In January of 2025, President Donald Trump withdrew a policy known as the “sensitive locations memo,” which had previously limited immigration enforcement in locations such as houses of worship and religious ceremonies. Religious groups challenged the withdrawal of these protections as, among other things, a violation of the groups’ religious liberty rights. This document provides updates on initial decisions in these lawsuits.

This FAQ explains whether and how RFRA might apply to protect people and communities of faith from immigration-related surveillance and enforcement.

This free, virtual curriculum explores the history of religious liberty in the U.S. and contemporary issues in religion law, focusing on how religious freedom has protected—or failed to protect—Black Americans.

Can a fast food chain refuse to serve LGBTQ customers? Can a photographer refuse to take pictures at a Jewish wedding? Haven’t businesses always been able to turn away certain customers or refuse to provide goods and services they oppose? This Q&A addresses these questions and others, explaining the latest legal developments at the intersection of anti-discrimination law and the First Amendment.

This legal explainer explores how religious exemption measures threaten more than just LGBTQ and reproductive health, and can limit or significantly undermine workers’ rights, public health, environmental welfare, emergency response, religious pluralism, and other crucial interests.

This report outlines the ways in which a guidance document issued by the Trump-era Attorney General interprets and expands religious liberty laws in a way that elevates the right to religious exemptions over other legal and constitutional rights. The guidance has been used to limit access to reproductive health care and threatens to limit enforcement of various health, employment, and anti-discrimination protections.

The report details the increased risks LGBT older adults face as a result of recent religious exemption laws and policies.

Ashe McGovern, Legislative and Policy Director of Columbia Law School’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project testified before the New York City Council Committee on Women’s Issues on a bill that would require several city agencies to undergo training on “implicit bias, discrimination, cultural competency and structural inequity, including with respect to gender, race and sexual orientation.”