What DOJ issued on July 23, 2026

In a DOJ Office of Public Affairs announcement, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department released updated guidance to strengthen federal protections for religious liberty. DOJ characterized the update as the first revision since 2017, made to reflect significant Supreme Court decisions issued over roughly the past nine years.

DOJ’s guidance is directed at “executive departments and agencies.” It directs agencies to ensure federal programs, employment practices, contracting, rulemaking, and enforcement actions comply with the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and other applicable federal laws.

What changed from the 2017 guidance

DOJ says the 2017 framework is being revised and expanded. In its summary of the update, DOJ highlights several practical changes agencies are expected to incorporate:

• Integration of recent Supreme Court precedent that DOJ says clarifies the scope of the First Amendment, RFRA’s broad protection of religious liberty, and the requirement of equal treatment toward religious organizations in government programs.
• Protection of parental rights, emphasizing constitutional protections for parents’ ability to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
• Reaffirmation of church autonomy, including constitutional protections DOJ says bar government interference in internal religious governance, including employment.
• Expanded direction for federal agencies, including proactively considering religious-liberty impacts when developing rules and policies, designating officers to review regulatory proposals for compliance, and considering religious-liberty concerns raised during notice-and-comment.
• Clarified protections in federal employment, including DOJ’s instruction that agencies follow recent Office of Legal Counsel opinions when accommodating religious expression and practice in the workplace (including scheduling accommodations and workplace religious expression).
• Safeguards for religious organizations in federal contracting and grant programs, including a directive that agencies may not condition participation on relinquishing religious character or hiring rights—and must permit religious organizations to compete on equal footing with secular organizations.

Where agencies are told to apply religious-liberty review

DOJ’s announcement lays out five operational areas where executive agencies are expected to build religious-liberty considerations into decision-making:

• Programs and day-to-day operations, so agencies treat religious exercise as including religious conduct in daily life—not just belief and worship.
• Employment practices and accommodations, including workplace scheduling and religious expression accommodations.
• Contracting and grant administration, including rules for federal program participation and contracting/grant competition.
• Rulemaking, including internal compliance review and attention to notice-and-comment input.
• Enforcement, including expectations that enforcement actions respect RFRA and other legal protections.

The legal anchors DOJ emphasizes: RFRA and Title VII

DOJ’s announcement repeatedly ties the guidance to compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. It specifically directs agencies to comply with RFRA (1993) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, while emphasizing that religious exercise includes religious conduct in daily life and should be reasonably accommodated whenever practicable and permitted by law.

Parental rights and “church autonomy” in federal administration

Two parts of DOJ’s summary are likely to matter to families and to religious organizations that interact with the federal government.

First, DOJ says the update emphasizes Supreme Court precedents recognizing constitutional protections for parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious upbringing. Second, DOJ says the guidance reaffirms protections against government interference in internal church governance, including employment.

For readers, the practical point is process: DOJ is telling agencies to build these considerations into how they evaluate rules, employment policies, program participation questions, and enforcement decisions—not to guarantee a particular result in every individual dispute.

What to watch next (and how readers may feel the change)

Because this is agency guidance, the effects will typically show up through implementation rather than immediate nationwide outcomes. DOJ says agencies are being directed to take steps such as updating internal review processes, compliance tools, and regulatory review procedures—along with attention to public input during notice-and-comment.

For readers who interact with federal programs—through employment, federal grants, government contracting, or regulatory participation—the “watch next” items are:

• Agency rollout documents that translate DOJ’s memorandum into internal checklists or training.
• New or revised agency policy language for religious accommodations in hiring and workplace settings.
• Contract and grant administration updates reflecting DOJ’s stated approach to religious character and hiring-related protections.
• Rulemaking references to religious-liberty impact review steps during rule development and notice-and-comment.

If you work for a federal contractor or a religious organization competing for federal assistance—or you’re seeking a religious accommodation in a federal workplace context—the most useful near-term question is how the specific agency is applying DOJ’s stated RFRA/Title VII framework in its current decision process.

