11 cases to watch in 2025 as courts tackle legal disputes involving religion
Issues facing judicial scrutiny include education, employment, minority rights
Cases involving issues as disparate as parental rights with regard to school curriculum, a Rastafarian forced to have his hair cut, and the right of Native Americans to worship on federal land are among those facing U.S. courts this year.
It is too soon to know how many of those cases will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, or even if the court will agree to hear such headline-making cases. And some of the cases are still being decided at the lower-level courts, meaning final resolutions of some cases might not come until 2026 or beyond.
What is known is that a Supreme Court with a conservative majority seems to be more open than in years past to allowing government involvement with religious life. While it would have been unthinkable decade ago, for example, for a state to decide to fully fund a parochial school, a plan that would do exactly that is among those being judicially considered this year.
Here, in alphabetical order, are some of the most important religion-related court cases that could be making news in 2025:
Apache Stronghold v. United States
A coalition of Apaches and other Native Americans is fighting efforts by the federal government to transfer federal land known as Oak Flat to Resolution Copper for a mining project that would destroy the current nature of the property, which various Native tribes view as sacred land that has been used for religious ceremonies. The Natives claim that the land transfer would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a treaty.
A federal appeals court has sided with the federal government, so the Apache Stronghold has asked the Supreme Court to consider its arguments. The high court has yet to announce whether it will hear the case.
The case does not present a clear right-left divide. While some conservative religious interests are supporting the tribe, the federal government’s position has the support of some conservative business interests.
Bethesda University v. Seungje Cho
A dispute between two groups claiming they are the legitimate board of directors of a small California church-sponsored university could end up in the Supreme Court.
The dispute first faced California courts when one group, referred to in court documents as the Kim board, said that the Cho board had improperly appointed Presbyterians to the Bethesda University leadership even though, in the view of the Kim board, all board members must be Pentecostals. The trial court and the 4th District California Court of Appeals sided with the Cho board, which currently is in power. The California Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal, and thus the Kim board’s next step is the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue is whether the trial and appeals courts improperly intervened in a theological dispute. The view of the Cho board is that the courts had properly considered only the interpretation of bylaws, not theological views.
Several of the country’s largest Christian universities, including Liberty University, Arizona Christian University and Brigham Young University, are among the third parties asking the Supreme Court to accept the case. Several conservative interest groups also are siding with the Kim board.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
This is the one religion case the U.S. Supreme Court has so far agreed to decide during its current term. At issue is whether a Catholic charity that provides services in a primarily secular fashion can qualify for a tax exemption related to unemployment benefits.
The charity claims that it qualifies as a religious organization under state law because its motives for providing charitable services are religious in nature. The state claims that the charity doesn’t qualify because its services don’t include expressly religious activities such as religious education or proselyting.
CompassCare v. Hochul
A faith-based pregnancy care center in Rochester, N.Y., is fighting a state law that prohibits employers’ “discrimination based on an employee’s or a dependent’s reproductive health decision making.” The care center claims that the law violates its First Amendment and other rights not to employ someone who disagrees with the center’s anti-abortion position.
The care center, CompassCare, won a key victory last week when the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that an organization, as one of its freedom-of-association rights, can refuse to hire someone who disagrees with the “very mission” of an organization. The court, however, sided with the state of New York on CompassCare’s freedom-of-speech claims.
The ruling sent the dispute back to the trial court for further review.
Diocese of Albany v. Harris
A coalition of religious organizations headed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., is fighting a New York state law that narrowly defines which religious organizations are exempt from requirements to provide abortion services in their health insurance coverage.
New York courts have upheld the law, and the plaintiffs are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider reversal. The Supreme Court has not indicated if it will hear the case.
Hittle v. City of Stockton
Ronald Hilton was the fire chief of Stockton, Calif., when he was fired in 2011 partly as the result of a dispute over his attendance at a Christian leadership conference on city time. There were also city claims that he had failed to provide effective leadership and had conflicts of interest. He sued the city, claiming that he was fired as a result of religious discrimination, which the city denies, but his efforts most recently failed at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hittle has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, which does not focus directly on First Amendment issues but on the procedures that must be followed to show discrimination under civil rights laws. Among other things, he is asking the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 1973 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green decision, which set the parameters such as those involving burden of proof for resolving discrimination cases.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
There appears to be little legal question that Damon Landor’s religious-freedom rights were violated under the terms of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when he was physically forced to have his hair cut in violation of his beliefs as a Rastafarian while serving a prison sentence. The legal problem for him, as decided by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last year, is that it is unclear whether he has the legal right as an individual to sue for damages.
The appeals court clearly sympathized with Landor’s situation but said it was bound by the ruling of an unrelated court case interpreting RLUIPA. The appeals court said that “only the Supreme Court can answer” whether a lawsuit is allowed, so Landor has taken his case there.
The high court has discussed the case privately and asked the U.S. solicitor general for information regarding the legal issues. But it has not otherwise proceeded with the case.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
What could become a landmark case involving the rights of parents to opt their children out of instruction that they believe violates their religious beliefs began in 2022 when the Montgomery (Md.) County Board of Education began the use of textbooks beginning at the preschool level that include LGTBQ characters and issues. A group of parents sued in 2023 when the school board said schools would not honor parental requests to be notified when the books are being used nor be allowed to opt their children out of instruction from the books.
A trial court and later the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided against the parents, and thus followed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not indicated whether it will hear the case.
The parents claim that their freedom-of-religion rights, especially as they pertain to raising their children, are being violated. The school district has responded that there is no First Amendment violation “absent any evidence that the parents or their children were coerced to change their beliefs or act contrary to their religious faith.”
Update: The Supreme Court agreed on Jan. 17 to hear the case.
Roake v. Brumley
A case involving a new state law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms is winding its way through lower-level courts in Louisiana. So far, the state isn’t having any success upholding the law; this isn’t surprising, as the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue in the 2005 case of McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union. In that case, the high court invalidated a Kentucky law with requirements similar to Louisiana’s, saying the law violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
In November, U.S. District Court Judge John W. deGravelles issued an order preventing Louisiana from enforcing the law. The next step for the case is an appeal to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the nation’s more conservative federal appeals courts.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled last year that a state school board had overstepped its authority under both the state and U.S. constitutions when it created a virtual charter school operated by a Catholic diocese. If the school were approved by the courts, it would mark the first time in recent history that a government within the United States has fully funded a school operated expressly for religious purposes.
The diocese, with the support of numerous conservative religious-freedom organizations, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider overturning the state ruling. The high court has not indicated whether it will agree to hear the case.
Walke v. Walters
The American Civil Liberties Union is leading a lawsuit against the Oklahoma’s superintendent of public instruction, Ryan Walters, to prevent him from implementing his mandate to expand use of the Bible in public schools. The plaintiffs filed the suit directly with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which has yet to schedule a hearing.
A similar plan to increase use of the Bible in public-school curriculum has been approved in Texas. As of this writing, no lawsuit has been filed to prevent its implementation.