, and others. In other words, the judge is suggesting that this accommodation would pose a significant burden for the school. Furthermore, the judge added that in thousands of pages of evidence, there were many examples of Rolovich expressing secular concerns about the vaccine, but not religious ones, which aligned with Washington State's previous assessment of Rolovich’s religious beliefs when he filed for a religious exemption. Ultimately, the judge reaffirmed and justified Washington State University’s decision to fire Rolovich.

Although the original lawsuit was filed nearly five years ago, Becket Law has stepped in to help Rolovich appeal his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Becket Law explains that Patrick Chun, former Washington State athletic director, exhibited hostile actions toward Rolovich when Rolovich discussed his intentions of applying for a religious exemption that would go through a blind review process by the school. Despite these hostile actions, Rolovich submitted his religious exemption proposal, which was later approved because the review board found his religious views were sincerely held. However, Becket Law says that Chun and others in the athletics department asked the school to reverse its approval by questioning the sincerity and religious nature of his beliefs. Washington State University’s Environmental Health and Safety department proposed accommodations to the athletics department, but they were rejected. Becket Law, when it comes to their future litigation, is painting this case as one that is an attack on individual beliefs, and they are looking to prove that Rolovich’s religious beliefs are sincere. Ultimately, I believe the main issue in this case is whether Washington State University violated Nick Rolovich’s right to Free Exercise by denying him a religious exemption because they deemed his religious beliefs to be insincere. 

United States v. Ballard (1944) applies to Rolovich’s case because it set a precedent for examining the sincerity of religious beliefs. In this case, Guy Ballard was charged with mail fraud by preaching a religion that the lower court accused Ballard of knowing was false. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that religion should be determined by the sincerity of the belief, not by whether it is true or false. The court pointed out that if Ballard’s religion was to be put on trial, then the same would have to be done for other organized religions. This precedent applies to Rolovich’s case as he and Becket Law are looking to prove the sincerity of his religious beliefs as they pursue further litigation. The Court can not tell him his beliefs are false, but they can certainly examine how sincerely he holds them and if they are sincere enough to have been awarded a religious exemption. However, it seems that this might be a difficult feat given that Rolovich has only expressed secular reasons for not getting the vaccine, and not religious ones. 

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) is worth including in this discussion as the Supreme Court, in its majority opinion, explained that the Cantwells' religious messaging, while offensive to some, did not threaten physical harm to any individuals and was protected by the First Amendment. This case helped establish protection for an individual’s religious beliefs against state action, which is similar to what Rolovich is fighting in his case as he fights for religious protection against the State of Washington’s COVID vaccine mandate. Cantwell draws many parallels to Rolovich’s case, with the most notable being that they are Free Exercise issues, but I think there is a glaring difference between them, which is that Rolovich’s action could lead to physical harm. Without obtaining the vaccine, Rolovich was putting everyone else at risk because he had an increased chance of contracting the virus and spreading it to others in the community. While this is up for argument, I believe that the COVID vaccine mandate is a neutral policy that has the secular intention of protecting people from public health threats like COVID, and Rolovich was contributing to this threat by not getting vaccinated. 

In the end, I side with the U.S. District Court’s decision that Washington State was justified in firing Nick Rolovich. I do not think Rolovich deserved a religious exemption, as evidence suggests that he was expressing secular concerns about the COVID vaccine to his family, friends, and coworkers rather than expressing religious concerns about it. There is seemingly a lack of consistency in his expression of his beliefs, which I think is needed to earn a religious exemption from this vaccine mandate that has secular intentions of minimizing a public health threat. From the evidence I gathered for this blog post, it seems that Rolovich had turned to his Catholic faith as a last-ditch effort to earn an exemption from the vaccine mandate. While Ballard helped clarify that religious beliefs should be judged based on sincerity, it is still difficult to determine an individual's sincerity toward religion, as there is a lot of nuance involved in these types of cases. However, in this case, I find that the evidence presented in the discovery phase clearly shows that Rolovich’s reservations about the vaccine are purely secular. Unless Becket Law is able to produce new evidence to prove Rolovich’s sincerity, I think that this decision will continue to stand as they continue to pursue further litigation.

