I had missed this CA10 decision supporting religious exemptions from a university’s vaccine requirement. The panel majority said the university was constitutionally forbidden from inquiring in any detailed way into the plaintiffs’ sincerity: /1 uploads-ssl.webflow.com/63d954d4e4ad...

Your regular reminder that prior to the Covid pandemic, no federal or state court in the history of the United States ever invalidated a vaccine requirement under the First Amendment, let alone in the midst of a pandemic that was killing thousands of people daily. coloradosun.com/2025/12/02/c...

Under this Ninth Circuit holding, which conservatives are lauding (as below), can religious hospitals fire employees who refuse to be vaccinated? What about religious health care providers that object on religious grounds to employees who invoke conscience protections, say, in emergencies?

My colleague @amandafrost.bsky.social is excellent on this panel about birthright citizenship. Her response on what sources to read to understand the issue (at ~1:14) — as compared to the other answers given — is notable. @uvalaw.bsky.social www.youtube.com/live/scYYIy9...

Dean Leslie Kendrick ’06 joined the awards ceremony recognizing Profs. @payvandahdout.bsky.social and @rachelbayefsky.bsky.social for their research in civil procedure at @theaals.bsky.social annual meeting Wednesday.

The Ninth Circuit today holds that religious organizations have a First Amendment right to discriminate based on religion in hiring/firing non-ministers. The panel grounds its decision in the “church autonomy doctrine,” which the Supreme Court recognized for the first time in 2020. /1

Religious exemptions in the workplace don’t get as much attention as they should. Good to see this coverage, especially given the flood of cases after the Court’s decision in Groff.

Not always.

Before self-denaturalizing for insufficiently enthusiastic celebration of Christmas (“nothing bad” would happen to the Jews, we’re told), maybe I’ll teach a seminar on Locke’s letter, if American citizens are still allowed to read it. Or given all this talk of family, the first treatise.

I don't think there's any understanding of the First Amendment under which this ("our Savior") is constitutional. Yet they don't care, and they've eliminated all the attorneys who would've objected. Kudos to the Goldwater and Cato Institutes for condemning it. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/25/a...

Subtle.

This is close — just replace “emphasizes” with “establishes” (h/t @martylederman.bsky.social)

The problem will only worsen as the Supreme Court encourages vaccine exemption claims in the lower courts.

I learned Morse code at 20 wpm for an Advanced Class ham radio license (under call sign KI5GW).

The Supreme Court signaling that Mahmoud may extend beyond curricular opt-outs. We anticipated this move in the vaccine context in our recent comment, @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13....

The measles epidemic that led to NY and CA repealing their religious exemptions happened just before COVID hit, and it’s as if the whole thing is being memory-holed.

Have been saying this for many years: “‘Postliberalism’ as a term is really a rebranding of Catholic integralism.” lawliberty.org/integralism-...

Still (and always) a sucker for the hard copy.

All the religious liberty clinics/litigation shops rushing to file amicus briefs opposing EEOC’s demand for lists of Jews, right?

Same for legal academics — need more who teach and write about the First Amendment.

Since postliberalism is having another moment where people seems to be confused about what it is, here are a few papers that might be helpful: 1. The intellectual energy comes from Catholic integralism — for an early critique, see digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol56/i...,

Suddenly antiliberals who defined “liberalism” to include pretty much the entire American political tradition — from Jeffersonian republicanism to Reagan fusionism, and everything in between — are quite particular about what counts under the recently manufactured concept of “postliberalism.”

Apparently, over at the other place, integralists are having a meltdown about the claim that they paved the way for groypers. Antisemitism couldn’t have anything to do with it, because “nothing bad” would happen to you in an integralist society (except for that Mortara thing).

This is on the right track, but not quite accurate. Even before Crean & Fimister, the integralists’ take on the Mortara Affair made the quick re-branding necessary. The need for an exoteric labeling was present at the launch of the integralist revival.

Your regular reminder that “postliberalism” is just Catholic integralism — the revival of which started in 2018 with a debate over whether it was ok for a 19th century pope to kidnap a Jewish child (recall firstthings.com/non-possumus/).

I don’t know anything about Nordic paganism, but I do know something about evidence of animus under Masterpiece Cakeshop — and no one has given this guy the talk.

