On July 9, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution (full text) on the abduction, forced conversion and child marriage of Hindu and Christian girls in Pakistan. It reads in part:

A.  whereas Maria Shahbaz, a Christian girl from Lahore, was 13 when she was abducted and forced to convert to Islam and marry her abductor;... whereas ... in March 2026 Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court upheld her conversion and marriage and ordered her to remain with her abductor;

B.  whereas there is a persistent and well-documented pattern in Pakistan of abduction, forced conversion and forced marriage of underage girls from Hindu, Christian and other religious minorities...

C.  whereas the Pakistani Government recently proposed a national framework to end child marriage aimed at strengthening the protection of minors; whereas legislation against child marriage raising the minimum age of marriage to 18 years was adopted in some provinces, which, however, lack enforcement;...

[The European Parliament] 1.  Strongly condemns the abduction, forced conversion to Islam, child marriage and ruling in the case of Maria Shahbaz, and similar abuses of underage girls from religious minorities in Pakistan;...

4.  Strongly condemns the systematic persecution of Christians in Pakistan and stresses that the abduction, forced conversion and child marriage of Maria Shahbaz must be seen in the wider context of discrimination, violence and intimidation faced by the country’s Christian community; demands that Pakistan repeal its blasphemy laws and end the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities....

7.  Encourages Pakistan to create a national mechanism for handling complaints from families of abducted or forcibly converted girls from minorities, and calls for comprehensive support for victims, ...; calls for addressing the root causes of forced marriage and conversion, including gender inequality, poverty, social exclusion and discrimination based on caste, gender and religion....

Faith and Freedom reports on the Resolution.

Last week, four Orders of Catholic Sisters along with the Catholic Diocese and Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York, filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging, at least as applied to them, the constitutionality of New York's Medical Aid in Dying Act as it interacts with the state's Palliative Care Information Act. Labelling these a "Suicide Counseling Mandate", the 102-page complaint (full text) in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. James, (ND NY, filed 7/17/2026) alleges in part:

13. The many New York nurse practitioners, doctors, mental health professionals, hospitals, and care homes with religious or moral objections to participating in assisted suicide will have nowhere to go, because New York’s purported “opt-out” is among the narrowest in the nation, and doesn’t apply at all to independent assisted living facilities, including those run by the Benedictine Sisters. The Catholic patients who wish to die without being offered the chance to kill themselves at their lowest moment will be left out in the cold.....

15. First, the First Amendment’s protected sphere of church autonomy requires the government to respect and stay out of matters of governance within religious institutions, such as how the Catholic Church chooses to implement its beliefs on the sanctity of human life and the decision of religious communities to form themselves around those same principles. 

16. Second, its protection of the free exercise of religion prohibits the government from burdening the sincere religious beliefs of Plaintiffs and the patients they serve unless the state is furthering an interest of the highest order and using the least restrictive means to do so—an exceedingly high bar Defendants cannot meet.  

17. Third, its protections against religious gerrymanders prohibit the government from enacting legal burdens that fall uniquely on religious adherents—such as those who object to providing assisted suicide. 

18. Fourth, its protections against compelled speech prevent the government from forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to speak the government’s preferred, supportive message of assisted suicide. 

19. And fifth, its protections for freedom of association allow the Catholic Church, its various communities, and the patients they serve, to organize themselves into like-minded communities with the same values and beliefs—the mission of which is to live faithfully according to those beliefs, for however long or short a time....

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

 In Seagraves v. Wahington State Department of Children, Youth and Families, (9th Cir., July 21, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by 18 former employees of the Department of Children, Youth and Families who were separated from the agency after their requests for religious exemptions from the state's 2021 Covid vaccine mandate were rejected. The court said in part:

The [complaint] does not plausibly allege personal involvement by any of the Officials [named as defendants] in constitutional violations of the Employees’ free exercise, equal protection, or procedural due process rights.  All the Employees’ requests for accommodations in their current roles were denied, based on determinations that they could not perform the essential functions of their positions unvaccinated without endangering the health and safety of others in the workplace, including children and families.  Accordingly, their supposed constitutional injuries flow from this determination.  Yet the [complaint] does not allege that any of the Officials [named as defendants] personally participated in evaluating the Employees’ accommodation requests or that they played a role in denying them pre-termination hearings....

