Tag: religious freedom

Supreme Court to Decide If Colorado Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Violates Free Speech

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on Oct. 7 a free speech case involving a Colorado law that bans therapists from providing so-called conversion therapy to minors experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

A therapist challenging the law argues that it violates her First Amendment rights. On the other side of the debate, Colorado contends that it has the right to regulate mental health treatments for minors that it deems harmful and ineffective. It is among more than 20 states with such bans.

Colorado’s Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor law, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed therapists from trying to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Therapists who violate the law could be stripped of their licenses and face fines of up to $5,000.

Colorado has stated that its regulation was enacted in response to “overwhelming” scientific evidence that conversion therapy for minors is unsafe and not effective in the long term.

A practitioner of such therapy told The Epoch Times that the therapist’s work focuses on mending psychological wounds and is not coercive or harmful.

Opponents of conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association, point to practices such as electric shock and negative feedback methods such as smelling salts or chemically induced nausea to create a psychological aversion to the unwanted behaviors or attractions.

However, according to licensed counselor Christopher Doyle of the Institute for Healthy Families, modern therapists avoid these methods and instead favor exploring clients’ attitudes on sexuality, trauma, self-perception, and relationships.

Keep reading

TDF secures legal victory for Amish client in Quarantine Act challenge

The Democracy Fund has achieved another significant win in its ongoing efforts to defend members of the Amish community facing convictions under the Quarantine Act. The convictions arose from tickets received by the Amish upon crossing the border during the COVID-19 pandemic: Crown prosecutors alleged that the Amish failed to provide information required by the ArriveCan app.

On September 25, 2025, the Niagara Provincial Court issued a suspended sentence with no fine ($0) for an Amish client whose conviction was previously overturned and reopened by TDF lawyers. The outcome ensures that a member of the Amish community is spared undue hardship caused by financial penalties and credit problems.

As previously announced, TDF filed reopening applications in Niagara Provincial Court on behalf of two Amish clients. The court granted the application for one client, overturning their conviction and scheduling a new trial, while denying the second application.

The clients, originally from an Ontario Amish community and now residing in the United States following marriage, were charged with non-compliance with COVID-19 regulations and failure to complete the ArriveCan app. These requirements posed significant challenges for the Amish, whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of modern technology. Many of TDF’s Amish clients face substantial fines and property liens, threatening their farms and traditional way of life. TDF remains unwavering in its commitment to safeguarding their homes and livelihoods.

TDF Senior Litigation Counsel, Adam Blake-Gallipeau, stated: “Obviously, the Amish have limited access to modern technology and live a Biblically-based lifestyle: this outcome upholds their religious freedoms. We’re pleased with the result since it ensures that our client is no longer threatened with the destruction of his credit rating and financial penalties.”

TDF proudly represents over 30 Amish clients across Ontario, advocating tirelessly for fair treatment under the law for these peaceful communities.

Keep reading

UT-Battelle to pay $2.8 million in COVID-19 vaccine requirement settlement

UT-Battelle agreed to pay more than $2.8 million to employees after a lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine requirements, said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

UT-Battelle is the managing contractor of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. During its investigation, EEOC said it found reasonable cause to believe that UT-Battelle had discriminated against ORNL employees by denying them religious accommodations from the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC said.

“I am grateful for the field’s hard work in this investigation, and UT-Battelle’s commitment to voluntarily rectifying its alleged Title VII violations by compensating its employees and agreeing to injunctive relief is commendable,” said EEOC Acting Chair Lucas. “While COVID-19 vaccine mandates were a novelty, our long-standing civil rights laws remain unchanged — absent an undue hardship, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to its employees for their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Per the agreement, UT-Battelle will provide back pay and compensatory damages to those affected and train its human resources personnel on religious accommodation requests.

