Parental Choice Archives - LAW AND RELIGION FORUM

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

In United States v. Safehouse, the Third Circuit heard arguments on whether a nonprofit aiming to open a safe injection site can invoke religious protections under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA, after a lower court ruled that the founders’ religious motivations alone do not shield the group from federal drug laws.
In Mennonite Church USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a D.C. federal court declined to issue a preliminary injunction to reinstate DHS’s “sensitive locations” policy, holding that the plaintiff religious organizations lacked standing to challenge its rescission based on speculative risks of enforcement at places of worship, decreased attendance, restricted services, and added security costs.
In Catholic Benefits Association v. Lucas, a North Dakota federal court issued a permanent injunction shielding a Catholic diocese and employers’ group from EEOC enforcement of federal anti-discrimination rules in ways that would compel them to support or accommodate abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transitions contrary to their religious beliefs.
In Kynwulf v. Corcoran, an Ohio federal court dismissed a Free Exercise claim challenging Medicaid’s estate recovery rules, holding that the plaintiff was not coerced into participation and could not demand that the state tailor its program to his religious beliefs.
In People of the State of California v. Calvary Chapel San Jose, a California appellate court upheld over $1.2 million in fines against the church for violating Covid-era health orders, rejecting its Free Exercise and due process claims by finding the mandates neutral and generally applicable.
West Virginia signed a new law, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, granting parents wide-ranging authority over their children’s education, healthcare, and moral upbringing, with state interference allowed only under a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means.

The Washington Post reports that a California Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously has approved a bill that would prevent local jurisdictions from banning circumcision. The committee action was in response to San Francisco’s effort to ban circumcision without exception for religious practice or parental choice. (For more on the proposed ban in San Francisco, please see my earlier comment). The bill, expected to go before the Senate soon, proposes that circumcision, as a medical procedure, is a statewide concern that may not be regulated at the local level. If approved by the Senate, the bill would leave the circumcision decision up to the parents. The bill would also eliminate any possibility that the district court’s decision to remove the ban from San Francisco’s November ballot might be overturned on appeal. –YAH