Case In Point September/October 2025
September/October 2025Religion Returns to the Supreme Court Spotlight
Religious liberty will be a major theme at the U.S. Supreme Court this coming term, with the justices set to hear three high-profile religion cases that could significantly reshape constitutional protections. The cases span issues of religious speech in public spaces; faith-based therapy bans; and the rights of incarcerated individuals to seek redress for violations of their beliefs. The outcomes could clarify how far government can go in regulating religious expression—and who has the legal standing to push back when it does.
Preaching in the Park—or Prohibited Speech?
The Court will take up a case that tests whether ordinary citizens can challenge local laws that restrict religious expression in public spaces. Gabriel Olivier, a Christian street preacher in Brandon, Mississippi, regularly shares his faith outside large public events. But a city ordinance banned all religious expression—spoken, written, or symbolic—on park property, forcing speakers into a remote “protest zone.”
When Olivier defied the ordinance by preaching in a park, he was arrested, fined, and released. But when he later attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance in court, his case was dismissed based on the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine—typically applied to prison inmates, not citizens who have never been imprisoned.
Olivier’s case, now before the Supreme Court as Olivier v. City of Brandon, raises a critical question: Can local laws escape judicial review if violators have limited legal remedies? At stake is whether Americans like Olivier have a meaningful path to defend their First Amendment rights.
Dreadlocks and Religious Rights Behind Bars
In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, the Supreme Court will examine whether individual prison officials can be held personally liable for violating an inmate’s religious rights under federal law. The case centers on Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who was forced to cut off his dreadlocks—grown over two decades as part of a religious vow—just weeks before completing a five-month sentence.
Landor had explained his religious beliefs and cited a court ruling supporting his right to maintain his hairstyle. Nevertheless, prison staff reportedly disregarded the ruling and forcibly shaved his hair. Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), seeking damages not just from the state, but from the officials involved.
Lower courts ruled that RLUIPA does not authorize suits against government officials in their personal capacities, leaving Landor without a remedy. The Supreme Court will now consider whether the statute permits such claims—an answer that could determine how accountable prison officials are for infringing inmates’ religious rights.
Therapy, Faith, and Free Speech
The Court will also revisit the constitutional boundaries of professional speech in a case brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and devout Christian. Chiles is challenging Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, arguing that the law prevents her from offering faith-based counseling to clients who request it—particularly those grappling with gender identity or same-sex attraction.
Chiles contends that she does not guarantee particular outcomes but believes that spiritual support, including guidance toward accepting one’s biological sex, can be part of a client’s healing journey. Colorado, however, prohibits any licensed professional from engaging in therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, citing the medical consensus that such practices are harmful.
Lower courts upheld the law, finding it regulates professional conduct, not protected speech. But Chiles argues that her work involves deeply personal conversations protected by the First Amendment. The case could have far-reaching consequences for religious professionals in regulated fields and will test how far the state can go in limiting speech under the guise of professional standards.
Threat of Church Raids Prompts New Lawsuit From Faith Groups
Another coalition of faith groups is suing the federal government over immigration enforcement at churches, claiming the threat of raids is driving worshippers away and violating religious freedom. The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s rollback of a 2011 policy that discouraged immigration arrests at “sensitive locations” such as churches, schools, and hospitals. It’s the fourth lawsuit of its kind—and the broadest yet—brought by religious groups.
The plaintiffs include five Evangelical Lutheran Church synods, Quaker groups, and three national denominations. They argue the policy change has disrupted worship, ministry, and their ability to offer refuge without fear.
The complaint details arrests in or near churches in California and says the chill effect is real—some Catholic dioceses have, out of safety concerns, even lifted the obligation to attend Mass.
Homeland Security says church raids are rare and tightly controlled, but faith leaders dispute that, pointing to cases involving longtime community members with no criminal records. The lawsuit asks the courts to reinstate protections for houses of worship—and the people who seek sanctuary inside them.
New Federal Memo Encourages Religious Expression at Work
A newly issued federal memo affirms that religious expression is welcome—not merely tolerated—in the government workplace. The guidance, released by the Office of Personnel Management, encourages federal employees to express their religious beliefs in appropriate ways, including displaying personal religious items, participating in prayer, and sharing their faith with colleagues.
According to the memo, federal employees may engage in polite, noncoercive discussions about their beliefs—even attempts to persuade others of their faith’s truth—so long as such interactions do not cross into harassment. Workers are also permitted to form prayer groups, participate in voluntary religious activities during break times, and include faith-based symbols in their workspaces.
While the policy is being praised by advocates for religious freedom, some critics argue it risks blurring the line between expression and proselytization, especially in hierarchical settings. The memo does not change the law, but reflects a broader push to ensure that religious identity is accommodated and respected within federal agencies.