Is Intrusive Questioning Unconstitutional?

    In 2022, three Muslim Americans filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about intrusive questioning about their religious beliefs and practices. The plaintiffs claim that biases during questioning is illegal. Three Muslim men were questioned with personal and unecesarry questions like “how many times a day do you pray?” and “do you attend a mosque?” The plaintiffs argue that this among many other biases seen during border control and U.S. customs stops demonstrates clear racial and religious bias against Muslims while other people will not even be asked any similar kinds of questions. The plaintiffs claim that they have been targeted multiple times with these types of questions and have been profiled based on their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs main argument is that this religious bias is a clear violation of their first amendment right to exercise free religion. The three Muslim Americans do not see this as an issue with just them, but as a larger issue about these agencies targeting Muslims and people they mistake to be Muslim at ports of entry.

    Many groups are in support of this lawsuit. Some of these groups are Americans United, along with Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Interfaith Alliance, National Conference of Jewish Women, and Unitarian Universalist Association. All of these groups came together to support this lawsuit and help fund the legal fees. The District Court rejected the claims that the plaintiffs made, but now, as of 2024 the case is filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals. 

    A Supreme Court Case that could be used as a precedent to this one is Tanzin v. Tanvir. In that case, the plaintiffs sued because they were placed on a no-fly list due to their refusal to inform on their religious communities. The court ruled that authorities violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and therefore declared that this was a violation of the First Amendment. This could be seen as a precedent for Kariye v. Mayorkas due to a federal agency placing a burden on citizens because of their religious beliefs. 

    The primary constitutional issue at question in this case is: Is the practice of intrusive questioning and targeted questioning placing a burden on citizens’ religious beliefs? I would argue that yes it is. This line of questioning is clearly targeted at Muslims, probably due to the islamophobia problem that government agencies have had ever since 9/11. This is something that I have witnessed first hand as I was traveling with one of my friends. A federal agency should be neutral, and only forcing this line of questioning on certain people because of a preconceived notion that the government agent has, is clearly not neutral. This places a burden on people with certain religious beliefs, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment. I do not see how this would be a slippery slope, but am very open to hearing any arguments. To support the constitution, means to support and respect the rights granted to everyone under it. If a federal agency is failing to do so, how can we trust that our other rights will be protected?

Sources:

https://muslimadvocates.org/court-case/kariye-v-mayorkas/

https://www.aclu.org/cases/kariye-v-mayorkas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf

The Sincerity of Psilocybin Use in Utah’s Religious Practices... What’s Protected?

 Singularism, a religious sect located in Utah, established that the government has interfered with their religious exercise. Singularism practices their religion with the use of psilocybin as a sacred worship. They are a small religious group based in Provo, Utah, known for their peaceful community. Members of secularism have claimed that government authorities harassed their faith. The members asserted that police suddenly searched the spiritual center and interrogated SIngularism's founder. The police proceeded to seize Singularism's sacramental psilocybin (Jensen). Singularism members argue that these actions contrast their use of sincere and non-threatening religious practices, as the use of psilocybin is used according to religious sincerity protocols. Days following, law enforcement served a letter to the landlord of Singularism's center landlord, notifying the need to evict Singularism, or the government would exercise civil forfeiture proceedings.

On February 20, 2025, a Utah federal district issued a preliminary injunction under Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is the first lawsuit under the Act and has become a federal case intended to challenge government overreach. The plaintiffs are asking the Court to order the state of Utah from enforcing the Utah Controlled Substances Act that prevents Singularism from using Psilocybin. Plaintiffs argue that the Act burdens their free exercise right. Their members use psilocybin to help them embark on a spiritual journey to discover truths. Members explained how they approached local enforcement before their center was searched. Singularism sent a standing invitation to "local government to engage in dialogue and to tour its spiritual center a year before" (Jensen). However, the local government never followed up. Instead, law enforcement chose to enter the center without notice and never issued an arrest but stated to the religion's founder that they should expect criminal charges. These actions demonstrate local authorities' discrimination against minority religions by disregarding the opportunity to learn about the group's practices. 

The defendants argue the sincerity of Singularism practices. Notably, the defendants looked at Singularim's claims. Including the Singularism faith, which "does not claim special access to divine truths." Due to the lack of answers to important questions in religion, they seek falsity in their religion. The defendants insisted that their practices help with discovery instead of being a formal religion, therefore challenging the sincerity of the faith.  These practices argued show Singularism's lack of answers to religious questions, weakening its claim to be a religion.  

