February 10, 2025 - LAW AND RELIGION FORUM

I look forward to participating, along with many friends and colleagues, in what promises to be a fascinating symposium on religion, secularism, and liberalism organized by Steven Heyman and Kathleen Brady and hosted by the Chicago-Kent Law Review: “In Search of Common Ground: Religion and Secularism in a Liberal Democratic Society.” The online symposium, scheduled for February 21, will be open to the public; the link is below. It’s a fabulous lineup of scholars and I’m very grateful to be among them:

Over the past several decades, America’s religious diversity has continued to grow rapidly, as have the percentages of Americans who either are not religious or are not affiliated with a specific religious group or denomination. At the same time, America’s deepening cultural and political divisions have often followed these expanding religious fault lines. These developments have raised new challenges for defining the relationship between law, religion, and secularism under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and beyond. At the Chicago-Kent Law Review’s Symposium, leading law-and-religion scholars who represent a broad spectrum of views will explore a range of doctrinal issues – such as free exercise exemptions, government expression and funding, and the meaning of religion under the First Amendment – and will discuss how people who hold very different worldviews can live together in contemporary society.

For more information, check the link above. Thanks!

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

President Donald Trump signed an executive order that established a temporary task force within the Justice Department aimed at eradicating anti-Christian bias within the federal government. The Executive Order names the Attorney General as the Task Force chair and vests within the Task Force with authority to review the activities of all executive departments and agencies for unlawful anti-Christian policies, practices, or conduct, recommend methods to revoke or terminate violative policies, develop strategies to protect the religious liberties of Americans, and more.
In a new complaint filed for Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, the plaintiff, a public school teacher, alleges that DiLoreto Elementary & Middle School violated the Free Exercise clause when she was placed on administrative leave following her refusal to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The plaintiff alleges that the school district pressured her in several meetings to remove the crucifix, and suspended her for two days without pay shortly before placing her on administrative leave.
In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, a California District Court recently dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis alleging that the University violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to operate on campus grounds and exclude Plaintiff from walking on the sidewalk where the encampment was located, despite the fact that the encampment violated school policy. The District Court found that the causal connection between the University’s inaction and the injury the plaintiff suffered was too attenuated for a Free Exercise claim to survive. Further, the District Court held that it was impossible to draw a plausible inference that the defendant’s inaction favored or disfavored any religion or burdened the plaintiff’s religious exercise.
The Australian Parliament recently passed new amendments to the country’s Hate Crimes Law, strengthening the punishments for existing offenses that urge and force violence and creating new offenses that threaten force or violence against targeted groups and members of groups. These amendments were passed following several high-profile incidents of antisemitism that have risen across the country.
The Supreme Court of India recently held that the government of Chhattisgarh has two months to demarcate new, exclusive burial sites for Christians in an attempt to reduce disputes over burial grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision was made against the backdrop of continued persecution by Chhattisgarh state officials, in which Christians have been routinely (and sometimes violently) denied the right to a Christian burial.