Sources:  

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43323303/nick-rolovich-loses-suit-washington-state-firing

https://www.kxly.com/sports/wsu-cougars/judge-rules-in-favor-of-washington-state-university-in-rolovich-vaccine-case/article_713af8b4-cc66-11ef-a8af-bb49c3f32edd.html

https://becketfund.org/case/rolovich-v-washington-state-university/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/310us296

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/first-amendment-religion/united-states-v-ballard/

The Case of Chief Kelvin Cochran

    The case of Kelvin Cochran, a former fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia, has raised significant constitutional questions about the limits of religious expression for public employees. Cochran, a highly respected firefighter and devout Christian, was appointed Fire Chief of Atlanta in 2008. Over the course of his career, he received numerous commendations and was widely regarded as an effective leader. However, his career took a sudden turn after the publication of a small devotional book he wrote for a men’s Bible study group.

    Cochran’s book, titled Who Told You That You Were Naked?, addressed various moral and religious topics from a Christian perspective. The book included passages expressing traditional Christian views on sexuality, including statements that characterized homosexual behavior as inconsistent with biblical teaching. Importantly, Cochran did not distribute the book in his official capacity as Fire Chief. Instead, he shared it privately with members of his church and a small group of colleagues.

    Despite the limited and voluntary nature of its distribution, a copy of the book eventually reached city officials. In response, the city launched an investigation and suspended Cochran without pay. They cited concerns that his views could create a discriminatory environment within the fire department. Shortly after, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed terminated Cochran’s employment, stating that the chief had exercised poor judgment and that his actions were inconsistent with the city’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.

    Cochran filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that his termination violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. He contended that he had been punished for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs in a private context. The city claimed that Cochran was responsible for maintaining trust and inclusivity within a diverse workforce, and that his statements contradicted that responsibility.

    A constitutional question arises from this case: To what extent can the government regulate the private religious expression of public employees? More specifically, does the First Amendment allow a public employer to punish an individual for speech that is religious in nature, expressed outside of the workplace, and not directly connected to official duties?

    The Supreme Court has made clear in cases involving public employees that individuals do not lose their constitutional rights simply because they work for the government. At the same time, when the government is acting as an employer, it has more power to limit speech than it does when it is acting as a governing authority. Courts have often tried to balance these interests by asking whether the employee was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, and whether that speech disrupts the functioning of the workplace. In Cochran’s case, his book was written and distributed in a private religious context, which suggests that he was acting as a private citizen rather than as Fire Chief. That distinction matters because speech made in a private capacity is typically entitled to constitutional protection.

    Also, this case raises serious concerns under the Free Exercise Clause. Cochran’s statements were not random or purely political because they were rooted in his religious beliefs. Punishing him for expressing those beliefs, even indirectly, risks crossing the line into religious discrimination. If the government can penalize someone for articulating widely held religious doctrines, it effectively places certain religious viewpoints at a disadvantage in public life. That is precisely what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.

    Based on these reasons, I believe that the city went too far in this case. There is a difference between holding certain beliefs and acting on them in a way that harms others. The Constitution protects belief and expression, even when those beliefs are unpopular or offensive to some. In Cochran’s situation, there is no clear evidence that he discriminated against anyone or allowed his personal views to interfere with his professional responsibilities. Instead, he was punished based on the potential implications of his beliefs rather than any actual misconduct.

    This kind of reasoning is dangerous because it can create a slippery slope by opening the door for the government to regulate thought and belief rather than behavior.. It sends the message that participation in public service is conditional on holding certain viewpoints. Over time, this could discourage people of faith, or anyone with controversial beliefs, from entering public roles altogether.

https://adflegal.org/article/chief-kelvin-cochran-story/

Are National Leaders Engaging in Religion Differently Than in the Past?