The case ultimately challenges Singularism free exercise but also challenges state interest, as the Utah Controlled Substances Act prohibits use of psilocybin. While it may be challenging to determine what qualifies the sincerity of religion, it is unfair to prevent the practices of groups based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'true' religion. The United States v. Ballard case (1944) illustrates a similar point, as the court ruled whether they could validate "the truth or falsity of religious views." While it may be challenging to believe or find the religion credible, it is not the decision of the Court. The Court ruled in favor of Ballard, acknowledging that the government has to respect individuals' choices to practice their faith. 

Similarly, while others may be skeptical of Singularism's use of psilocybin, the Court needs to respect their practices. The case established that religious beliefs could not be questioned in a legal context, but fraudulent actions disguised as religious activity could be regulated. If the Court were to find the psilocybin endangering members, then they could rule accordingly. However, Singularism practices with psilocybin have remained peaceful, not putting members in danger. 

In my opinion, if the Court ruled against Singularism practices, it would lead to a slippery slope, setting a dangerous precedent that the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the credibility of religious groups. The Free Exercise Clause protects minority groups, regardless of the display of unconventional practices. Additionally, Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. was passed to protect religious groups. The act "essentially acts as a proactive "blanket" protection by giving state government a higher threshold of religious exercise protection" (Sutherfield).  The actions of Utah law enforcement undermine the goals of the Act, by discriminating against minority groups. The RFRA is supposed to demonstrate that the religion's actions burden a compelling state interest. When law enforcement entered the Singularism Center, they claimed they were potentially subjected to criminalization because they were unfamiliar with their practices. Therefore, it challenges the promises protected by RFRA by discriminatory actions against Singularism. It is important for the Supreme Court to respect the practices of Singularism, even if seeming unconventional.

Sources:

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/02/utah-rfra-protects-psilocybin-using.html

https://sutherlandinstitute.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-a-proposed-religious-freedom-restoration-act-in-utah/

https://www.einpresswire.com/article/766508064/psychedelic-church-takes-federal-action-against-alleged-government-harassment-in-landmark-religious-freedom-case

Commandments on the Classroom Walls: A Clash Between Heritage and the Establishment Clause

    A new Louisiana law mandating that public K-12 schools, colleges, and universities display the Ten Commandments in classrooms has created a constitutional debate regarding the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Attorney General Liz Murrill issued the law, which took effect on January 1, 2025. The law, originally House Bill 71, introduced by Rep. Dodie Horton (R-Haughton), is delayed in five K-12 school districts pending a class-action lawsuit filed by nine parents who argue that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by promoting state-sponsored religion. 

The Establishment Clause, a key component of the First Amendment, is key in the controversy regarding the new law. The Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause ensures the government does not favor one religion or promote religious practices in public spaces, protecting the rights of those in the religious minorities. Opponents of the new Louisiana law argue that requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in state-funded educational institutions violates the Establishment Clause because of the government's potential endorsement of religions based on the Ten Commandments.

AG Liz Murrill’s law requires Schools to display one of four approved posters featuring the Ten Commandments in each classroom. To avoid the appearance of individual educators' endorsement of the Ten Commandments, the posters must not be placed behind teachers’ desks or podiums. Instead, they are encouraged to be integrated among other educational displays—including texts such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Mayflower Compact—to emphasize that they are part of a broader historical narrative.

In June 2024, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed H.B. 71 into law, mandating that every public school classroom display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments using an official, state-approved version. Critics, including plaintiffs from diverse religious backgrounds—Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious—argue that this statute violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, notably Stone v. Graham, which, over 40 years ago, invalidated a similar law by upholding the separation of church and state. They contend that mandating the display of a version of the Ten Commandments associated with Protestant beliefs impermissibly favors certain faiths, creating an unwelcoming and religiously coercive environment for students whose beliefs differ from the state's preferred scripture, and are therefore seeking both a declaratory judgment that H.B. 71 is unconstitutional and demands to prevent its enforcement.