“UT-Battelle has always respected the religious beliefs and practices of its employees,” said Stephen Streiffer, president and CEO of UT-Battelle. “The COVID-19 pandemic required extraordinary measures to protect staff members’ health and safety while they worked together to keep the lab open. During unprecedented times, their dedication allowed us to continue fulfilling our national missions, including the production of medical isotopes to fight cancer and support national security. We appreciate the assistance of the EEOC in resolving these disputes, which allows us to move forward fully focused on our work for the nation.”

Keep reading

Muslim Rights Groups: US Army Grooming Standards May Infringe on Religious Freedom

Muslim rights groups are concerned that new US Army grooming standards will exclude Muslims and Sikhs from serving. There are only about 10,000 – 20,000 US service members who identify as Muslim, and Sikhs appear to number only in the low double digits.

An ancillary effect of the policy is that it reinforces the elimination of accommodations for transgender soldiers, requiring them to dress and meet the standards of their birth gender.

The Army announced updated appearance, grooming, and uniform standards following a force-wide review, emphasizing professionalism and discipline as reflections of Army values. Key changes include clarified rules on hairstyles, cosmetics, fingernails, jewelry, uniforms, insignia, and body composition assessments. Developed with input from leaders across the Army, the policy is intended to realign standards with warfighting priorities and eliminate ambiguity.

The Army also reinforced its facial hair policy in July 2025 through Army Directive 2025-13, requiring soldiers to remain clean-shaven in uniform or while on duty in civilian clothes, with only temporary medical exemptions and permanent religious accommodations.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on the Pentagon to protect the religious rights of military personnel after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a new “no beards” policy. Hegseth told military leaders, “no more beards… we’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards and adhere to standards.” CAIR urged the Department of Defense to clarify that religious accommodations will remain in place for Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and others.

Historically, the rule in the US Army for about 100 years has been that the Army allows religious freedom and will accommodate as much as it can. However, the priority is always the mission, followed by the men, or in Army terms, “mission, men.” While attempts would be made to accommodate religious practices, if a practice prevents a soldier from carrying out duties, then that individual cannot serve.

For example, Jewish soldiers were allowed to wear a yarmulke under their helmet because it did not interfere with equipment. But a beard, even for religious reasons, was not permitted because a protective mask would no longer seal. Similarly, a Sikh turban could not be worn with a combat uniform because it interfered with the helmet and other equipment

From 1948 to 1984, Sikh men were permitted to serve in the US military while wearing beards and turbans. That changed in 1984, when Gen. John A. Wickham Jr., then Chief of Staff of the Army, eliminated the exception for Sikhs and others who wore “conspicuous” items of faith, citing health and safety concerns. The official reasoning was that turbans and uncut hair interfered with helmets and equipment, while beards prevented protective masks from sealing properly.

Keep reading

Rutherford Institute Warns of Growing Threats to Religious Freedom, Challenges Ruling Denying Equal Treatment to Faith-Based Study Center

The Rutherford Institute is once again warning that if the government is allowed to deny freedom to one segment of the citizenry, it will eventually extend that tyranny to all citizens.

The Institute’s warning comes in response to a trial court’s decision in Christian Scholars Network, Inc. v. Montgomery County and Town of Blacksburg to deny equal treatment to a faith-based campus study center—despite providing tax-exempt status to other religious and charitable organizations offering similar services. At issue is whether the Christian Scholars Network (CSN)—a nonprofit religious organization that holds Bible studies, worship services, prayer meetings, and faith-based community events at its Bradley Study Center—is entitled to the same tax-exempt treatment granted to other religious groups. The case raises critical constitutional questions about religious liberty, government neutrality, and equal protection for nontraditional faith practices under the First Amendment and the Virginia Constitution.

“The First Amendment forbids the government from picking and choosing which religious groups are ‘worthy’ of constitutional protection,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Whether it’s a church, a synagogue, a mosque, or a campus study center, the principle is the same: all faiths must be treated equally under the law. When the government starts elevating one form of religious practice over another, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens freedom of belief for everyone.”