On May 21, 2025, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, began offering the Secretary’s Christian Prayer & Worship Service to all Department of Defense (DoD) personnel. The Prayer Service is led by Hegseth, who sends out RSVP email invitations to all DoD personnel and encourages them to forward his invitation widely within their organizations. The monthly services are held in the Pentagon’s auditorium and are broadcast on internal DoD TV channels. The Prayer Service centers around Hegseth’s own religion, a denomination of Protestant Christianity, as demonstrated by the frequent references to an Almighty God and the consistent use of prayers in Jesus’ name. For example, on March 26, Hegseth led a prayer from the Book of Psalms amid the ongoing military operations in the Middle East, using the same prayer that had been given to troops before the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In addition to his own remarks at the services, Hegseth has invited Doug Wilson, from the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) to speak at the Prayer Service. Wilson’s prayers also invoke very specific references to Christianity. 

The First Amendment requires the government to remain neutral toward religion and not endorse or promote a particular religious denomination. Although the Prayer Service is voluntary, it raises the constitutional question of whether or not Hegseth is using his influence as Secretary of the DoD to promote religion in government. It also raises the question of government endorsement of a particular religion as the Prayer Service aligns more specifically with a subgroup of Protestant Christianity.

So far, legal action has been taken by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State which has filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to obtain all the information regarding the details of the Prayer Service, including:

All records and communications (including but not limited to letters, memos, emails and attachments, calendar invitations and attachments, text messages, and other electronic messages and attachments on messaging platforms such as Signal, WhatsApp, Teams, Slack, WeChat) related to the Secretary’s prayer services held on May 21, 2025 and any other similar group prayer services held or to be held in the future at the Pentagon.

Americans United’s primary objective is to have the district court review the information requested above to determine whether or not the Prayer Service violates the Establishment Clause. The request under the FOIA was filed on December 19th, 2025. Since then, the DoD has ignored the request and the Americans United group has been clear that they are still waiting for the detailed information on the Prayer Service but are now also requesting further legal action be taken due to the DoD’s initial failed compliance. 

The Supreme Court has demonstrated its careful evaluation in cases dealing with public prayers. In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), it upheld the practice of a traditional legislative prayer before Nebraska legislative sessions. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), it struck down a prayer that was offered in the context of a public school graduation ceremony. The critical considerations in these cases are coercion and neutrality. For example, in public schools, a concern is that young and impressionable children will be coerced to participate in religious prayer. While one could argue the issue of coercion is less applicable to adult personnel in the DoD who are less impressionable than young children, it is worth noting Hegseth holds the highest ranking position in the Department and his military influence is superseded only by the President. Since Hegseth’s appointment at the start of 2025, he has dismissed over a dozen high ranking military officers and denied many promotions of highly qualified military officers. There is speculation that some of these dismissals are disproportionately gender and racial based with mostly no explanations for their removal. The authority Hegseth has established since taking office suggests that the requested information by Americans United may be relevant to determine if potential DoD personnel feel like they must attend these services out of fear that they will lose their jobs or not get promoted. 

On the issue of neutrality, the majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) states that a prayer in legislative contexts can be constitutional while making specific references to a particular religion as long as it represents a longstanding tradition and history and there is no coercion or denigration of other faiths. In terms of the Prayer Service, Hegseth has attempted to unify people by invoking common Christian identity. Last month he said, “we share the same interests, and, because of this, we face an essential test – whether our nations will be and remain Western nations with distinct characteristics, Christian nations under God, proud of our shared heritage with strong borders and prosperous people, ruled not by violence and chaos but by law, order, and common sense.” While the Prayer Service remains voluntary, a potential concern is the lack of neutral language used by Hegseth, especially in a government and military context. Even though roughly seventy percent of the military are of the Christian faith, that still leaves a third that have a plurality of religious backgrounds that might not agree with Hegseth’s explicitly Christian language.

