Legal battles for freedom

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Up next :A look back at some of the most significant religious liberty stories of the year, with WORLD’s Steve West.

REICHARD: Well, Steve, 2025 is just about in the history books! You’re sending out the last of your Liberties Newsletter of the year. So let’s talk about some of the stories from the legal beat you’ve been watching.

STEVE WEST: I like to break down these stories into three categories: religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights—although there’s quite a bit of overlap.

Religious Liberty

REICHARD: Alright, good way to think of these. Let’s start with that first one, religious liberty and its corollary religious autonomy—the idea that we don’t need the government second guessing how churches and religious nonprofits operate.

WEST: I’m happy to report good news in that arena! Back in August a federal appeals court reaffirmed the right of World Vision—an evangelical humanitarian organization—to rescind an employment offer to someone who was in a same-sex relationship. Its legal basis to do that is called the ministerial exception. That’s a doctrine derived from the First Amendment that protects decisions to hire and fire employees who serve vital religious functions. And that trumps state anti-discrimination laws.

REICHARD: If I recall, in that case the person’s job involved talking to donors and that was deemed to be a vital religious function. But broaden that out: what if it’s the person who cleans the offices?

WEST: That’s where the decision falls short. World Vision requires all its employees to sign onto its statement of faith and standards of conduct. That argument wasn’t addressed at all, whether a religious organization has a right to ensure that all of its employees are on board with its messaging. But it was addressed earlier in the year in the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

REICHARD: Okay, and that case involved pro-life pregnancy centers, right?

WEST: That’s right. New York had a law on its books that required pregnancy centers to hire people who did not agree with its mission. Can you imagine that? I’m happy to report that the 2nd Circuit ruled the state violated the centers’ right of “expressive association.” Meaning, the right of the organization to hire only those employees who affirm the pro-life mission. So that’s broader protection than the decision in the World Vision case.

REICHARD: Those are lower court rulings. Even more encouraging is when we get unanimous Supreme Court rulings for religious liberty. And we got that in 2025, didn’t we?

WEST: And with a majority opinion authored by Sonia Sotomyor, no less! Just before its summer recess, Catholic Charities won its case against the state of Wisconsin. The court ruled the state discriminated against the Roman Catholic nonprofit by excluding it from a tax exemption most religious organizations receive. Basically, the state denied the exemption because it said Catholic Charities was “not religious enough” - because it fed the hungry but didn’t worship or evangelise. And the court said it was wrong to demonstrate a denominational preference.

REICHARD: In other words, Wisconsin, you don’t get to say what’s religious enough.

WEST: Right.

Free Speech

REICHARD: Alright, let’s move on to that second category, free speech. Highlight a couple of cases this year from that area of law?

WEST: Well, free speech disputes often involve downright offensive speech. But these cases remind us that the answer to bad speech is not to shut it down. The answer is more speech.

REICHARD: You know, free speech within the context of immigration enforcement is something we’ve heard more about this year.

WEST: That’s right, and a prime example was the case of that Columbia University graduate, Mahmoud Khalil. The Trump administration sought to deport him because of his role in pro-Palestinean protests—statements in support of Hamas, for example. But a federal judge released Khalil, finding that he engaged in constitutionally protected political speech and that he was not a flight risk.

REICHARD: I think it’s important to point out that doesn’t mean speech can never be regulated, though.

WEST: Correct, speech that threatens imminent violence, for example.Or speech by students in a high school that substantially disrupts the operation of the school. Reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech is fine.

REICHARD: What about speech by a student that isn’t on campus?

WEST: It’s possible off-campus speech can be that disruptive, but it’s a high bar. Last month the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a public school cannot discipline students for off-campus speech it views as offensive. What happened is that a student posted an offensive picture on SnapChat that upset a lot of students. Some perceived it as racially biased. And the court said just because it offended some students, that’s not enough reason to censor his off-campus speech.

Parental Rights

REICHARD: Alright, on to the last category of cases, parental rights. Back in June, parents got some help to counter school districts intent on foisting gender ideology on their kids.

WEST: Right, the case was Mahmoud v Taylor. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with parents in Maryland who wanted to opt out of storybooks with heavy LGBTQ-themes that were offensive to parents’ religious beliefs.

REICHARD: Sounds like you could have included this under the religious liberty category?

WEST: Right. That’s the overlap I mentioned. This decision boosts parental rights but rests on free exercise of religion. It’s a helpful decision, but doesn’t answer the question of how far the right to opt-out reaches. For example, can parents opt their children out of a class discussion on evolution.

REICHARD: An opt-out option may help parents guard against indoctrination of their children, so long as they even know what the school is up to. There’s also that lawsuit in California that challenges the school’s “no-tell” policy that instructs teachers not to tell parents that their child is socially transitioning from girl to boy or vice versa.

WEST: Yeah, in that case, two teachers took on a school district that forced them to follow a state and local school district policy encouraging gender transitions. A federal judge who temporarily blocked the policy in 2023 made it permanent in a ruling just before Christmas. He called what the state and school district did a "trifecta of harm” against parents, teachers, and students. The other good news is that the lawsuit was certified as a class action, its ruling will extend to all similarly situated teachers, parents, and students in all of California. And that could be a big help to similar challenges across the country.

REICHARD: To learn more about each of these stories or to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter Liberties, visit wng.org. 

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.