The posters are to be between 11 by 14 inches and 18 by 24 inches and must be donated or privately funded. This requirement prevents the state from directly financially endorsing religious content. Despite these guidelines, the law has created controversy regarding the state's involvement in non-secular matters.

The opponents do not believe that the commandments should be displayed alongside other historical documents; they argue that it still sends a message that the state is upholding Judeo-Christian values over religious minorities. For these opponents, the law violates the foundational principle of separation between church and state. They argue that in a diverse society, public institutions must avoid any appearance of religious favoritism, ensuring that all students, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, feel included and respected.

Supporters of the law, including AG Murrill, argue that displaying the Ten Commandments is not an endorsement of religion but rather an acknowledgment of the historical and cultural roots that have helped shape American legal and ethical traditions. By mandating that the Commandments be displayed alongside the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence, the state aims to place these texts within the context of American history, showing them as part of a shared cultural heritage rather than a declaration of faith.

Murrill states, "H.B. 71 is constitutional because there are constitutionally sound ways to implement it.” Although the posters would not be state-funded, the opposing side argues that the mandate to display a specifically religious text in a public school violates the Establishment Clause.

I believe that the posters do not violate the Establishment Clause. The posters, placed in the context of historical documents, aid in educating children on the moral and ethical beliefs that shaped America. There is precedent for including non-secular ideas in public schools. For example, the Pledge of Allegiance, which is said in public schools, reads “One nation, under God”, displaying the innate link between religion and US history. If presented in the context of American history rather than the validity of the origin of the Ten Commandments, I believe that the posters do not violate the Establishment Clause.

This legal battle raises critical questions about the role of history and tradition in public education. Proponents of the law view the Ten Commandments as an essential part of Western legal tradition, as principles promoting ideas of justice and morality in the United States. For them, removing these texts would result in a lack of crucial historical context in classrooms.

On the other hand, opponents warn that state-mandated religious displays, even if framed as historical artifacts, risk alienating religious minorities. They fear that such displays may endorse one belief system while marginalizing others, thus violating the Establishment Clause and weakening the inclusivity of public education.

This debate highlights the balance of preserving cultural heritage and following constitutional principles. The Establishment Clause prevents any government action promoting religious doctrine over secular governance. Yet, it is also true that American history is steeped in religious influences, which have helped shape the nation’s legal and moral landscape. The law implemented in Louisiana attempts to find a balance similar to that of the Pledge of Allegence and combine the Ten Commandments with other foundational documents. However, whether this balance is sufficient to satisfy the issue of constitutional establishment remains to be seen. Ultimately, the challenge lies within the state’s commitment to remain neutral on religious matters and the role of religious ideas in the country’s development.

Sources: 

https://lailluminator.com/briefs/louisiana-issues-guidance-as-law-requiring-ten-commandments-in-classrooms-goes-into-effect/

https://www.aclu.org/cases/rev-roake-v-brumley

Are Louisiana lawmakers trying "to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity?"

Louisiana’s House Bill 71 would require all public schools in the state to plaster the Ten Commandments in all classrooms. This law would submit students of opposing faiths to scriptural dictates such as “I am the Lord thy god” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Multiple organizations who are devoted towards maintaining the separation of church and state such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the Middle District of Louisiana. These organizations are working for a group of nine families with different religious backgrounds, even those of Christian faiths, who have children attending Louisiana public school. The claims these organizations assert is that the law is a clear violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote “H.B 71 coerces children to view, venerate, and obey commandments that are against their beliefs and interferes with parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious upbringing.”

The lawsuit, Roake v. Brumley, decided that the display of the ten commandments was unconstitutional on November 12^th, 2024 in a federal district court. The Louisiana judge argued the legislation was “facially unconstitutional” and “in all applications” as it promoted Christian ideals that could be seen as coercive and supported religion in a public establishment that is paid for with taxpayer money. The plaintiff’s lawyers from the original court case said, “this ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity.”

