In the Groff v. DeJoy decision, the Court explained that co-workers’ feelings about religion, or their personal objection to religious practices, are not sufficient to deny an employee’s religious accommodation request.

More than a dozen cases remain undecided at the Supreme Court for this term, including not one but two cases with issues related to religious liberty.

The Oklahoma Charter School Board approved a Catholic school’s application for charter school funding, making it the first religious charter school in the country and setting the stage for a likely legal battle.

Bills that don’t get passed by the end of the Texas Legislature’s session expire and can’t be reintroduced until the next session — here’s an update on the outcome of some Texas legislation related to religious liberty we have been following.

The White House rightly noted that, while “antisemitic incidents most directly and intensely affect the Jewish community, antisemitism threatens all of us.”

The Department of Education issued new guidance on prayer and religious expression in public schools, emphasizing that although school officials “may not promote or favor religion or coerce the consciences of students,” schools are not “religion-free zones.”

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) highlighted worsening conditions for religious freedom in many parts of the world in its annual report.

The Texas state Senate passed four measures in April related to religion in public schools, some of which are raising significant religious liberty concerns for public school students and their parents.

Justices questioning Groff’s attorney explained their concern about overturning a previous court ruling interpreting a statute that Congress could change if it desired. In other words, they seemed more interested in defending the principle of statutory stare decisis than they were defending the “more than de minimis” standard established in Hardison.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Indiana high school music teacher’s claim that his dismissal for refusing to use transgender students’ preferred names and pronouns violated his religious liberty rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.