Howard Friedman’s Religion Clause Blog highlights First Amendment disputes as the new Supreme Court term begins.
When the U.S. Supreme Court opens its 2025–26 term on October 6, several cases will test the limits of free exercise and free speech. Legal scholar Howard Friedman, professor emeritus at the University of Toledo College of Law and author of the Religion Clause Blog, has outlined the key disputes. His blog remains one of the most dependable sources for tracking church-state litigation, and I read it daily for updates on pending decisions and argument developments.
Friedman’s latest post, “Supreme Court Term Opens Monday with Several Cases of Interest on Its Docket” (October 5, 2025), highlights how the Court’s new term includes questions that may redefine how faith, speech, and state regulation intersect.
Conversion Therapy Ban Challenge:
Chiles v. Salazar
The first case, Chiles v. Salazar, will be argued on October 7. It centers on Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which prohibits licensed counselors from providing therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Counselor Kaley Chiles claims the law restricts her First Amendment rights by censoring what she can say in therapy sessions.
The Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado’s statute, finding that it regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Chiles argues that the law targets religious and viewpoint-based counseling, violating the Constitution’s speech and free exercise protections. The Supreme Court accepted review to clarify whether so-called “professional speech” deserves the same constitutional protection as ordinary expression. More than 20 states have enacted similar bans, and the ruling could shape how far states can regulate therapy rooted in moral or religious belief.
Religious Damages Claims in Prison:
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
The Court will hear Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety on November 10. Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian, alleges that prison officials forcibly cut his dreadlocks in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The issue before the Court is narrow but important: whether inmates can seek monetary damages from individual state officials who violate their religious rights.
Lower courts ruled that RLUIPA, passed under Congress’s Spending Clause power, allows only injunctive relief and not personal damages. Landor contends that the reasoning of Tanzin v. Tanvir—a 2020 case allowing damages under the similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act—should extend to RLUIPA. The outcome could determine whether religious rights statutes carry personal accountability for government employees.
Subpoenas and Free Speech:
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin
Another pending case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, asks whether a religious nonprofit can challenge a state subpoena in federal court on First Amendment grounds. New Jersey’s Attorney General issued a subpoena demanding detailed records from First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy resource center. The organization says the demand targets it because of its pro-life views and chills its speech and religious activity.
The lower courts dismissed the case, ruling that the center must first seek relief in state court. First Choice argues that the chilling effect of compelled disclosure makes the case ripe for immediate federal review. The Supreme Court’s decision could decide when organizations claiming religious or speech-based harm may bypass state procedures and go directly to federal court.
Additional Religion-Related Matters
Friedman’s summary also lists several additional cases and emergency motions that raise constitutional questions tied to religion and identity:
-
Little v. Hecox, awaiting argument scheduling.
-
West Virginia v. B.J.P., addressing whether a law excluding transgender women from school sports violates Title IX or Equal Protection.
-
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, involving a street preacher’s challenge to city restrictions on demonstrations near a public amphitheater.
-
Trump v. Orr, an emergency matter concerning passport gender markers and whether applicants can select “M,” “F,” or “X” regardless of biological sex.
-
We the Patriots USA v. Ventura Unified School District, which asks if students with religious objections to vaccines may attend school while exemption lawsuits are pending.
The cases on show how this term could shape legal boundaries around faith expression, state oversight, and the autonomy of religious individuals and institutions. Oral arguments begin the week of October 7, with additional hearings scheduled through November. Rulings in Chiles and Landor are expected in the first half of 2026.
Source: Howard Friedman, “Supreme Court Term Opens Monday with Several Cases of Interest on Its Docket,” Religion Clause Blog, October 5, 2025. https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/10/supreme-court-term-opens-monday-with.html