ABOVE: FFRF attorneys Liz Cavell and Chris Line continue coverage of church-state related SCOTUS cases this session. The latest decisions allow states to prohibit gender-affirming medical care for minors, prevent Planned Parenthood and its patients from suing states to enforce Medicaid rights, and force public schools to allow religious parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ+-inclusive lessons.
Missouri's Abortion Bans Blocked
By Preliminary Injunction
Kansas City, Mo. (ACLU) – 7/6/2025 – A Jackson County circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Missouri’s abortion bans and several targeted regulations of abortion providers. The new preliminary injunction clears the way for Missouri’s Planned Parenthood members to again provide procedural abortion care.
In May, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the state’s legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, forcing the circuit court to temporarily vacate its original orders, and effectively implement a de facto abortion ban.
"While the clarification on the standard is welcome, its immediate consequence temporarily pulled back implementation of Missourians’ constitutional right to access abortion care and providers’ right to offer that care,” said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. “This critical win begins to restore abortion access in our state, but Missourians must be vigilant and defeat the attacks on the constitutional rights that we secured at the ballot box last November.”
The order did not address the pending request to enjoin other targeted restrictions that are preventing medication abortion access from being restored in Missouri. Previously, both Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri submitted complication plans to satisfy the existing requirements to allow them to offer medication abortions. The Department of Health and Senior Services failed to respond to either affiliates’ submissions or follow-up inquiries for several weeks. Instead, the department manufactured an “emergency rule” that resembled many of the court-blocked regulations and cited it as the reason for refusing the submitted plans.
“Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it. Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We’re not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.” said Emily Wales, president and CEO, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains said. “
“We are grateful that procedural abortion can resume in the state of Missouri, just as voters demanded last November. However, the whiplash has created immense confusion for patients in Missouri,” said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. “This decision is a step forward toward fully realizing Missourians' right to reproductive freedom, and the staff at our Central West End health center in St. Louis will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union, Crowell & Moring, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The full case is currently slated for trial in January 2026. (press release date: 7/3/2025)
Christian Nationalism
and the Rationalization
of Discrimination and Violence
Four Perspectives on the Dangers
6/19/2025
Center for American Progress
Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom - Center for American Progress
Religious liberty is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, yet the meaning of this core American value has been debated throughout the nation’s history. Today, conflicts most often arise from Christian nationalism, the anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone. At its core, this idea threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also leads to discrimination, and at times violence, against religious minorities and the nonreligious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubter's Parish
How the Religious Right Gets It Wrong and What to Do About It
By Martin Thielen
See: Doubter's Parish
Today, many (although not all) religious right Christians believe Jesus dislikes LGBTQ persons, immigrants, liberals, elites, science, welfare, MSNBC, wokeness, critical race theory, Joe Biden, non-Christians, and Democrats. On the other side of the ledger, they believe Jesus loves America, churchgoers, capitalism, the military, conservatives, Fox News, guns, MAGA Republicans, aggressive masculinity, and Donald Trump. The fact that the life, teachings, and example of Jesus challenge these assumptions doesn’t deter religious right Christianity one iota.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lutheran Confessions
Why Conservative Christians Hate CompassionBy Clint Schnekloth
See: Lutheran Confessions
In recent years, conservative Christian voices have been on a tear, decrying compassion as a threat to traditional Christian values. The argument is that compassion—especially when it extends to marginalized groups—gives progressive Christians leverage to dismantle conservative moral teachings. . . . At the root of this backlash lies something far simpler than theological analysis: homophobia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians Against Christian Nationalism
Statement from Christians Against Christian Nationalism
See: Statement
As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our fellow Christians to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.
Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision
Called a Win for Academic Speech
OKLAHOMA CITY (ACLU) -- 6/18/2025 -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on July 17 that the state’s 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools. The suit was originally filed in 2021 on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs in K-12 and higher education.
“Almost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma’s universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma’s higher education classrooms,” said Adam Hines, legal fellow at the ACLU of Oklahoma. “For far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But the government is certain to appeal this victory, and parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools. We will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma’s K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.”
Last year, a lower court also blocked the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction because they are vague, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates. These provisions remain enjoined. The state Supreme Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of any of the provisions.
“This decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma’s higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Students in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow – not stick to government-approved talking points.”
The lead authors of the law in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to “implicit bias,” “systemic racism,” and “intersectionality,” among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students’ and educators’ speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of students of color, LGBTQ students, and young women and girls.
The case will now go back to federal court where a partial preliminary injunction is in place. Cross-appeals have been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which are expected to proceed shortly.
“This ruling is another significant victory in the fight to end classroom censorship in Oklahoma” said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono cocounsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. “By confirming that HB 1775 does not apply to the higher education classroom, this decision allows Oklahoma’s college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. We look forward to working alongside the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and Lawyers’ Committee in the continued fight to invalidate this law.”
“Today's decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country's history in full – including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,” said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.”
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey.
For more information about the lawsuit, please see here.
Groups Say Bill Requiring Display of
Commandments in Classrooms
is Blatantly Unconstitutional
AUSTIN, TEXAS (AU) — 6/4/2025 — Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom From Religion Foundation announced on May 29 that they will sue over Texas Senate Bill No. 10, which requires Texas public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Having received final legislative approval yesterday, the bill will now be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott and is expected to be signed into law.
Under S.B. 10, every public elementary and secondary school in Texas must display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments “in a conspicuous place in each classroom.” The bill mandates that the display be no smaller than 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall and that the Commandments be set forth “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.” The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, selected by lawmakers and associated with Protestant faiths, be used for every display.
S.B. 10 is prohibited by longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
Following this precedent, a federal district court recently held in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to S.B. 10 violates parents’ and students’ rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the displays will religiously coerce students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-sponsored religious messages, and will usurp families’ right to direct children’s religious education. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by Americans United, the ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the ACLU of Louisiana, is currently on appeal in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In response to the passage of S.B. 10, the groups intending to challenge the law issued the following joint statement:
“S.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional. We will be working with Texas public school families to prepare a lawsuit to stop this violation of students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights.
“We all have the right to decide what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. Government officials have no business intruding on these deeply personal religious matters. S.B. 10 will subject students to state-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments for nearly every hour of their public education. It is religiously coercive and interferes with families’ right to direct children’s religious education.
“Texas communities and public schools are religiously diverse. Many public school families do not practice any religion at all, while many others practice religions that do not consider the Ten Commandments to be part of their faith traditions. Even among those who may believe in some version of the Ten Commandments, the particular text they adhere to can differ by religious denomination. The version of scripture set forth in S.B. 10, however, is associated only with Protestant faiths, and does not reflect the beliefs of most Jewish and Catholic families.
“S.B. 10 will co-opt the faith of millions of Texans and marginalize students and families who do not subscribe to the state’s favored scripture. We will not allow Texas lawmakers to divide communities along religious lines and attempt to turn public schools into Sunday schools. If Governor Abbott signs this measure into law, we will file suit to defend the fundamental religious freedom rights of all Texas students and parents. We encourage all concerned public school parents to contact us at au.org.” (Story originally published 4/29/2025)
ABOVE: Peaceful protestors in Edwardsville, Ill., take a stand against the attacks on democracy and the social safety net, and for decency and equal treatment under the law. 7/4/25. S. Rensberry