However, the State of Louisiana appealed the court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Five public schools have blocked implementation of the Ten Commandments awaiting following lawsuits, while some school districts are complying. Some lawmakers argue that the Ten Commandments hold value in western society and should be viewed as a historical document rather than a religious document. The appeal process is being led by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Louisiana Solicitor Ben Agionaga. Liz Murill argues that “the commandments have historical significance as one of the foundations of our law” and that “there are numerous ways for our schools to constitutionally implement the law.” People in support of this Louisiana legislation argue the law would enforce that the context of the commandments’ role in American history would be included, schools would have room to implement the document how they see fit, and they would be small displays. As well, the commandments would need to be donated. Murill stated that the commandments would best be presented with other documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

                  If the case were to be appealed to the supreme court, it would threaten the precedent of the 1980 Supreme Court case titled Stone v. Graham. The court in a 5-4 vote decided that Kentucky’s requirement of the Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools violated the Establishment clause since the law violated the Lemon Test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The court said that the law “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious.” What interests me regarding this case and Roake v. Brumley, is how close the vote was, presenting how laws regarding religion have always been a divisive issue. Considering that the court is now filled with completely new justices who often align with a more conservative ideals, the possibility of this case being overturned seems to be a high possibility.

                  In my opinion, this case clearly violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise clause of the constitution as the language of the Ten Commandments is coercive in nature. My concern would primarily be for elementary school children who are very impressionable. Heather Weaver, an attorney for the ACL said, “public schools are not Sunday schools” and that “all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.” I completely agree with this statement considering how the Ten Commandments are viewed. The Ten Commandments in Christian faith is the moral code. If students of opposing faiths are taught this, especially younger children, they may feel since they don’t follow all the commandments, that they are doing something wrong. This feeling could threaten a parent’s control of their child’s religious upbringings. While certain commandments may not be inherently religious such as “you shall not murder” or “you shall not steal”, I don’t believe that the other commandments with clear religious motives such as “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” can be ignored.  The argument that the ten commandments is the foundation of American law seems to be a loose argument pushed by conservative law makers hoping to break down the wall between church and state. I don’t see laws preventing stealing and murder as religious backed laws, but moral laws that maintain peace and good order within the United States. Conservative lawmakers seem to understand the power they have within the Supreme Court and keep appealing laws regarding religion to the supreme court. Subjecting students in public schools to ideas such as “thou shalt have no other gods before me” clearly promotes Christian ideals which public schools should not endorse since they use taxpayer money and our American values aim to promote government free from religion. I also find that presenting the commandments with important United States documents like Liz Murill recommended illustrates the idea the United States was founded as a Christian state to students which contradicts the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

    This case, along with other cases regarding religion in public schools, could raise concerns for the barrier between church and state. With the Supreme Court holding a 6-3 conservative majority, Senator Bob Phalen of Montana states “it is now a new day for religious freedom in America.” Senator Phalen has supported religious displays being allowed in schools. However, do these laws truly protect freedom of religion or do they rather a push to uphold conservative ideals against a consistently evolving and diversifying United States? Is it a coincidence that most of these legislations are being proposed by Christian, conservative lawmakers? At least fifteen states have created laws that would put the ten commandments in all public classrooms. I would not be surprised if this case is appealed up the Supreme Court, possibly overturning a 45 year old precedent.

Sources

- https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/rev-roake-v-brumley/

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-321

- https://becketfund.org/media/louisiana-defends-ten-commandments-in-federal-appeals-court/

- https://stateline.org/2025/02/27/eyeing-a-friendly-supreme-court-republicans-push-for-the-ten-commandments-in-schools/

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisianas-ten-commandments-law-public-schools-temporarily-blocked-fed-rcna172286

- https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-blocks-louisiana-law-requiring-public-schools-to-display-ten-commandments-in-every-classroom

Faith, Freedom, and Fungi: The Legal Battle Over Psychedelic Sacraments

     A Utah federal district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing law enforcement from interfering with the religious use of psilocybin or hallucinogenic mushrooms by members of the Singularism Church. They are a newly established small minority faith group. The ruling mandated the return of all confiscated religious items, marking a significant victory for the religious plaintiff group. The court found that the Utah Controlled Substance Act substantially burdened the Singularism group from their sincere religious exercise and that the state failed to justify its actions under the strict scrutiny standard by Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The case of Jensen v. Utah County has raised some profound questions about religious liberty protections. This case allows exploring the broader implications for the protection of religious freedom and psychedelic drugs.