Without the complete details surrounding the Prayer Service, I can only speculate as to how the district court should rule if the information is obtained. If the information demonstrates that the meetings have been promoted within the DoD due to Hegseth's military influence, and that there has been no effort to move the services to a location off of government property, then I believe that the Prayer Service should be ruled unconstitutional. However, if the DoD continues to withhold information regarding the services, there might continue to be a constitutional gray area where the service raises serious concerns but lacks substantive information to make an official ruling. I believe the lack of religious neutrality and the intent to have United States foreign policy informed by Christian values conflicts with the constitutional boundaries designed to ensure the United States does not have an established religion. 

National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel

    National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel is an attempt to challenge the Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment prohibits nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing any candidate running for public office. This is important because all nonprofit organizations receive tax breaks from the IRS, and with those tax breaks come certain restrictions. In August of 2024 the National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America along with two Texas churches filed a lawsuit against the commissioner of the IRS, Danny Werfel. The plaintiffs claimed that their right to speak about political candidates and issues was being unconstitutionally censored. Other organizations have gone out of their way to try to bait the IRS into revoking their tax exempt status just to take them to court, but the IRS has been avoiding this issue.

    This case involves both free exercise and establishment clause issues. The churches are claiming that they are unable to freely speak about politics and political candidates. Meanwhile, the IRS and the government are trying to avoid an establishment of religion through tax breaks to churches that endorse politicians. These organizations receive various financial benefits for maintaining their nonprofit status and following restrictions like the one being debated here. Nonprofit organizations pay 0% federal income tax on revenue, their donors get tax breaks and they receive various other state, local, and property tax breaks. This raises the question, is it unconstitutional to make tax exempt status for religious organizations conditional upon political speech censorship?

    The case of Bob Jones University v. United States provides some legal guidelines for how to handle tax exempt organizations and religion. Bob Jones University enrolls students from kindergarten through graduate school and is dedicated to the teaching and propagation of Christian beliefs. The university operated under the following rules, no interracial dating, students who did so were expelled, members of groups that are affiliated with an organization that advocates for interracial marriage are expelled and students who promote or encourage it are expelled. In 1976 the IRS revoked the university’s tax exempt status. The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s state interest in racial equality is more compelling than the private institution’s tax exempt status.

    The Texas churches would argue that the ruling in Bob Jones does not apply to them. Bob Jones deals with racial discrimination, which is illegal, while National Religious Broadcasters is about their first amendment right. Therefore, they should not be penalized for exercising their first amendment right. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs would argue that similar to how anti-racial discrimination adds to the public interest, so does maintaining a division of the church and state through keeping tax deducted money out of political campaign promotion.

    The implications of a decision in this case make it all the more complex. If the courts were to uphold the amendment, the IRS would be forced to begin to enforce this law and monitor religious organizations. Monitoring creates an entirely new set of issues as it could possibly involve an excessive entanglement between the church and state. Lemon v Kurtzman established that a statute that creates excessive entanglement is unconstitutional. Therefore, one can see how the Johnson Amendment could be deemed unconstitutional because it forces the IRS to monitor religious sermons. However, removal of the amendment altogether would mean that taxpayers are indirectly funding political campaigns. The IRS has only revoked tax exempt status for one church in the 70 year history of the Johnson amendment. Therefore, it is clear that they have been trying to avoid enforcing this law due to its complexity.

    Given these outcomes, I believe that the Johnson Amendment is constitutional and should be upheld. The IRS therefore should enforce this law more accurately and actively than they have in the past. Not upholding the law would create an issue of “dark money”, in which donors of churches are not aware of where their funds are going. There will be increased involvement between the IRS and churches, but this does not necessarily need to be excessive. An alternative that creates less entanglement can be created. The IRS can rely more on reports from church patrons and outsiders and then investigate as needed. Essentially, the cost of some entanglement and more censorship is lower than the cost of tax payers indirectly funding political campaigns.

Apache Stronghold v. United States

    In Apache Stronghold v. United States (“United States”), Congress authorized a sale of “Oak Flat” in 2014. The sale transfers Oak Flat to mining companies, which would allow them to destroy the federal land for the purpose of extracting the valuable copper underneath. However, as Oak Flat is federal land, the federal law of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) applies.