Sources

• DOJ Office of Public Affairs press release (July 23, 2026): Acting Attorney General Blanche issues updated guidance to strengthen federal religious liberty

For families, educators, healthcare workers, employers, and religious institutions, the practical question isn’t whether the draft is binding—it’s whether any finalized, DOJ-led guidance or outreach materials that follow will change how institutions handle religious-liberty disputes going forward.

What changed this week

DOJ posted the draft report and opened it for public inspection and comment for fifteen (15) days, with the comment period closing on July 13, 2026. DOJ also warned commenters not to include personally identifiable information because submissions are open to public inspection. After the comment period ends, DOJ says the commission will hold a virtual public meeting to review the comments, discuss the draft, and finalize the report.

DOJ further says attendance information for the virtual meeting will be posted on the commission’s Upcoming Events page and in the Federal Register at least seven (7) days before the meeting.

What the draft report is recommending

DOJ’s companion materials describe the draft report as a set of recommendations directed to federal agencies. Among the highlighted themes:

• Guidance on the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. The draft asks DOJ to issue guidance clarifying the “proper understanding” of the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state.
• “Know Your Rights” posters for multiple settings. The draft calls for “Know Your Rights” posters (and related materials) from DOJ, HHS, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission aimed at students, parents, public school teachers and administrators, plus religious leaders and institutions, healthcare workers, and military servicemembers.
• Reporting hotlines/portals. The draft recommends creating religious liberty violation reporting hotlines/online portals for students, parents, teachers, healthcare workers, and others—designed to help people get support and to promote public awareness of existing reporting channels.
• Written explanations tied to the alleged legal basis. The draft recommends that if a public official alleges that a person under their supervision improperly engaged in religious expression, the official must provide a written explanation of the alleged violation to the accused person within 30 days, tied to a specific constitutional provision or provision of law.
• Litigation tracking and anti-Semitism/civil-rights enforcement. The summary highlights recommendations including a DOJ religious liberty task force to track and prioritize litigation protecting religious liberty, alongside recommendations to combat anti-Semitism through enforcement of civil rights laws and litigation of credible allegations.

Who could feel day-to-day effects

If the final report leads to follow-on DOJ, HHS, or EEOC guidance and outreach, the most immediate impacts could show up in:

• Schools and parents: “Know Your Rights” outreach and related messaging could influence what families see and how school staff are coached on religious-liberty issues.
• Healthcare settings: HHS-focused materials and reporting channels could affect how workers elevate religious-liberty concerns.
• Public institutions and employment-related contexts: the draft’s written-explanation recommendation targets how officials document and communicate certain allegations involving religious expression.
• Religious communities and faith-based leaders: the report’s poster and reporting recommendations are designed to expand awareness and access to federal support routes.

Still, this remains a draft-report and recommendation stage. A move to “finalize the report” does not automatically mean every recommendation becomes binding policy right away.

What to watch next

DOJ says the commission’s virtual meeting logistics—especially attendance details—should be posted and tied to a Federal Register notice at least seven days before the meeting date. Readers should watch for:

• The Federal Register notice and posted attendance instructions for the virtual final-review meeting.
• Release of the finalized report after the commission reviews public comments.
• Follow-on agency actions by DOJ, HHS, and the EEOC—especially any finalized “Know Your Rights” materials or new reporting-channel steps.

Sources

• DOJ Religious Liberty Commission Upcoming Events (virtual final-review meeting step)

Because this is still petition-stage docket activity, it does not mean the justices have decided the underlying constitutional merits. But for readers tracking church-state and religious-liberty litigation, the filings matter because they help frame what legal questions could be in play—especially when officials argue they should not be personally liable for alleged First Amendment and Free Exercise violations.

What the dispute is about

According to the petition, Richard Hershey attempted to distribute religious leaflets on a public sidewalk outside a city-owned arena hosting a Christian rock concert. The petition says police and security officers threatened arrest and ordered him to leave, while a nearby commercial leafleteer for a local radio station was handled differently.