At the heart of the Jensen v. Utah County case is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, an individual's right to practice their religion without government interference. In the Singularism Church, it is believed that the use of psilocybin as a sacrament to write their own scripture and embark on spiritual journeys. The state of Utah tried to enforce its Controlled Substance Act against this spiritual group, categorically prohibiting their religious use of psychedelic drugs. Bridger Jensen (the plaintiff) argued that this kind of enforcement substantially burdened the church and their religious exercise, violating both the First Amendment and Utah's RFRA, which provides enhanced legal protections for spiritual practice. The court ruled in favor of Bridger Jensen. They emphasized that the practices of the Singularism Church were sincere religious expressions. This ruling ignored the government's point that Singularism lacked a central doctrine that weakened its claim to be a religion. However, the court emphasized that they have no right to judge a religion because it is not what they believe in. Religions can encompass a wide variety of spiritual experiences.

The ruling begins to build upon a larger legal subject of trying to protect religious practice from government interference. The Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ruled that generally neutral laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religious practices. However, the backlash from this case led to the enactment of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, leading to a stricter standard. This law required that any substantial burdens on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest and take the least restrictive means.

Although the Supreme Court later limited the RFRA's applicability to federal laws in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), many states enacted their own versions of the RFRA to ensure the protections were heightened for religious liberty. The reasoning in the Jensen case came from Utah's law enforcement failure to meet the strict scrutiny standard and justify why they placed this burden on Singularism's religious exercise.

The Jensen v. Utah County decision has significant ramifications for American drug policy and religious freedom. First, it emphasizes the importance of applying religious liberty laws fairly, regardless of how strange or contentious a group's ideas may appear. Emerging religious movements that use psychedelics should be given the same legal protection under the RFRA as long-standing religious traditions, such as Native American Church peyote rituals.

Second, the case adds to the continuing legal controversy surrounding the use of psychedelic drugs for therapeutic and religious purposes. As the potential mental health advantages of medicines like psilocybin are increasingly recognized by science, courts may be asked to decide cases where drug laws conflict with claims made by religious or medical groups. According to Jensen, in jurisdictions with strong RFRA safeguards, broad bans on controlled substances that do not consider sincere religious beliefs may not pass constitutional muster.

The court's ruling is a well-reasoned defense of religious freedom despite complex policy issues. This decision has raised the question regarding the possibility of abuse even if it is correctly defending the Singularism's religious liberty in this specific situation. Could nonreligious people create a fake religious group to take advantage of the privileges to allow the use of drugs? The sincerity of Singularism's beliefs was closely examined. For future instances, however, this might create a slippery slope and pose more unclear circumstances that make it difficult for judges to distinguish between legitimate religious practices and taking advantage of legal tactics. 

Jensen v Utah County upholds the Free Exercise Clause by declaring the idea that religious liberties are not always like the "traditional" faith. But it also brings up a generalized issue of the boundaries with religious tolerance and the government's control over them, especially restricted substances. Cases like Jensen's could be a stepping stone for future Supreme Court rulings on the balance between religious freedom and the role of drugs as the environment surrounding psychedelics changes. The courts must continue to protect the minority's rights from majority tyranny, especially when the issue at hand conflicts with social norms. 

Sources: 

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/02/utah-rfra-protects-psilocybin-using.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25545986-jensen-v-utah-county/

https://singularism.org/

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/07/07/first-church-cannabis-loses-lawsuit-marion-circuit-court/764407002/

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2024cv00887/152420/56/

Religion and Charity: Can the government decide the sincerity of religious motivations?

The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear the case of Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission in their 2024-2025 term. Catholic Charities Bureau, run out of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, provides services to those who are poor and disadvantaged out of religious motivations. The four sub-entities are Barron County Developmental Services, Inc. (BCDS), Black River Industries, Inc. (BRI), Diversified Services, Inc. (DSI), and Headwaters, Inc. The services provided to the poor and disadvantaged range from job training to supporting individuals with disabilities. While the Bishop of the Diocese of Superior oversees CCB, employees and recipients of the organizations are not required to be of any religious faith, and the programs do not include religious training. 

In March of 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled whether or not the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) was required to pay the state’s unemployment insurance, or if they could opt to pay the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops' Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP). The court ultimately ruled that CCB was required to pay the state’s unemployment due to their services not being “religious enough.” The court argued that their work was largely charitable and not solely religious. Additionally, the court argued that in requiring CCB and its sub-entities to pay the state’s unemployment tax there was no interference with how the church runs itself and was based on neutral criteria. 

