Case in Point September/October
September/October 2026Bipartisan Bill Aims to Protect Access to Worship
A bipartisan bill would create a 100-foot buffer zone around houses of worship during services, protecting access while preserving peaceful protest rights.
The Right to Worship Act, sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and Representatives Brad Knott (R-NC) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY), would prohibit conduct that disrupts worship or interferes with access inside the zone. Violators could face fines; affected individuals and federal or state officials could sue. The bill expressly protects nondisruptive First Amendment activity.
The proposal follows demonstrations outside synagogues in recent years, some involving anti-Semitic harassment or violence. Supporters say federal law does not cover intimidation and intentional disruption that stops short of force, threats, or physical obstruction.
Several Jewish organizations and the Family Research Council support the bill. Similar proposals have advanced at the state and local levels, prompting concerns from some civil rights groups that such laws restrict constitutionally protected speech and activity. Advocates for The Right to Worship Bill, however, say it is narrowly tailored and leaves protesters opportunities to express their views.
Home Prayer Case Heads to Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will consider when an Ohio homeowner may challenge zoning restrictions on Jewish prayer gatherings.
In 2021 Daniel Grand invited a dozen friends to his University Heights home for a Shabbat minyan, a prayer quorum of at least 10 adult men. After a neighbor complained, city officials ordered him to stop unless he obtained a special-use permit required for houses of worship.
Grand applied for a permit but withdrew after officials refused to consider additional information they had requested. The city said its cease-and-desist order remained in effect. Grand sued under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Lower courts dismissed the case as premature because the city had not issued a final zoning decision. The justices will not directly decide whether Grand may host a minyan without a permit. Instead, they will consider when someone may seek federal review while zoning proceedings continue. The ruling could determine whether municipalities may delay religious-land-use challenges by withholding a final decision.
Department of Justice Issues New Religious Liberty Guidelines
The Justice Department has updated its religious liberty guidance for the first time since 2017, incorporating recent Supreme Court rulings.
The July 23 memorandum directs federal agencies to protect religious exercise in employment, rulemaking, enforcement, contracting, and government programs. It defines religious exercise broadly, covering belief and worship as well as conduct—or abstention from conduct—based on religious conviction.
The guidance emphasizes parental authority over religious upbringing, church autonomy, and equal treatment for religious organizations seeking government benefits. It also incorporates the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which held that an employer may deny a religious accommodation under Title VII only when it would impose a substantial burden in the overall context of its business. Coworker hostility does not establish such hardship.
Although the memorandum governs federal agencies, it may signal how regulators will approach private-sector disputes. As such, they may provide guidance to employers accessing accommodation requests involving religion-related schedules, dress, workplace speech, or particular religious duties.
Catholic Ministries Challenge New York Assisted-Suicide Law
Four orders of Catholic nuns and several Catholic health-care ministries are challenging New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act, arguing that it requires them to facilitate assisted suicide in violation of their faith.
Effective August 5, the law allows terminally ill New Yorkers expected to die within six months to obtain medication they may self-administer. Providers may decline direct participation but must arrange a transfer if they refuse a request. The plaintiffs say transferring patients—or providing information and counseling about assisted suicide—would make them complicit in conduct their faith condemns.
In Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm v. James, the plaintiffs claim the requirements violate the First Amendment. New York has agreed not to enforce the challenged provisions against them while a federal judge considers a preliminary injunction. That temporary protection applies only to the Catholic organizations in the case.
Roberts Court’s First Amendment Record Shows Strong Religion Tilt
The Roberts Court is often called broadly protective of the First Amendment, but a SCOTUSblog analysis by Adam Feldman suggests a more specific pattern: Speech claimants have had mixed success, while religious claimants have won at high rates. Before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court, Feldman counts religious parties as winning 10 of 12 formal religion cases; since her arrival, they are 6 for 6. The trend is stronger when “religion-adjacent” speech cases involving religious speakers, institutions, or conscience claims are included.
That record adds significance to St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a Colorado preschool-funding case the Court has agreed to hear. This dispute asks how far government may go in attaching conditions to public benefits when religious institutions say those conditions burden their faith. The case could clarify whether the Roberts Court’s strongest First Amendment protections arise where speech, conscience, and religious identity overlap.