What the petition asks the Supreme Court to review

The petition presents a qualified-immunity question tied to Hope v. Pelzer—specifically whether the “obvious clarity” approach discussed in Hope is limited to Eighth Amendment claims, or whether it can also apply to Free Speech and Free Exercise cases so constitutional claims should not be barred by qualified immunity.

What the Fifth Circuit decided below

Before Supreme Court review, the Fifth Circuit decision dated October 7, 2025 addressed the case at the motion-to-dismiss stage. As summarized in the “decisions below” document:

• The panel reversed in part so a municipal liability claim under Monell (including a failure-to-train theory) could proceed.
• The panel affirmed qualified immunity for the police officers.
• The panel also affirmed dismissal of the claims against the security guards.

What changed recently on the Supreme Court docket

• June 12, 2026: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed (with an original response due date of July 16, 2026).
• July 1–2, 2026: A motion to extend the response deadline was filed and then granted, moving the deadline to August 17, 2026 for all respondents.
• July 14–16, 2026: Multiple amicus briefs were filed, including filings on July 14 (Manhattan Institute), July 15 (National Religious Broadcasters; CatholicVote and others; American Center for Law and Justice), and July 16 (including additional briefs such as those from Heartbeat International, FIRE and partner organizations, Cato Institute, and more).

What to watch next

The first reader-facing checkpoint is whether respondents’ brief arrives by August 17, 2026, as reflected on the docket. After that, the Supreme Court may order the petitioners’ reply and/or take further steps toward deciding whether to grant cert. For church-state and religious-liberty watchers, keep an eye on how parties and amici discuss the same core tension: religious speech/leafletting in public event areas versus government “control” and “security” claims—and whether qualified immunity limits the practical ability to obtain damages for alleged First Amendment and Free Exercise harms.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court docket (Hershey v. City of Bossier City, No. 25-1389)

For Calvary Chapel Belfast and the university, the decision means the underlying litigation continues, but the church does not get an immediate court-ordered stop while the case proceeds.

Quick timeline (injunction-stage fight)

• Summer 2024: UMaine selected Calvary Chapel Belfast as the winning bidder to purchase the Frederick Hutchinson Center property in Belfast.
• About a month later: after administrative appeals, UMaine canceled the award to Calvary and started a new procurement process.
• Jan. 6, 2025: the district court held oral argument on Calvary’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the sale.
• Jan. 10, 2025: the district court denied the TRO.
• May 7, 2025: the district court denied Calvary’s request for a preliminary injunction.
• June 30, 2026: the First Circuit affirmed the denial of emergency relief and would not pause the process.

What the Hutchinson Center case is about

Calvary Chapel Belfast sued over how the University of Maine System handled the Frederick Hutchinson Center sale procurement. Calvary’s theory is that UMaine rescinded the award because of anti-religious bias, framing the claim as both a free-exercise issue and an equal-protection bias issue.

What Calvary Chapel asked the appeals court to do

After losing at the district-court level, Calvary asked the First Circuit to stop the sale while it pursued its constitutional claims. At this stage, the legal threshold is high: emergency/injunction relief generally requires a strong showing that the church is likely to succeed on the merits and that waiting would cause the kind of harm courts treat as “irreparable.”

June 30, 2026: why emergency relief was denied

In its June 30 opinion, the First Circuit said Calvary Chapel Belfast did not meet the burden for a pause. The court emphasized that Calvary failed to show a likelihood of success on its equal-protection or free-exercise theories.

The appeals court also stated the district court’s factual assessment was not clearly erroneous—specifically, the district court’s determination that UMaine’s decisions were not tainted by religious bias.

Just as importantly for readers: this is an injunction-stage ruling. It does not end the constitutional dispute; it determines whether a court stop is warranted right now.

Who is affected

• Calvary Chapel Belfast: the church must keep litigating without an immediate appellate pause.
• UMaine and decisionmakers: the university can keep moving forward with the sale process while the lawsuit continues.
• Other bidders: their positions may shift as timelines proceed rather than being frozen by an injunction.