The Rutherford Institute’s lawsuit on behalf of Christian Scholars Network (CSN) comes amid growing concerns about governmental attempts to define religion narrowly, often to the detriment of minority or nontraditional faith communities. In 2019, CSN, a nonprofit ministry exempt from federal income tax by the IRS under section 501(c)(3), opened the Bradley Study Center near the Virginia Tech campus to cultivate a thoughtful exploration of the Christian faith and how one’s faith connects to their studies, work, and life. CSN uses the Study Center property for worship services, prayer meetings, Bible and theological book studies, and a Fellows Program for Virginia Tech students to meet weekly for religious discussions and fellowship. Despite fulfilling a comparable mission as other religious organizations, CSN was denied a property tax exemption on the grounds that its activities allegedly did not constitute “worship” and that it is not a “religious association” under Virginia law.

In coming to CSN’s defense, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute argue that the government’s refusal to recognize CSN’s religious character violates the Establishment Clause, fosters religious discrimination, and imposes a narrow, outdated definition of worship that excludes faith communities outside traditional, hierarchical structures. Institute attorneys also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin, which affirms the right of faith-based organizations to operate free from government discrimination based on the structure or style of their worship and ministry. After the trial court refused to grant CSN an exemption, ruling that CSN must be like a traditional church to receive the tax exemption, attorneys with The Rutherford Institute appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals.

Keep reading

How to Mount a Religious Liberty Challenge to a Childhood Vaccine Mandate

In 2024, IT specialist Lisa Domski was awarded $12.7 million in a religious discrimination lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The health company had fired her for refusing a Covid-19 vaccine that was developed using aborted fetal cell lines—to which she objected as a Catholic. 

Domski’s case isn’t unique. Hers is one of at least five major lawsuits pitting vaccine mandates against religious liberty in recent years.

Most Americans might assume that the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment would extend to vaccines given to both adults and children. Most states do recognize such a right, but California, Connecticut, Maine, New York, and West Virginia do not.

Should they? With ever-growing public concern about vaccine mandates, it’s only a matter of time before this question reaches the Supreme Court. 

The Court has never ruled directly on the question of religious liberty and vaccine mandates, but it has dealt with mandates. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) involved an adult man, Henning Jacobson of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The city, following a state statute, had mandated the smallpox vaccine during an epidemic and had fined Jacobson five dollars for failing to comply. He argued that his state’s mandate violated his right to individual liberty under the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Jacobson. It ruled 7-2 that states have broad authority under their police powers to enact public health measures, including compulsory vaccinations, when necessary to protect the community. 

In Zucht v. King (1922), the Supreme Court ruled that schools could mandate vaccines. In Cantwell (1940), however, the Court found that states needed to have a compelling state interest to restrict religious freedom. Half a century later, Smith (1990) lowered the bar for states to overrule religious liberty claims. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) partially rebalanced the scales. And recent Court decisions suggest that the Court may soon send Smith to the recycle bin.

None of these cases, however, involved a potential conflict between religious liberty and a vaccine mandate. So, these questions remain: If presented with the issue, should the Supreme Court require that state laws recognize religious liberty objections to vaccine mandates? And if so, under what conditions?

I’m neither a legal scholar nor a prophet, so I won’t venture a prediction about how the Court would rule. Still, the Court should recognize the legitimacy of at least some religious liberty objections to vaccine mandates. This is true even if one believes the seven-vote majority decided correctly in 1905 that states could mandate the smallpox vaccine.

Such mandates always involve crucial questions of fact. In Jacobson, the Court took for granted several of what it viewed as facts: (1) Smallpox vaccines, they assumed, had a long history of immunizing recipients against a highly infectious and deadly disease. (2) There were few alternative treatments for the infected. (3) The cost of refusing the Massachusetts mandate—a small fine—was not all that burdensome. (4) The risk of the vaccine itself was quite low. (5) Finally, they assumed, such a mandate was needed for public safety. 

