The Supreme Court in recent years has been open to deciding weighty religious liberty challenges, such as a Christian baker’s right to refuse to make same-sex wedding cakes and a high school football coach’s right to pray on the 50-yard line.
The justices recently upheld a mail carrier’s right to observe the Sabbath and refuse Sunday deliveries.
Their 2024-2025 term is different. The justices have not taken up any religious liberty case for oral arguments.
Court watchers say a plethora will be waiting in the coming weeks.
“They have not granted any religious freedom cases yet this term, which is unusual. We usually see one or two,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty legal group. “There are a bunch heading their way.”
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which hopes to become the nation’s first religious charter school, has filed a petition to review the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling against using public funds to support a religious charter school.
“That is huge,” said Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University. He noted the messy nature of the dispute, such as deciding whether a charter school is a state actor. “I think there’s a chance the court is not going to take the case.”
Oklahoma officials argued that the state could exclude religious schools from the charter school program because these schools are public entities via their contracting with the state.
The school argues that the state’s Charter Schools Act excludes religion in violation of the Constitution.
The case is St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Gentner Drummond.
For the Supreme Court to grant oral arguments, at least four justices must vote in favor of reviewing any legal battles.
Other major religious liberty cases pending review include a dispute over sacred land, the religious nature of Catholic Charities and a dispute over mandatory LGBTQ story time for elementary school children, including kindergartners.
Western Apaches asked the Supreme Court last month to halt the transfer of sacred land in Arizona to a foreign mining company. The Apache Stronghold, a group aiming to protect Indigenous sites, asked the justices to take up its case over Oak Flat, a 6.7-square-mile area outside Superior, Arizona.
According to the court filing, Oak Flat has been used for more than 1,000 years for religious ceremonies, such as boys entering manhood, girls entering womanhood, blessings, healings, sweat lodges and medical treatment through sacred plants.
The land had been transferred through legislation to Resolution Copper, an entity created by Rio Tinto and BHP, two multinational mining companies.
The case is Apache Stronghold v. USA.
Michael A. Helfand, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, said the Apache case is “certainly ripe for review.”
“It does feel like there are just a lot of cases for them to choose from,” Mr. Helfand said.
Other cases seeking Supreme Court review:
Catholic Charities
Catholic Charities in Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court in August to overturn a state decision denying its protection as a religious organization.
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior says its operations are deeply imbued by its faith. The organization said it should be exempt from paying into Wisconsin’s unemployment system because that money could be better used for charitable activities.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in March that Catholic Charities’ services are similar to those of secular nonprofits and aren’t “typical” religious activities, so it does not qualify as an exempt religious organization.
Catholic Charities also hires members of any faith and does not try to evangelize those it serves, the state court ruled.
The case is Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission and State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.
LGBTQ story time
Parents of different faiths asked the Supreme Court last month to review their case against a Maryland school board that removed an opt-out for elementary school children for storybook readings on gender transitioning and LGBTQ issues.
The Montgomery County Board of Education in 2022 allowed the curriculum to include storybooks that celebrate pronouns, pride parades and gender transitioning. Parents were notified and told they could opt out their children.
In 2023, the school board removed the notice and the opt-out. Parents sued in federal court over First Amendment concerns and asked the court to require the opt-out option.
The case is Tamer Mahmoud v. Thomas W. Taylor.
Prisoner’s hair loss
Damon Landor grew out his dreadlocks for two decades in accordance with his Rastafarian beliefs. When he was convicted of drug possession in 2020 and imprisoned for five months in Louisiana, a guard disregarded his religious beliefs and shaved off his hair.
Now released from prison, Mr. Landor is asking the Supreme Court to let him sue Louisiana prison officials.
Since Mr. Landor has been released, court watchers are conflicted about whether the justices will take up this challenge.
The case is Damon Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety.
Thomas C. Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, said all the lower appellate court judges who considered the case said the justices should weigh in.
“The judges on both sides of that have said this is something the Supreme Court has to clear up,” Mr. Berg said.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.