The Supreme Court in recent years has been open to deciding weighty religious liberty challenges, such as a Christian baker’s right to refuse to make same-sex wedding cakes and a high school football coach’s right to pray on the 50-yard line.

The justices recently upheld a mail carrier’s right to observe the Sabbath and refuse Sunday deliveries.

But their 2024-2025 term is different: The justices have yet to take up any religious liberty case for oral arguments.

---

---

Court watchers say there’s a plethora for them to choose from in coming weeks.

“They have not granted any religious freedom cases yet this term, which is unusual. We usually see one or two,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty legal group. “There are a bunch heading their way.”

One recently filed petition for review comes from what would be the nation’s first religious charter school.

“That is huge,” said Robert Tuttle, a law professor at The George Washington University. He noted the messy nature of the dispute, like deciding if a charter school is a state actor. “I think there’s a chance the court is not going to take the case.”

The St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School this month asked the justices to review the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that it would be unlawful for public funds to go toward a religious charter school.

Oklahoma officials had argued that the state can exclude religious schools from the charter school program since such schools are public entities via their contracting with the state.

In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the school argues that the state’s Charter Schools Act excludes religion in violation of the Constitution.

The case is St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Gentner Drummond.

It would take four justices to vote in favor of reviewing the school’s challenge — or any of the pending religious liberty legal battles — for oral arguments to be granted.

Other major disputes pending review for the justices include a dispute over sacred land, how religious is Catholic Charities and a dispute over mandatory LGBTQ story time for elementary school children, including kindergarteners.

Western Apaches asked the Supreme Court last month to halt the transfer of sacred land in Arizona to a foreign mining company. The Apache Stronghold, a group aiming to protect Indigenous sites, asked the justices to take up its case over Oak Flat, a 6.7-square-mile area outside Superior, Arizona.

According to the court filing, Oak Flat has been used for more than 1,000 years for religious ceremonies such as boys entering manhood, girls entering womanhood, blessings, healings, sweat lodges and medical treatment through sacred plants.

The land had been transferred through legislation to Resolution Copper, an entity created by Rio Tinto and BHP, two multinational mining companies.

The case is Apache Stronghold v. USA.

Michael A. Helfand, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, said the Apache case may be the leader for being reviewed by the high court compared to the other religious liberty battles, saying it’s “certainly ripe for review.”

“It does feel like there are just a lot of cases for them to choose from,” Mr. Helfand said.

Other cases seeking Supreme Court review:

Catholic charities

Catholic Charities in Wisconsin asked the U.S. Supreme Court in August to overturn a state decision that says it is not entitled to protection as a religious organization.

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior says its operations are deeply imbued by its faith and it should be exempt from having to pay into Wisconsin’s unemployment system, since that money could be better used to help its charitable activities.

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in March that the services Catholic Charities provides are akin to those of secular nonprofits and aren’t “typical” religious activities, so it does not qualify as an exempt religious organization.

It also hires members of any faith and does not try to evangelize those it serves, the state court ruled.

The case is Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission and State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.

LGBTQ story time

Parents of different faiths asked the Supreme Court last month to review their case against a Maryland school board after it decided not to provide an opt-out option for elementary children over reading storybooks on gender transitioning and LGBTQ issues.

The Montgomery County Board of Education in 2022 had storybooks enter the school curriculum that celebrate pronouns, pride parades and gender transitioning. At the time, parents were given notice and told they could opt out their children.

But in 2023, the school board removed the notice and the ability to opt out, prompting parents to sue in federal court over First Amendment concerns and ask the court to require the opt-out option.

The case is Tamer Mahmoud v. Thomas W. Taylor.

Prisoner’s hair loss

Damon Landor grew out his dreadlocks for two decades in accordance with his Rastafarian beliefs. When he was convicted of drug possession in 2020 and imprisoned for five months in Louisiana, a guard disregarded his religious beliefs and shaved off his hair.

Mr. Landor — now released from prison — is asking the Supreme Court to let him sue Louisiana prison officials.

Given that Mr. Landor has already been released, court watchers are conflicted about whether the justices will want to take up this challenge.

The case is Damon Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety.

Thomas C. Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, said the lower appellate court judges who considered the case all said the justices should weigh in.

“The judges on both sides of that have said this is something the Supreme Court has to clear up,” Mr. Berg said.