Given all this, they rejected his appeal to personal liberty.

Keep reading

Germany: Muslim University Group Events Barred Amid Claims of Sex Segregation

A Muslim student organisation has been barred from holding any further events at Germany’s prestigious Charité University over accusations of segregating events by sex.

Medislam Collective, an Islamic student group, has been accused of violating the anti-discrimination policies of the Charité University of Medicine of Berlin after footage emerged of men and women being separated by their sex during a lecture.

The Medislam group had also reportedly held sex-specific events, including “Activity Day for Sisters” for female students and “Brothers Activity Day” for male students, Bild reported.

Other events included in-depth recitals of the Qur’an. It is currently unclear if the group mandated the segregation or if it was self-imposed by the students.

In a statement to the German paper, a Charité spokesman said that the university did not organise the previous events and that planned events have been barred during an official investigation.

“Based on the current indications and to ensure a non-discriminatory, inclusive and values-based Higher education space from now until further notice, and until further notice, the group will be prohibited from holding activities and events in the premises of the Charité,” the spokesman said.

Keep reading

Colorado Christian Camp Wins Legal Victory Against State’s Radical Transgender Rules

Colorado officials have reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit with a Christian summer camp, allowing the camp to continue operating according to its religious beliefs on biological sex.

The Colorado Department of Early Childhood (CDEC) announced a new regulation early this year requiring resident camps to provide access to restrooms, showers, dressing areas, and sleeping facilities that align with campers’ gender identities rather than their biological sex. The CDEC said the regulation was based on rules from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission implementing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Federalist recently reported the story of IdRaHaJe, a cherished Christian camp in Colorado that has embraced children of all faiths for 77 years. This camp sought a religious exemption from the CDEC to maintain its biblical beliefs about biological sex. Unfortunately, the CDEC not only denied this request but also directed the camp to seek legal assistance, putting IdRaHaJe at risk of losing its license and facing closure due to its refusal to conform to the state’s leftist gender regulations.

In response, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), serving as IdRaHaJe’s legal counsel, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. ADF aimed to protect IdRaHaJe’s right to religious freedom and its mission to operate according to its core beliefs.

Just a month following the lawsuit, ADF announced a significant victory: IdRaHaJe and the state of Colorado reached a favorable settlement. As part of this agreement, Colorado committed not to take any enforcement action against Camp IdRaHaJe for alleged violations of the gender identity requirements. The CDEC clarified on its website that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes, including Camp IdRaHaJe,” are exempt from the requirements. This outcome is crucial. It allows IdRaHaJe and other religious organizations to continue their vital work of ministering in alignment with their faith and understanding of biological sex.

The settlement is welcoming news for Cathy, a Colorado mom who has sent her two kids to Camp IdRaHaJe multiple times over the years. She shared that her kids attending IdRaHaJe was “an experience like no other summer camp, helped build on the foundation of faith we have, and encouraged them to make their own choices in their faith journey!”

The response from the CDEC was noteworthy. On its website, it attempted to spin its loss as a win, highlighting that Camp IdRaHaJe voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. Yet, the CDEC conveniently ignored the crucial fact that the ADF filed a voluntary notice of dismissal as a direct result of the settlement. Furthermore, the CDEC shifted its narrative, asserting that its gender-identity regulation has never targeted or restricted religious organizations like Camp IdRaHaJe.

Keep reading

Utah Passed a Religious Freedom Law. Then Cops Went After This Psychedelic Church.

When Bridger Lee Jensen opened a spiritual center in Provo, Utah, he contacted city officials to let them know the religious group he had founded, Singularism, would be conducting ceremonies involving a tea made from psilocybin mushrooms. “Singularism is optimistic that through partnership and dialogue, it can foster an environment that respects diversity and upholds individual rights,” Jensen wrote in a September 2023 letter to the Provo City Council and Mayor Michelle Kaufusi. Seeking to “establish an open line of communication” with local officials, Jensen invited them to ask questions and visit the center.