CCB argued that this decision infringed upon their religious freedom under the First Amendment due to the Free Exercise Clause. In the court deciding whether or not the services done by CCB are religious (enough) or not, the court is getting involved in determining the structure and mission of a religious group, in this case, CCB. 

The central issue for this case, and what the Supreme Court will be analyzing, is whether or not CCB and its sub-entities are exempt from unemployment tax due to acting primarily on religious motivations. In requiring these organizations to pay the state unemployment tax, they will be separated from the Diocese, which is the district overseen by the bishop. CCB and its sub-entities will not be exempt from paying unemployment tax altogether, rather, they would be paying into the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops' Church Unemployment Pay Program, which would not separate them from the Diocese. The court making a decision on the religious sincerity of CCB and its sub-entities, as CCB argues, will violate their Free Exercise Clause based on the court determining what deems the organization's motivations as religious, more specifically, if they are “primarily” religious.

This case has similar undertones to Cantwell v. Connecticut concerning giving the federal government the power to determine the sincerity of religious practices, a decision that is subjective to the official making the decision. Like Cantwell, public officials are in the position to pass judgment on who can and cannot exercise their religion, something that is not permissible according to the First Amendment. While the Wisconsin court argued that they were not infringing on the practices within the church, CCB, and its sub-entities argue that they are acting out of religious obligation in serving the poor and disadvantaged, putting strict religious motivations behind their actions. 

In order for CCB and its sub-entities to be required to pay the state’s unemployment, the court will have determined their practices to be non-religious. While there is a question of sincerity in who can and cannot say that their practices are religious, the CCB and its organizations will be stripped of their religious autonomy. I think that in looking at how these organizations are not looking to opt out of paying unemployment tax altogether, but rather the CUPP is also of important note. 

This case and the issue of this case is important since it places secular courts answering religious questions. Essentially, it should not be in the hands of the court to decide how religious a practice is. Furthermore, in deciding that these organizations are not “religious enough,” they are interfering with the structure and mission of the church. This would not only violate the organization's First Amendment right regarding the Free Exercise Clause, but potentially question the wall between church and state and the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court ruling for this case will be integral in shaping religious charitable organizations within the United States.

I think that there are valid arguments to be had from both sides. With that being said, what do you think? Given the central issue being whether CCB and its sub-entities are operated primarily for religious purposes, are CCB and its sub-entities exempt from unemployment tax because they are operated primarily for religious purposes? Is their First Amendment Right under the Free Exercise Clause being violated?

https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2024/2020ap002007.html

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-will-hear-clash-over-religious-exemptions-wisconsin-tax-2024-12-13/

https://becketfund.org/case/catholic-charities-bureau/

Gender Affirming Care: Physician's Assistant Fights for Religious Freedom

     First Liberty Institute, a non-profit legal organization, filed a federal lawsuit against University of Michigan Health-West on behalf of Valerie Kloosterman, a physician assistant fired after she requested a religious accommodation from referring patients for transgender surgical procedures and drugs, as well as using patients' preferred pronouns. 

Ms. Kloosterman is a third generation health care worker and worked in her local clinic for 17 years. During this time, she regularly received appraising reviews from her patients and her supervisors are quoted calling her "professional," "very ethical," and a "pleasure to work with," according to a Fox News article. Then, in 2021, The University of Michigan Health - West (UMHW) took over the clinic. Upon the acquisition, employees at the hospital were instructed to take a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) module that required her to affirm statements concerning sexual orientation and gender identity which she believes went against her Christian faith. The module itself would not let her choose "No" when asked to affirm these principles, as she was informed beforehand that failure to mark "Yes" would result in termination. She then sought a religious exemption from the module and an accommodation for gender affirming surgery referrals through the human resources department but was denied. According to Ms. Kloosterman, during follow-up meetings, the DEI Coordinator called her “evil,” blamed her for gender dysphoria-related suicides, and told her she could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work with her. Less than a month later, she was fired.

    After her termination, she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Her attorney's contacted Michigan Health and asked for her reinstatement but they refused. So in October of 2022, First Liberty filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Kloosterman. Then, in September 2023, Federal Judge Jane Beckering allowed her religious discrimination claims to proceed, ruling that there was valid evidence that Ms. Kloosterman's freedom of religion was being threatened by violation of the Free Exercise Clause. 

