The Supreme Court didn’t shy away from contentious topics last term. It ruled on abortion, guns, homelessness and a number of other issues, attempting to bring clarity to unsettled debates.
What the Supreme Court didn’t do was take up any of the religious freedom questions that arrived on its doorstep. The justices haven’t heard a religion case since April 2023.
The religion-free streak is “a big shift from the past dozen terms or so where we had a pretty steady flow of religious liberty cases,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, during a Sept. 4 press call.
It’s not yet clear whether the streak will end when the Supreme Court is back in session. The justices haven’t yet agreed to hear a religious liberty case during the 2024-25 term, but they’ll consider two possible candidates during their private conference on Sept. 30.
Here’s an overview of the religion cases that could make it onto the Supreme Court’s schedule over the next few months.
Religion cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court
Here are the three religious freedom cases that have the best shot at being taken up by the Supreme Court during the 2024-25 term.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections
- Key question: The Louisiana Department of Corrections shaved Damon Landor’s dreadlocks, ignoring his religious freedom claim. Can he sue for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, even though he’s no longer imprisoned?
- Lower court ruling: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that former prisoners like Landor can’t seek relief using RLUIPA.
- Timing: The justices are expected to debate whether to take the case during their Sept. 30 conference. Just four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that RLUIPA’s sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, does allow people to seek monetary damages when other forms of relief are not relevant or available, as the Deseret News reported at the time.
Young Israel of Tampa v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority
- Key question: The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority declined to sell advertising space to Young Israel because of its policy against promoting religious content. Are government organizations allowed to ban religious advertising from public spaces?
- Lower court ruling: The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed a limited victory to Young Israel, saying that the transit authority’s policy was unreasonable but did not represent unlawful religious discrimination. Young Israel has asked the Supreme Court to address whether bans on faith-related advertisements violate the First Amendment.
- Timing: The justices are expected to debate whether to take the case during their Sept. 30 conference.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
- Key question: What should count as a religious organization under the law? Wisconsin officials have said Catholic Charities doesn’t qualify, in part because it serves and employs non-Catholics and doesn’t focus on converting people to Catholicism.
- Lower court ruling: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior and therefore does not qualify for a faith-based tax exemption.
- Timing: The response brief from Wisconsin officials is due Nov. 8.
Religion cases expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court soon
After an individual or organization appeals to the Supreme Court, their legal opponents, known as the “respondents,” have at least one month and sometimes up to three months to file a response brief.
Then, the justices conference on the case and debate whether or not to “grant cert” and place it on the oral arguments schedule.
The following three will be appealed to the Supreme Court later this month but may not be conferenced until early next year.
If the justices agree to hear one or more of the cases, they’ll either be scheduled for the final few weeks of oral arguments in April or be one of the first cases heard in the 2025-26 term, Rienzi said.
“They’re on the cusp,” he said.
Apache Stronghold v. United States
- Key question: Does the government’s plan to allow copper mining in Oak Flat, a site that’s sacred to the Western Apaches and other Native American groups, violate religious freedom protections?
- Lower court ruling: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Apache Stronghold, determining that the destruction of Oak Flat does not constitute a “substantial burden” on religious freedom under the law.
- Timing: Apache Stronghold is expected to file its Supreme Court appeal this month.
Mahmoud v. McKnight
- Key question: A public school district in Maryland uses books that promote LGBTQ rights in its classrooms, and it does not allow parents to review the books or opt their kids out of the lessons. Does that approach violate religious families’ free speech and free exercise rights?
- Lower court ruling: The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the religious parents who challenged the school district’s policies.
- Timing: The group of parents is expected to file its Supreme Court appeal this month.
Diocese of Albany v. Harris
- Key question: New York requires employers to cover abortion care in company health plans, and some religious organizations aren’t eligible for the religious exemption. Does New York need to expand its exemption to ensure it covers Catholic ministries?
- Lower court ruling: The New York Supreme Court upheld the state’s narrow religious exemption.
- Timing: The diocese is expected to file its Supreme Court appeal this month.
Faith-related cases in front of the Supreme Court
Although the Supreme Court has not yet taken up a religious freedom case, it has agreed to consider several religiously significant issues, including gender-related health care, gun rights and environmental protection, as the Deseret News previously reported.
The health care case, called United States v. Skrmetti, deals with a ban on gender-related health treatments for transgender children and teens. While it isn’t a religion case, faith does often shape people’s views on sex and gender, Rienzi noted.
United States v. Skrmetti
- Key question: Does Tennessee’s ban on gender-related health care for transgender children and teens violate the Constitution since other young people can still access some of those treatments, like hormone therapy?
- Lower court ruling: The teens who challenged Tennessee’s law partially won at the district court level. The judge put the state’s ban on hormone therapy and puberty blockers on hold, but not the ban on gender-transition surgeries, since the teens hadn’t been candidates for such surgeries. But then the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision and reinstated the law.
- Timing: Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
The first day of oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s 2024-25 term will be Monday, Oct. 7.