• The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet agreed to take any cases on religious freedom for this term though there are some petitions still being considered.
• Three petitions raise important issues: whether parents should be allowed to opt their children out of curriculum materials at odds with their beliefs, whether a prisoner can get relief when his religious freedom is infringed, and whether a state can decide a religious charity is not religious enough.
• These cases raise issues that could use clarification by the Supreme Court so it would be valuable for the court to take these cases and resolve them.

As Election Day approaches, it can be easy to forget about other important matters of government and policy that are happening. One of those is the new term of the United States Supreme Court, which began this month.

One high-profile issue that has been a regular subject of lawsuits in previous Supreme Court terms has been religious freedom. Unlike previous years, there are currently no religious freedom cases on the court’s docket. There are, however, some important cases that raise religious freedom concerns that the court is being petitioned to consider, and which it could decide to consider during this term.

Parents Opting Out of Curriculum at Odds with Their Beliefs (Mahmoud v. Taylor)

In 2022, a Maryland school district adopted new curriculum including a number of books and other material focused on teaching about sexuality and personal identity at odds with the religious beliefs of families in the district. Though Maryland law requires states to allow parents to opt children out of instruction on sexuality, the school district has not done so and in fact argues that it would be too difficult to accommodate opt-outs and that it has an interest in preventing stigmatizing some students.

A group of parents of different faiths has challenged the local school board’s policy of limiting parents’ ability to ensure their children’s schools are not undercutting the religious teachings in their homes. So far, the federal courts have sided with the school district so the parent group has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

This case provides the court an opportunity to make clear that the right of parents to convey their religious beliefs within their family can’t be diluted by teaching in the public schools. Students’ right to act in their beliefs in a school setting has been protected for more than half a century as has the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. It makes sense for the court to integrate these protections.

Prisoner’s Right to Religious Observance (Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections)

This case involves a Rastafarian prisoner whose head was forcibly shaved even though this violated his religious beliefs since he had taken a “Nazarite vow” not to have his hair cut. After his release from prison, he sued the prison for violating his religious freedom under a federal law meant to protect religious exercise in land use and prisoner cases.

The lower courts rejected the former prisoner’s argument because it said precedent did not provide relief for this type of violation. A Supreme Court case decided around the same time as the appeals court decision in this case seems to have created a solution to this challenge. It allows lawsuits when someone’s civil rights are denied. So, the former prisoner is asking the court to revive his lawsuit.

The importance of this case lies in the need to have some route to hold governments accountable for denying religious freedom.

Is a Catholic Charity Religious Enough? (Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission)

Wisconsin has a rule that requires employers to participate in the state’s unemployment insurance program. Some employers are exempted such as “an organization operated primarily for religious purposes.” The state of Wisconsin, however, has decided that the Catholic Charities Bureau’s activities of providing assistance to people in need motivated by their Christian faith “are the provision of charitable social services that are neither inherently or primarily religious activities.”

Wisconsin courts have upheld this rule so the Bureau is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. They note as we have noted before that this type of assessment of whether a religiously motivated purpose is “religious enough” raises constitutional problems. It would arguably allow the government to establish what is and what is not a valid religious purpose or religious practice, contrary to the clear protections of the First Amendment, designed to protect against government suppression of faith as well as the mingling of religious and government power.

Personal religious exercise has received appropriate protection in Supreme Court cases in the last few years. A critical need is for governments to similarly respect the rights of people of faith to join together and act together to live and promote their religious convictions. Protecting religious institutions protects people of faith since to act consistent with one’s faith in such matters as sharing faith, providing assistance to people in need, worship services, etc., requires joining with others.

This case provides an important opportunity for the court to clarify that this type of protection is guaranteed by the Constitution as it surely was understood from the ratification of the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court should take these opportunities to provide needed clarity about the responsibilities of governments to ensure that the rights of all people to practice their faith is protected. The court has many important things to consider but these are among the most significant and deserve attention.

​