    Additionally, the government protects federal land under federal law like RFRA. As Oak Flat was central to the Western Apache’s religious practices, the nonprofit organization “Apache Stronghold” (“Stronghold”) challenged the sale by invoking RFRA. RFRA prevents the federal government from “substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion”. Thus, Stronghold argues RFRA prohibits government authorization for companies to destroy Oakland Flat, as it would be a (beyond) substantial burden against the free exercise rights of the Western Apache.

Would desecrating sacred indigenous land actually violate the Free Exercise Clause?

    The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the destruction of Oak Flat would prevent the Western Apache from ever “engaging in religious exercise” again (Gorsuch, 2025). However, the Ninth Circuit still rejected Stronghold’s RFRA-argument that this was unconstitutional by invoking “Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association” (1988) (“Lyng”) to apply its precedent, as facts of Lyng and facts of United States are similar. In Lyng, the United States Forest Services planned road construction through federal land, which was religiously “indispensable” (O’Connor, 1988) to Native American Tribes, which is relevant as the road construction would “virtually destroy” the Tribes’ ability to practice their religion. Lyng precedent proclaims the First Amendment does not prohibit “government programs” simply because of their “incidental effects” on religion. This means that the government’s role as a landowner permits its programs, so long as they do not “coerce” people into acting “contrary” to their religious beliefs, to be constitutionally allowed to incidentally hamper religious exercise.

    The facts of Lyng mirror those within United States, as both cases are about corporate use of federal land that would destroy Native Americans’ practice of religion. As such, I understand how the precedent of Lyng could reasonably be applied to the facts of United States. However, I believe that the actual precedent of Lyng is wrong.

    Lyng precedent differentiates free “exercise” and religious “beliefs”. Lyng wrongfully increases government capacity to encroach peoples’ religious actions and practices simply by saying that the “beliefs” are still intact by not coercing people to forgo their faith. However, this nuance between “beliefs” and “actions” is wrong because, so long as the government does not compel one’s internal thoughts and beliefs to change, the government programs are supposedly constitutional. Lyng precedent on its own facts tries to justify the construction of a road offending Native Tribes by saying the indigenous people still believe in their religion. Similarly, Lyng precedent on United States facts tries justifying conglomerates’ destruction against sacred grounds as constitutionally allowed so long as Western Apache still hold their religious beliefs. But the beliefs that make these government actions offensive are also fundamentally changed, as the desecration of sacred lands renders Natives with a new belief from the government’s actions, as the “portal” of Oak Flat is severed Apache connection to “the Creator” (Gorsuch, 2025). Therefore, the argument of “incidental effects” being constitutoinal is wrong because materially changing sacred lands directly changes beliefs. Extreme harm towards indigenous religions in Lyng and United States are far beyond “incidental” effects.

    Lyng precedent is absurd because its wording diminishes the absurdly grandiose suffering of desicrating sacred indigenous lands. I argue to replace Lyng precedent with Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) (“Yoder”) precedent.

    Yoder facts apply to United States facts because both explore the religious right to exist by imparting their faith to their kin. In Yoder, the government mandated compulsory public school for the Amish. However, the Amish have a 300 year religious tradition to limit their exposure to the outside world and its ideas. Compulsory public school would jeopardize the Amish religion, so Yoder established the government can only constitutionally achieve their goals by narrowly tailoring their methods. Yoder relates to United States because desecrating sacred indigenous lands could jeopardize an Apache girl’s rite of passage to become an Apache adult. Apache induction into womanhood “depends on Oak Flat” (Gorsuch, 2025), where girls supposedly receive blessings from “holy spirits” that dwell in the ground (Gorsuch, 2025). However, authorizing copper mining could make a “1,000” foot deep crater, destroying both the practice and belief. I argue that Yoder constitutionally protects Oak Flat.

