The University of Messina and LAWS-MDPI are co-sponsoring a seminar on “The Crisis of Religious Freedom in the Age of COVID-19 Pandemic.” The seminar will be held on May 28th, at 4:00 pm Rome time on Microsoft Teams.
Please see the attached conference flyer below for the Microsoft Teams information and a list of speakers.
Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
The Supreme Court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, in which the Fifth Circuit struck down a Mississippi statute that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age.
The Supreme Court dismissed, by a vote of 6-3, the certiorari petitions in three related cases challenging a Trump Administration rule that imposed new restrictions on abortion referrals by health care providers receiving Title X family planning funds.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed an Arizona federal district court’s dismissal of a religious discrimination suit filed by The Satanic Temple, concluding the group failed to prove that religious beliefs were a factor in the decision to not approve its giving a legislative prayer.
A federal district court in Washington denied summary judgment to five current and former high school students who sued the state’s Interscholastic Activities Association for failing to accommodate Seventh Day Adventists’ Sabbath observance in scheduling and administering the high school state tennis championships.
Suit was filed in a Massachusetts federal district court by a church challenging the state’s COVID-19 reopening regulations; the suit alleges that Massachusetts’ phased COVID-19 reopening regulations single out places of worship for differential and disfavored treatment.
A Texas Appellate Court held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a civil court lacked jurisdiction over an age discrimination and fraud case brought by a Catholic priest against his diocese.
A Hawaii federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to Hawaii’s COVID-19 mask requirements, concluding that the complaint failed to allege that the mask mandate imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiff’s practice of religion.