1. On Wednesday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc heard oral arguments in a case asking whether a condo company's prohibition against placing any objects on doors or in hallways was discriminatory against observant Jews.  The case began when the condo company repeatedly removed a mezuzah from a woman's doorpost.  When a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit reviewed this case last summer, they decided that, because the policy applies equally to all of the occupants of the building (a cross would be prohibited just as a mezuzah is prohibited), it was not discriminatory.  However, an adamant dissent by Judge Diane Wood stated that the policy was, in fact discriminatory because it effectively only excluded observant Jews from taking up residency in the building (Jewish law requires people to touch the mezuzah whenever passing through the doorposts of their house.  While members of other religious groups might choose to put a religious symbol on their doors, they are not under a religious obligation to do so).  So, the en banc Court will decide, does this policy qualify as equal treatment or discrimination? 

2. Earlier this month, a group of students from Maimonides High School, a modern Orthodox school in Brookline, Massachusetts, qualified for the mock trial national championship.  However, part of the tournament took place on a Saturday and the students and parents objected to competing on Shabbat.  When the tournament's sponsors refused to change the date, the Maimonides team submitted a petition to the Department of Justice, asking them to investigate whether the organization's policy not to change the dates of the competition to accommodate Sabbath observance was discriminatory.  Ultimately, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the court in Georgia, where the tournament was scheduled to take place, reminding them that entities that receive federal funds cannot administer programs that discriminate on the basis of religion.  In turn, the Chief Justice at the Fulton County Courthouse, where the competition was scheduled to take place, informed the mock trial organization that the court would not host the competition if the organization did not provide an accommodation for the Jewish school.  While the DOJ did not officially require the competition organizers to change their policy, their action was certainly a victory for religious freedom.  

Despite the progress we have made, the fate of our religious freedom remains in the hands of the courts and the justice system.  Laws and statutes are still being interpreted and specific situations are being evaluated every day.  We must remember not to take our religious freedom for granted and to advocate for judges and DOJ officials who will protect our religious freedom while preserving the separation of church and state.