Sources:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/439/

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/supreme-court-denial-of-cert-in-apache-stronghold-substantial-burden-analysis-remains-confused

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-291_5i26.pdf

Hunter v. State of California (2026)

In the State of California, marriage is treated as a civil institution over which the state legislature has full authority. It requires a license issued by a county clerk in order to be recognized, and once it is recognized, it can only be dissolved through a state court judgment, the death of a spouse, or a declaration of nullity. For many people, marriage has been interconnected with religious traditions over the course of centuries, which can create tension as it is also interconnected with law. In the case of Hunter v. State of California (2026), this becomes clear from Kathryn Rose Hunter, who entered into multiple state-recognized marriages before later arguing that the state should have no role in marriages at all. She challenged the state of California’s “authority to impose and maintain marital status" and "maintenance of marital records,” by claiming that this violates her First Amendment rights. Hunter based this claim on her deeply held religious belief that marriage should only involve “two persons and God.” She argued that by requiring the issue of marriage licences from the state and by authorizing the marriage, that the state is therefore participating in the marriage, which Hunter claims is the equivalent of polygamy. This violates her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs. 

Additionally, in Hunter’s view, the state inserting itself as a third party into a relationship creates excessive entanglement between religion and the government, as she has a “state imposed marital status” and can not proceed with a divorce without state involvement. She views marriage as religious, meaning that further involvement with legal procedures establishes this entanglement and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

In the federal district court, they reviewed this case and dismissed it. In general, the state of  California is immune from lawsuits under the 11th Amendment. In regard to the Free Exercise Clause, the court emphasized that individuals have the right to believe in their religious virtues, but not the absolute right to action based on these views. They said that in order to make a claim under the Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff has to show that the government action has "substantially burdened” their religious practice and the government action is not justified by a "substantial state interest,” if a law is not “neutral and generally applicable.” In this case, the court found that California's marriage laws are neutral and generally applicable because they do not refer to religion or provide individual exemptions. Even if the law was not neutral, the court still found there to be several substantial state interests, including protecting children, enforcing marital responsibilities, managing property, etc. Therefore, the court concluded that California's legal framework does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The district court also rejected Hunter’s claim that the Establishment Clause was violated. They noted that the Lemon Test was used in older cases to determine Establishment cases, but now it is no longer relied upon. Instead, the modern court focuses on historical practices and how the Founding Fathers would interpret what is permissible. The court cited Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888), where the Supreme Court said that marriage is a civil institution that the state has the power to regulate, not just a religious or private contract. In using Maynard v. Hill, the court shows how this is a national tradition that has been around for multiple centuries. State involvement in marriages was permissible in the time of the Founding Fathers, meaning that California does not violate the Establishment Clause. 

The central question in this case is whether California’s involvement in recognizing and regulating marriage violates the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. More specifically, the issue is whether a neutral legal system can be considered unconstitutional because it conflicts with individual religious beliefs about marriage. In my opinion, the district court reached the correct decision. California's marriage laws serve as a neutral civil system, not a religious one. Even though marriage is deeply religious to many people, the state still has a compelling interest and secular purpose of maintaining the legal framework in order to regulate issues such as property and family responsibilities. Additionally, there could be a slippery slope if the government were required to remove itself from any institution that has religious significance. Society would not be able to be regulated, and there would be a challenge in determining what counts as significant to a person's religious beliefs. While the Constitution does protect religious belief, it does not require the government to restrict neutral laws to align with every individual's religious views. I do not think the court should rely solely on the intentions of the Founders when determining whether this case violates the Establishment Clause. However, even if the court applied the Lemon test as Hunter was implying, California’s marriage laws would still pass and be considered constitutional. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28021311-hunter-v-california-2026-us-dist-lexis-73135pdf/

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2026/04/californias-marriage-laws-survive.html 

Facially Discriminatory Policy Against LGBTQ+ or Religious Ministerial Exemption?

Aubrey McMahon v. World Vision Inc. 

