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

• In Long v. Sugai, the 9th Circuit ruled that a Hawaii prison sergeant potentially violated an inmate’s free exercise rights by delivering Ramadan meals four hours before sundown, leading to inedible and possibly unsafe food. The court emphasized that the timing of meal delivery significantly burdened the inmate’s religious practices and instructed the district court to evaluate whether this burden was justified.
• In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the 5th Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of a case for damages from prison officials who shaved a Rastafarian prisoner’s head. The court said that even though the prison officials knowingly violated his rights, the question of whether the plaintiff can sue for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is one for the Supreme Court.
• In Bridges v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, a federal district court declined summary judgment in a suit brought by a Muslim chaplain alleging First Amendment violations due to a “Statement of Applicant’s Christian Faith” in a prison job application. The court found the statement could be seen as a religious test, but disputes over its optional nature and impact on the plaintiff’s religious expression prevented summary judgment for either side.
• In The Satanic Temple v. Labrador, a federal district court dismissed a case by The Satanic Temple challenging Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. The Satanic Temple argued it violated their religious right to conduct ritualistic ceremonial abortions and now plans to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
• The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Montreal is challenging a Quebec law requiring  all palliative care homes to offer medical assistance in dying, arguing it violates religious freedom. The Archbishop asserts that a palliative care home associated with the Catholic Church should not be obligated to administer euthanasia, emphasizing the importance of respecting freedom of conscience.
•  In Miller v. University of Bristol, a British Employment Tribunal ruled that a Professor’s anti-Zionist views qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. However, the University issued a press release stating that the professor’s employment was terminated because his comments did not meet their behavioral standards.