The Supreme Court had three religious freedom cases last Term. With @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, our latest comments on them, extending our analysis of religious preferentialism under the First Amendment. harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...

Robbie George showing, perhaps unwittingly, that any decent political morality is going to have some conception of reasonableness.

This piece on Kagan/KBJ mainstreams discussion of an argument about judicial strategy that @nelsontebbe.bsky.social and I staked out in our article “Establishment Clause Appeasement” several years ago: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... /1

Does blocking people on twitter because they asked some critical/clarifying questions violate the Rapoport Rules and the internal morality of reasoned disagreement? (Asking for everyone who isn't an integralist.) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

This from my incomparable colleague, Caleb Nelson, on originalism and the unitary executive theory.

Kansas passed a law making it illegal for hospitals (or any employer) to require COVID vaccination unless they grant a religious exemption -- with no inquiry into the sincerity of those who claim it. Basically, employers must allow automatic exemptions. (h/t @doritreiss.bsky.social). /1

Also exceedingly rare for a court to cite Schragger, Schwartzman, and Tebbe, but lo and behold.

📢 NOMOS 2025 Annual Conference: Capitalism and Socialism Panels on value & money 🗓 Sept 26, 12–6:45 PM EST | Hybrid: Harvard Safra Center + Zoom justmoney.org/2025-annual-...

Session 3 on Proof — philosophy and law of evidence, with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed Chang, Alex Stein, and Kim Ferzan.

Honoring Fred Schauer today: www.law.virginia.edu/event/rules-...

Are there Mahmoud-compliant notifications and opt-outs for mandatory gun education in kindergarten? www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/...

Sunstein seems to think it’s an open question in religious liberty cases whether the government’s interest in prohibiting discrimination against gay people is as strong as its interest in prohibiting animal cruelty. That does make me wonder if he thinks that’s also true for race discrimination?

This conference in honor and memory of Fred Schauer is open to the public and will be held at @uvalaw.bsky.social on Sept. 11-12. The full schedule of panels and speakers is linked below. www.law.virginia.edu/event/rules-...

Registration is open for the NOMOS conference on Capitalism and Socialism. The Zoom and registration links, as well as the final schedule and paper titles are available at www.political-theory.org. With thanks to the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics @harvard.edu for hosting.

This seems like a good issue for Becket-supported religious liberty clinics: ctmirror.org/2025/08/22/c...

If this piece relies on a “Cliff notes” reading of Rawls, then maybe it’s time to throw away the notes and read what Rawls actually wrote. (h/t @neufeld.bsky.social)

Prof. @micahschwartzman.bsky.social ’05 discusses a judge’s ruling applying the free exercise clause in allowing access to treatment to reverse medication abortions. @law360.bsky.social

In Kluge, CA7 today reinstated a public school teacher's claim for a religious accommodation to avoid calling transgender students by their chosen names. Judge Rovner's dissent cites and quotes @profjdnelson.bsky.social's article, Disestablishment at Work, www.yalelawjournal.org/article/dise...:

CA9 panel holds that Oregon policy requiring adoptive parents to respect a child's sexual orientation/gender identity favored one religion over another, citing the Court's recent Establishment Clause decision in Catholic Charities. So if you tell the state that its abortion ban violates your faith?

For a bit of context on the broader argument here, I wrote this back in May 2022 (before many of these cases were filed): religionnews.com/2022/05/17/w...

Big update in a case I wrote about almost exactly 2 years ago www.politico.com/news/2023/06...

This is an important religious liberty challenge advancing in the Kentucky state courts. There’s a growing literature discussing the arguments developed in this case and in similar litigation in Indiana. (See eg papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....)

In the most Kentucky decision ever, a state appellate court revives a religious liberty challenge to the state abortion ban, finding that a plaintiff has standing by comparing her claim to those of a racehorse owner who wanted to buy more horses at Churchill Downs. law.justia.com/cases/kentuc...

Monday 18 Aug 2025 10:00-11:30 AM CST | -6 UTC "Reestablishing Religion" A Conversation w/ @richschragger.bsky.social @micahschwartzman.bsky.social & @nelsontebbe.bsky.social Religion, Authoritarianism & Public Narratives prt 4 Article lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv... Register soraaad.org