In 2020, Aubrey McMahon applied for an administrative position with World Vision Inc., a Christian-based nonprofit organization that provides humanitarian services to fight hunger and poverty. After further interviews for the Customer Service Representative position at World Vision Inc., McMahon was denied employment due to a conflict with World Vision's Standard of Conduct policy. McMahon, a female, is married to another woman. After finding this information out, World Vision let McMahon know that they could not go further with the employment because she had violated the SOC policy stating that World Vision does not tolerate “sexual conduct outside the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.” McMahon then sued World Vision Inc. under unlawful discrimination due to the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. In 2023, the District Court of Washington ruled in favor of McMahon on the ground that World Vision's policy was facially discriminatory, denying World Vision's claim of a ministerial exemption. Ministerial exception applies to individuals who perform “vital religious duties” that are “essential to the institution’s central religious mission.” Following the district court's ruling, World Vision Inc. appealed to the Ninth Circuit under the question of whether their biblical marriage standard of conduct policy facially discriminates against sex, sexual orientation, marital status under Title VII, and the WLAD, or can World Vision establish an exemption by concluding that the CSR (customer service representative) position qualifies for the ministerial exemption.

Determining ministerial exemption in this case required the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to refer to prior cases such as Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, and Behrend v. S.F. Zen Center. In 2011, the Supreme Court set a precedent for ministerial exemptions in the case of a school teacher who also served as a minister at the School and Church, and was fired. The Supreme Court decided these 4 components need to be considered,  “(1) the employee’s formal title; (2) the “substance reflected in that title,” such as “a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning”; (3) the employee’s use of that title; and (4) whether the employee performed important religious functions.” However, they also argued that these components should not be used as a checklist to be weighed together, but instead to guide the court in its consideration of such cases. These guiding principles were also used in determining a ministerial exemption in Our Lady of Guadalupe, where the Supreme Court decided that what matters most in terms of granting ministerial exemption is what matters at the very bottom, and what an employee does, and whether they perform “vital religious duties.” After this notion was created in the Supreme Court, in the case of Behrend, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that “the ministerial exception applied to Behrend because, although he performed mostly menial work, that work was itself 'an essential component of Zen training.” In all three cases, the main exception concerned the notion of vitality in the positions and religious duties. Each institution was granted an exemption because the position in question had vital religious responsibilities and therefore the religious entity was able to be selective even if it was presumed to be discriminatory.

Based on these precedent cases. The Ninth Circuit of Appeals in the case World Vision Inc. v. McMahon granted a ministerial exemption to World Vision, in disagreement with the district court's opinion. World Vision’s mission statement describes the non-profit's purpose as to “follow the lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor… and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.” Not only does their mission statement show how deeply religious and devoted this organization is, but it also describes the CSR employment position as a vital role in its mission. The CSR position reaches out to donors and solicits donations, viewing World Vision as a ministry. As employees in CSR, not only do they collect donations but also participate and even are expected to lead worship and teach potential donors about World Vision's mission, as well as the witness of Jesus Christ. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals viewed the employment responsibilities of a Customer Service representative as requiring the performance of vital religious duties at the heart of World Vision's religiously rooted mission.

I agree with the Ninth Circuit's ruling. In my opinion, World Vision Inc. should be granted ministerial exemption because of its deeply rooted Christian belief system, which not only informs its mission statement but also permeates its employees. In the eyes of Biblical standards, any sexual conduct should only be between a man and a woman. Therefore, to accommodate an employee such as Aubrey McMahon would be asking World Vision to completely disregard their devout religious beliefs about marriage that are reiterated in every connection with donors for their nonprofit when reciting their mission and their savior, Jesus Christ. In understanding precedents such as Hosanna, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and Behrend, I resonate with the idea of vitality in performing religious duties. The employees of World Vision are not only employees but also ministers of the foundation, and they perform employee-wide prayer and worship. Forcing World Vision to hire employees who go against all foundational beliefs about marital status and sexual orientation according to the Bible would be unconstitutional and go against their First Amendment Rights according to the Free Exercise Clause, and is therefore why they were and should be granted a ministerial exemption.

References:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-267

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-553

https://www.aclu.org/cases/aubry-mcmahon-v-world-vision-inc

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/05/24-3259.pdf

https://firstliberty.org/news/federal-appeals-court-protects-freedom-of-religious-groups-in-hiring/

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/17/23-15399.pdf?lctg=123645130

U.S v. Safehouse: Fighting for Harm Reduction in the Opioid Epidemic

In Philadelphia, a nonprofit group named Safehouse is involved in an ongoing legal and constitutional controversy reflecting a key intersection between public health and religious freedom. Safehouse seeks to implement a supervised injection site—a location where individuals can use drugs under medical supervision to minimize the risk of overdose and help stop the spread of disease. Safehouse describes its outreach and programs as participation in religious exercise, as its mission is grounded in the Judeo-Christian foundational belief to preserve life and care for the sick. On the other hand, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has long opposed these types of organizations, claiming that the Controlled Substances Act makes it illegal to assist or facilitate an unlawful act of drug use. This disagreement has resulted in the current case to be heard at the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, U.S. v. Safehouse (3rd Cir. Case No. 24-2027), which addresses many unresolved aspects of the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause, and its application to not-for-profit organizations’ exercise of religious freedom.

This case has many layers and historical context. Safehouse was created by a Reformed Protestant couple who operate a community center in Philadelphia that provides shelter and recovery assistance for people suffering from abusive or compulsive behavior. They argue that their activities are essential to their religious beliefs, including maintaining relationships with those suffering from addiction or violence. Safehouse first announced it would open its service site in 2019 during the Trump presidency, hoping to become the first supervised injection facility in the U.S. The non-profit stated that its operation is based on moral and religious reasons that aim to reduce harm and protect lives, as well as an example of long-standing religious commitments to protect people who are at risk. The DOJ sued to stop Safehouse from opening based on arguments that Safehouse’s actions would violate federal law. The federal district judge first ruled against the DOJ but was then overruled by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that local innovations addressing the opioid epidemic could not be contrary to federal drug law. Most recently, the Third Circuit Court has revisited this case and officially found that Safehouse is entitled to argue that it is covered by religious protections based on precedent created in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. The case has since been sent back to the district court to review Safehouse’s claims, and holds likelihood to rise to the Supreme Court.

The legal concerns central to this matter include the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Safehouse will argue that it doesn’t have to have begun with the intent to establish a religious organization in order to be eligible for the First Amendment protections against federal interference, but must also demonstrate that operating the supervised injection site is an exercise of faith.The DOJ's rationale will therefore rely on asserting supremacy of secular legal tradition and of its ability to enforce federal criminal law upon the states without respect for a state's efforts to offer safe drug-harm-reduction services.

This case raises significant questions about definitions of religious expression in modern day society. If the courts rule in favor of Safehouse, it would mean that religious involvement could exist outside of predetermined methods of worship and can additionally include social or medical ways that are inspired by religion. This interpretation would be consistent with recent examples of Supreme Court rulings around corporate religion rights such as was seen in the Hobby Lobby case. However, it would also raise tensions with the rule that no one group may violate laws that are criminally prosecuted simply by using religion as a sort of loophole. Although the establishment clause does not apply in as many ways, it also influences how this discussion is formed, as any acknowledgment that Safehouse’s implementation is religious must avoid creating any appearance that the government is advancing a religious agenda.

I believe that the courts should rule in favor of Safehouse, as public health crises such as the opioid epidemic require innovative approaches to be resolved. Additionally, I think that a religiously driven response can absolutely serve as an exercise of faith if the group truly believes that it is doing so for reasons of morality. Courts have dealt with similar disputes throughout history (e.g., Employment Division v. Smith where the U.S. Supreme Court limited free exercise claims when individuals were affected by generally applicable statutes, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby where the Court increased the protections for corporations exercising religion). Safehouse’s circumstances challenge prior precedent by asking the courts to balance the competing interests of the government to stop people from using drugs illegally and provide for a religiously motivated alternative form of expression through unconventional means. The Court's ultimate decision may determine how closely faith-based activities must be regulated to minimize the impact on people's liberty and the Government's responsibility to protect public safety and well-being.

Sources:

https://filtermag.org/safehouse-philadelphia-religious-freedom/ 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/religious-freedom-laws-apply-drug-injection-site-case-court-says-2025-07-24/