    During the latest completed trial, Kloosterman's legal team made a compelling case and the court ruled in agreement with them. They argued that the hospital ultimately made her choose between acting against her religious beliefs or losing her job. According to them, forcing this choice upon her significantly burdened her religious beliefs. Additionally, during the final meeting, a hospital administrator allegedly mocked her beliefs, telling her she "could not bring the Bible to work"  and she was “evil” for her refusal to use pronouns. They argued that if decision-makers show hostility toward religious beliefs, their policies may violate the Free Exercise Clause as actions of hostility are not considered neutral. Finally, Kloosterman requested a religious accommodation, proposing to use patients' names instead of pronouns and refer gender affirming patients to other doctors. The hospital denied her request without offering an alternative solution. This violates the Free-Exercise Clause because a law or workplace policy that burdens religious practice must be neutral and generally applicable, meaning it applies equally to everyone without targeting religious beliefs. Kloosterman alleged that UMHW’s policy allowed secular exceptions and targeted religious objections by denying only religious-based accommodations.

    In my opinion, I do believe that terminating Ms. Kloosterman is a violation of her First Amendment Right to the freedom of religion and the Free Exercise Clause. The DEI Coordinator's choice of words and the manner in which they terminated her clearly represents hostility toward religion. As cited in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, with reference to the Free Exercise Clause, she did not deserve to be fired or suspended simply for staying true to her religious convictions, as actions of hostility are not considered neutral. Ms. Kloosterman herself never explicitly expressed hatred towards any of LGBTQ+ individuals in the past, she was simply trying to receive an accommodation and was willing to use their names instead of pronouns. And, in fact, accommodations for doctors treating patients have been made at this hospital for secular reasons. For example, a doctor can opt-out of a surgery or procedure for medical reasons such as an injury to their hand or sickness. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled that if an employer grants secular accommodations but refuses religious ones, it may violate the Free Exercise Clause.  If opt-outs are already part of the medical system, I don't see why they can't make an exception for religion. This is different from majority rulings in cases like Braunfield v. Brown, in which the majority ruled against an accommodation. The court decided, at least in part, that allowing Orthodox Jewish businesses to open on Sundays would present them with an economic advantage over Christian businesses and problems policing the law would arise. I do not see this being the case here, being that an efficient accommodation system is already in place. Similarly, the dissenting opinion in Braunfield argued that 21 out of the 34 states that enforced Sunday laws had functioning accommodation systems for Orthodox Jews, further disproving the claim that it would disrupt the flow and structural of the system in place. Furthermore, Ms. Kloosterman has lost her source of economic income because of a choice that her employer placed upon her. Forcing a person to choose between their livelihood and religious beliefs, while indirect, places a burden on their ability to practice religion freely. This argument is also very similar to that of the dissenting opinion in Braunfield. They argued that enforcing this choice has virtually the same effect as a tax on religious text would, and this type of tax was struck down in Follet v. Town of McCormick.

    Some may imply that by her refusing to refer gender affirming procedures, as well as refraining from using a patient's desired pronouns, that she is being discriminatory and this would violate discrimination laws. I don't believe this to be true. If she was fired on the basis of her performance or she herself was being hostile towards a LGBTQ+ individual, this would be a different story. Others may say that Ms. Kloosterman took an oath to provide medical attention to anyone in need, no matter how much she disagrees with them. And in theory, if she was accommodated, it could have a slippery slope effect and entice other doctors to refuse treatment for individuals who they disagree with in some way. I don't think this scenario will play out this way. Let's be clear that gender affirming surgery is not an emergency surgery. She is not saying she, nor should anyone, deny any type of emergency service for a member of the LGBTQ+ community, rather she is simply referring gender affirming patients to another doctor who does not have religious obligations.

    Either way, this case definitely has implications for the types of accommodations that will be made in workplaces in the future. As of February 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case. Be on the lookout for more actions as Ms. Kloosterman's case progresses. 

Sources:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/christian-physician-assistant-fired-opposition-100049802.html   

https://firstliberty.org/cases/valerie-kloosterman/#simple1 

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Release_Kloosterman_MTD_9.21.23_FNL.pdf 

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Release_Kloosterman_Lawsuit_10.11.22_FNL.pdf 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/573/ 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/599/