
Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
- In Lewis v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the 9th Circuit upheld a jury’s verdict against the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The jury found BART failed to show that accommodating employees’ religious objections to the Covid vaccine would have imposed undue hardship on BART. In his concurrence, Judge Nelson took the position that the Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith was “demonstrably erroneous” and “is inconsistent with history and tradition.”
- Last week, Planned Parenthood filed suit in Wisconsin challenging the state’s laws requiring abortions to be performed only by physicians, and not by qualified advance practice clinicians. They are also challenging the state’s 24-hour waiting period after examination and consultation with a physician before an abortion can be performed.
- The United Kingdom’s passed a new law, the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which requires reporting of child sex abuse. MP Ben Obese-Jecty has made clear that “The Crime and Policing Act 2026 does not provide any exemption from mandatory reporting on the basis of religious practice, or the setting in which information is received.”
- DOJ announced that it has reached a settlement with Lincoln Memorial University to resolve complaints of discriminatory treatment of Jewish students. As a result of the settlement, “LMU-DCOM will revise its absence policy to allow excused absences for religious reasons on the same basis as non-religious reasons.”
- A group of Christian doctors in Colorado filed suit last week in federal district court alleging that the state is violating their 1st and 14th Amendment rights by applying to them the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act. They contend, among other things, that the court’s interpretation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act “now forces doctors to medically transition their patients—including children—even when doing so violates their conscience and medical judgment.”
- A Michigan state appellate court upheld the dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of defamation, breach of contract, and other related claims filed by an assistant imam against his mosque and its board of trustees.



