The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a religious freedom case for the first time in nearly two years.
The case, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, raises questions about access to faith-based tax breaks and how government officials define religion, as the Deseret News previously reported.
When the justices hear oral arguments in the case this spring, they will end a streak of religion-free argument sessions that began in late April 2023.
And the court might not be done considering religious freedom questions. There are at least six religion cases on the Supreme Court’s doorstep right now.
Here’s an overview of the key questions raised in each one.
Religion cases on the cusp
Apache Stronghold v. United States
- Key question: If the government allows copper mining in Oak Flat, a site that’s sacred to the Western Apaches and other Native American groups, will it 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.
- Status: Apache Stronghold has been up for discussion at two of the justices’ private conferences this month, but the court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case.
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.
- Status: Justices have received briefs from attorneys on both sides of the battle, but they have not yet scheduled the case for discussion in a private conference.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond
- Key question: The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board wants to partner with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Charter School. Would providing public money to a faith-based charter school violate the First Amendment?
- Lower court ruling: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the charter school board, determining that providing state funding to the Catholic school would violate the establishment clause.
- Status: The case has not yet been weighed during a private conference, although the justices have briefs from both sets of attorneys.
Hittle v. City of Stockton
- Key question: Ron Hittle lost his job as a fire chief in Stockton, California, after attending a leadership conference at a Christian church. Does his firing constitute wrongful termination and religious discrimination?
- Lower court ruling: Hittle lost in front of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said it did not see evidence of discrimination.
- Status: The city’s response brief is due Dec. 16. Once it’s filed, the justices can discuss taking up the case at one of their private conferences.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
- 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.
- Status: The justices won’t hold a conference on the case until they receive a response brief from school officials. The brief is due Dec. 18.
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.
- Status: After debating whether to take the case during their Sept. 30 conference, the justices invited the U.S. solicitor general to submit a brief on the legal issues involved on Oct. 7. The case has not progressed since then.
If one or more of these religion cases are taken up by the court by early January, the case or cases will likely be scheduled for oral arguments in April, when the justices will wrap up the oral arguments portion of the current term.
Cases taken up later likely won’t be heard until next fall.
Petition denied
The Supreme Court has already turned down one religious freedom case: Young Israel of Tampa v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority.
The justices announced on Oct. 7, the first oral arguments day of the current term, that they would not consider that case, which pitted a Jewish organization against a public transportation system.
Young Israel of Tampa argued that the transit authority’s policy against promoting religious content amounted to religious discrimination, while Hillsborough officials said the policy ensured fairness and reduced entanglement between the government and religious organizations.
Although Young Israel scored a partial victory in front of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it had pursued a broader win by asking the Supreme Court to consider bans on faith-related advertising in general.