Why this matters beyond Maine

When constitutional claims target government procurement decisions—especially where the “winning bidder” is a church—injunction-stage outcomes often turn on evidence and procedure. Courts may refuse to halt a public process unless the claimant shows a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

What to watch next

WABI reported that the ruling rejected Calvary’s bid to block the sale and upheld the earlier decision not to stop the sale while the underlying lawsuit continues. The case returns to continued proceedings in district court.

Readers should watch for developments that could change what the courts consider “likely success” on the merits—such as additional proof related to the alleged motives behind UMaine’s procurement decisions.

Sources

• First Circuit opinion (No. 25-1452)
• WABI explainer of what can proceed after the ruling

The Court focused on RLUIPA’s Spending Clause structure and a consent/contract framework. In plain terms: prison officials generally can’t face personal-capacity monetary liability where they did not voluntarily and knowingly consent to be sued for that type of damages.

Quick context: what RLUIPA is (and why remedies matter)

RLUIPA—the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act—protects religious exercise for people in state institutions, including incarcerated individuals. In many prison religious-liberty disputes, the legal fight turns not only on whether a policy burdens religious practice, but also on what remedies plaintiffs can demand—especially when they seek money damages against individual officials.

The case: dreadlocks, prison hair rules, and a damages question

In Landor, a Rastafari inmate alleged that prison guards forcibly cut his dreadlocks in violation of his religious beliefs. Reporting on the dispute describes it as a religious-grooming accommodation case, with the litigation centered on whether the inmate could pursue money damages against officials in their personal capacities.

What the Supreme Court held: limits on personal-capacity money damages under RLUIPA

The Court’s reasoning treated RLUIPA as legislation rooted in Congress’s Spending Clause authority and used that contract-like structure to cabin personal-capacity money-damages exposure for prison officials. The key takeaway is not that religious-liberty claims are gone—but that this specific form of personal monetary liability is harder to obtain when the consent framework is not satisfied.

Why it matters now in plain English

Landor shifts part of the accountability question from “did the government violate religious rights?” toward “who can be held personally financially liable under RLUIPA, and for what remedy.” That can affect case strategy because plaintiffs often seek different defendants and different relief depending on what remedies the Court’s framework allows.

For prison systems, the decision also provides a sharper argument to use at the early stages of litigation—especially to challenge personal-capacity money-damages requests.

What to watch next

In ongoing and future RLUIPA cases, you may see:

• Pleadings and remedy tweaks: some plaintiffs may revisit who they sue (and in what capacities) and what relief they request after Landor.
• Earlier dismissal fights: prison defendants are likely to cite Landor to challenge personal-capacity money-damages claims at the pleading stage.
• Remedy-focused outcomes: even when religious-accommodation disputes proceed, courts may narrow what plaintiffs can realistically recover against individual officials.

The biggest “watch next” question is how lower courts apply the Court’s consent/Spending Clause framing to the specific remedy requests and defendant roles in each case.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court opinion (PDF): Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
• Associated Press: Supreme Court rules Rastafari man can’t sue Louisiana prison officials who cut his dreadlocks
• WLRN (NPR affiliate): Supreme Court rules that prison guards can't be sued for shaving a Rastafarian's head
• SCOTUSblog: Court rules former Louisiana inmate cannot sue prison officials in religious dispute over long hair
• CBS News: Supreme Court rules Rastafarian ex-inmate can't sue prison officials for shaving dreadlocks

The policy is now adopted, but it is not an immediate classroom change. AP said the list starts in 2030, and the board voted to phase in the reading and social studies changes over multiple years.

That has made the move a fresh church-state fight. AP reported the list covers more than 5 million public school students and includes passages from the New Testament; critics say the mandate favors Christianity, while supporters say the texts reflect America’s history and culture.

For readers, the key question is what implementation will look like once Texas schools begin using the list: district guidance, teacher training, and whether the policy draws a court challenge before it reaches classrooms.

Sources

• Texas State Board of Education announcement on new social studies standards and required literature reading list
• Associated Press report on Texas Bible passages in public-school reading list
• Texas Tribune coverage of the final board vote
• KUT public radio report on Texas curriculum change
• Reuters wire report on Texas school board vote