Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, a California federal district court dismissed a suit by two city employees who objected on religious grounds to the city’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that neither Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the vaccine. 
  • Suit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court by seven police officers and firefighters who were denied a religious accommodation to excuse them from a COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint in Aliano v. Township of Maplewood contends that the denial violates Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 
  • Suit was filed in an Ohio federal district court by a University Heights, Ohio homeowner who was told by the city that he needed to obtain a special use permit in order to hold Jewish prayer services with ten friends in his home. The complaint in Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio challenges, among other things, certain provisions of the city ordinances under the United States Constitution, RLUIPA, the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio common law. 
  • Suit was filed in an Indiana federal district court by The Satanic Temple challenging Indiana’s recently enacted law regulating access to abortion with limited exceptions. The complaint in The Satanic Temple v. Holcomb not only alleges that the ban violates Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it outlaws the Satanic Abortion Ritual, but also alleges other constitutional defects. 
  • In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. 
  • In In re Ayad, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court should determine the validity and enforceability of an Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement before, rather than after, ordering the parties to arbitration by a Fiqh Panel pursuant to the agreement. In a divorce proceeding, the wife challenged the agreement’s enforceability on various grounds, including that the term “Islamic Law” is too indefinite and that the agreement is void as violating public policy. 

Leave a Reply