Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
- In Carson v. Makin, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine’s tuition program, which pays tuition to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school, but which requires participating schools to be nonsectarian, violates the Free Exercise Clause.
- In Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the Eighth Circuit upheld Arkansas’ law requiring public contracts to include a certification from the contractor that it will not boycott Israel.
- In In re Marriage of Olsen, a Colorado state appellate court held that the district court erred by considering a wife’s religious belief that pre-embryos are human lives when settling a dispute between a husband and wife over the disposition of their cryogenically frozen pre-embryos after their divorce.
- In Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi v. DeLange, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents Mississippi courts from adjudicating wrongful termination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by the former finance officer of the diocese.
- South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has signed H4776, the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act. The new law provides, in part, that religiously objecting medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers have the right not to participate in or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s or entity’s conscience.
- In Yalçin v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Turkey violated Article 9 (freedom of religion and belief) of the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing to make a room available for congregational Muslim Friday prayers at a high-security prison.
- France’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, held that the city of Grenoble cannot permit Muslim women to wear the full-length “burkini” bathing suit in its municipal swimming pools. The court stated that doing so would compromise principles of religious neutrality and “the equal treatment of users.”