by Jorge Gomez • 2 minutes
The U.S. Supreme Court just wrapped up a tremendously impactful term that included some major victories for religious freedom.
The Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor made clear that parents can opt their children out of radical gender theory lessons that conflict with their beliefs—a huge win for religious families nationwide. The unanimous ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin also set an important precedent that protects longstanding tax exemptions for religious nonprofits and charitable organizations across the country.
Looking ahead, the upcoming 2025-2026 term could be another blockbuster.
The Justices have already agreed to hear four cases with huge implications for religious freedom, including one First Liberty case that’s going to affect the civil rights of every American.
And there could be more. First Liberty has also asked the Supreme Court to hear our Cambridge Christian School case, which involves a Christian school being banned from praying over the loudspeaker at a football game.
Cambridge Christian’s case has already received a huge outpouring of support. A diverse coalition of more than 100 organizations and individuals in arts, sports, faith and government filed briefs urging the Court to take up the case.
The Court’s next term begins on the first Monday in October. That’s not far away. It’s only a couple of months from now.
Here are the four cases that will be argued this fall and how each could
1. Evangelist Banned from Sharing Faith in Public Park
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear First Liberty’s case involving Gabriel Olivier, an evangelist who was banned by a local ordinance from sharing his faith in a public park.
Gabe filed a lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights were violated. But he never got the opportunity to plead his case in court. That’s the legal issue the Supreme Court will consider.
This is a major case that presents the nation’s highest court with an opportunity to strengthen protections for religious liberty, free speech and the right of every American to seek relief in court.
As a nation built on religious freedom, talking about your faith to people in a public park should not be prohibited. And no American should be arrested or charged for doing so. But if that were to happen—as it did with Gabe—you should be able to go to court and plead your case.
“Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,” said Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO for First Liberty. “Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.
2. Rastafarian Inmate Seeks Justice
The Court will hear the case of a Rastafarian man who sued state prison officials in Louisiana after guards held him down and shaved him bald in violation of his religious beliefs. Damon Landor’s religion requires him to let his hair grow.
He appealed a lower court’s decision to throw out his lawsuit, which he brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects the religious rights of people confined to prisons and jails.
Prisoners surrender many rights. But under federal law, they don’t surrender many of their religious liberty rights. Part of the reason why our laws allow incarcerated individual to retain some of these rights is because faith and religion have been shown to be beneficial—not only for the inmates’ own quality of life but for those around them and for society at large.
“A decision in Mr. Landor’s favor will go a long way towards holding officers accountable for egregious violations of religious liberty,” Landor’s attorneys told the New York Times.
At the core of this case is a very important issue: ensuring government officials are held accountable if they violate federal laws that protect religious exercise. RLUIPA doesn’t just protect prisoners. It’s an important law that makes sure government doesn’t use zoning to target houses of worship and religious Americans.
3. Christian Counselor Forced to Violate Her Beliefs
The Court will hear the case of Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian, who wants to help her clients with issues they’re facing—including unwanted sexual identity confusion and same-sex attraction.
Colorado, however, enacted a law in 2019 that censors her speech and forces her to deliver only government-approved messages to her minor clients. She can only direct her clients towards a transgender identity or homosexuality. Chiles challenged that law under the First Amendment, arguing that it violates both her religious freedom and her right to free speech.
This case is primarily about free speech. Still, the outcome could impact faith-based counselors and therapists across America. If Colorado’s law is upheld, it would open the door for government control over what professional can say—including censoring those who offer compassionate options and advise based on their religious convictions. The outcome of this case could ensure that government officials don’t impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and clients.
4. Faith-Based Pregnancy Resource Centers
The Court will hear a case of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a Christian nonprofit that provides free medical services and support to pregnant mothers, mothers of newborns and fathers.
New Jersey’s attorney general selectively targeted First Choice by launching an investigation based on the nonprofit’s religious speech and views on life. As part of that probe, the state demanded that First Choice identify—by name—the donors behind nearly 5,000 donations and produce up to 10 years of its internal, confidential documents.
First Choice sued in federal court, arguing that the state’s intrusion violates their First Amendment rights. However, the charity was forced to fight their case in state court and never had an opportunity to make their case in federal court.
First Choice is asking the Supreme Court to make it clear that nonprofits have the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff.
This case is fundamentally about protecting the right of individuals and groups to seek justice in federal court. The outcome has implications for religious organizations, such as faith-based pregnancy resource centers and social service nonprofits nationwide, specifically their right to go to federal court if their constitutional rights are violated.
 |
|
|