Jensen’s optimism proved to be unfounded. The city did not respond to his overture until more than a year later, when Provo police searched the Singularism center and seized the group’s sacrament: about 450 grams of psilocybin mushrooms from Oregon. The seizure resulted from an investigation in which an undercover officer posed as a would-be Singularism facilitator.

That raid happened in November 2024, less than eight months after Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, had signed the state’s version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The state law likely protects Singularism’s psychedelic rituals, a federal judge ruled in February. U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish granted Jensen’s request for a preliminary injunction against city and county officials, ordering them to return the mushrooms and refrain from further interference with the group’s “sincere religious use of psilocybin” while the case is pending.

“In this litigation, the religious-exercise claims of a minority entheogenic religion put the State of Utah’s commitment to religious freedom to the test,” Parrish wrote in Jensen v. Utah County. If such a commitment “is to mean anything,” she said, it must protect “unpopular or unfamiliar religious groups” as well as “popular or familiar ones.”

Parrish noted that “the very founding of the State of Utah reflects the lived experience of that truth by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” In light of that history, she suggested, “it is ironic” that “not long after enacting its RFRA to provide special protections for religious exercise, the State of Utah should so vigorously deploy its resources, particularly the coercive power of its criminal-justice system, to harass and shut down a new religion it finds offensive practically without any evidence that [the] religion’s practices have imposed any harms on its own practitioners or anyone else.”

Under the federal RFRA, which Congress enacted in 1993, the government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it shows that the burden is “the least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling governmental interest.” In 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that RFRA protected the American branch of a syncretic Brazil-based church from federal interference with its rituals, even though the group’s sacramental tea, ayahuasca, contained the otherwise illegal psychedelic drug dimethyltryptamine.

The Supreme Court has said RFRA cannot be applied to state and local governments. Laws like Utah’s, which 29 states have enacted, aim to fill that gap.

The defendants in Jensen’s case—Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray, the county, and the city of Provo—argued that Utah’s RFRA did not apply to Singularism, which they portrayed as a drug trafficking operation disguised as a religion. Parrish rejected that characterization. “Based on all the evidence in the record,” she wrote, “the court has no difficulty concluding that Plaintiffs are sincere in their beliefs and that those beliefs are religious in nature.”

Parrish also concluded that “preventing Singularism’s adherents from pursuing their spiritual voyages” imposed a substantial burden on their religious freedom that was not “the least restrictive means” of addressing the government’s public safety concerns. She noted that Utah allows religious use of peyote and has authorized “behavioral health treatment programs” in which patients can receive psilocybin.

Keep reading

‘Not a cult’: Holy war erupts as judge bans mom from taking daughter to Christian church

A mother whose constitutional rights were violated by a Maine judge hearing a custody dispute has taken the fight to the state Supreme Court.

The case involves a radical ruling from Jennifer Nofsinger, a judge who heard a custody case, who ordered that the mother was not allowed to take her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church.

That was based on “objections” from the child’s father, who like the mother and daughter was not identified in the report from Liberty Counsel, which is working on the case.

Chairman Mat Staver said, “Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning a mother from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings regarding marriage and human sexuality violates the First Amendment. The custody order cannot prohibit the mother from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”

The judge granted the father, who objects to the Christian teachings of the church, “the sole right to govern the girl’s religious activities.”

The high court is being asked to reverse the “unlawful custody order” and to restore the mother’s First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs

The judge adopted the ideology of a leftist teacher from California who was hired by the father. That teacher, Janja Lalich, told the judge “that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teach about a ‘transcendent belief system’ that offers answers, and ‘promises some sort of salvation.’ She further testified that she had ‘studied’ Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church’s pastor was a ‘charismatic’ speaker, spoke ‘authoritatively’ in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth.,” Liberty Counsel reported.

That meant, Lalich claimed, the church was “cultic.”

Keep reading