The remaining factual allegations that the Employees provided in their pleadings undermine the plausibility of their “religious animus” theory.  First consider Hunter’s August 23, 2021, email discussing DCYF’s communications plan for vaccination.  The goal of this plan was to convince as many DCYF employees as possible to get vaccinated.  Part of the plan involved addressing various potential objections to vaccination: medical safety, convenience, religious objections, and political tribalism.  This plan did not single out religiously motivated objections for special treatment.  Religious objections were included among several secular objections, and the aim of the plan was to convince DCYF employees that their concerns about vaccination were unfounded, regardless of the religious or secular character of those concerns.  That religious objections were one of several objections to address does not, without more, indicate hostility toward religion....

In Theis v. Intermountain Education Service District Board of Directors, (9th Cir., July 21, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld an Oregon federal district court's determination that a school district could bar a school social worker from displaying, when students are in his office, books that the school found to be hostile toward transgender individuals. The majority held that plaintiff's display was not protected by the First Amendment because it is government speech. The court said in part:

First, Theis’s speech occurred within the scope of his professional role.  It was confined to the environments—his offices—in which he was assigned to perform his duties and to times when he was with students.  And Theis does not dispute that his speech was aimed at students.  This case is therefore distinguishable from those in which a school employee engages in the challenged speech off school grounds or while performing tasks unrelated to the school’s ordinary operations, and from cases in which the employee does not direct his speech to students.... 

In Dreskin v. Borough of Bogota, (D NJ, July 31, 2026), a New Jersey federal district court rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA to enforcement of building, fire and health code provisions against a small Jewish nursery school. The court said in part:

On their face and as applied, the Building, Fire, and Health Code provisions at issue are content neutral, and Plaintiff does not identify any specific provision that targets religious conduct.  Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to support her claim of disparate treatment with evidence of similarly situated secular comparators who were treated more favorably....

... [A] plaintiff must show more than a mere inconvenience to establish a “substantial burden” under the RLUIPA; the burden must render religious exercise “effectively impracticable” but does not require a showing of discriminatory governmental conduct....

The Borough’s enforcement actions have not rendered Plaintiff’s religious exercise “effectively impracticable”—Plaintiff remains free to practice her faith in other ways, and the enforcement regime does not permanently prohibit PLAYfully from operating or expanding in the future. Rather, the Borough is seeking to enforce the Building, Fire, and Health Codes based on Plaintiff’s prior noncompliance.  Once Plaintiff achieves compliance and resolves any penalties from past violations, her ability to provide religious instruction through the program is not foreclosed on the same grounds.  Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial burden under the RLUIPA.    

Plaintiff’s claim under the Equal Terms provision likewise fails, as she has failed to identify a secular comparator that is similarly situated in the context of the regulation....

Salem Brought a Guillotine To Oppose New AI Data Center. Company Reps Left, Feeling "Unsafe".

Someone brought a guillotine to a city council meeting in Salem, Oregon on July 27, 2026. Not a sign shaped like one. Not a drawing. According to community accounts and social media posts, an actual guillotine structure appeared at the protest outside Loucks Auditorium, where hundreds of residents had gathered to oppose a proposed multi-billion-dollar AI data center. Company representatives reportedly assessed the scene and left, citing safety concerns -- though that detail hasn't appeared in formal news coverage or official minutes. [...]

Salem just reminded the industry that community consent isn't a formality you schedule around -- it's a variable that can stall a $5.1 billion project before a single permit clears.

Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.