This Day in Legal History: Maryland Toleration Act Passed
On April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland’s religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.
The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony’s civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.
While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law’s religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.
The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.
A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM’s use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.
The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup’s decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.
Though Alsup’s ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.
This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.
Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup’s decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.
Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham’ Judge Rules
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.
A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.
In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force’s structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.
The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force’s authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.
Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA’s requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court’s decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.
US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | Reuters
In a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees’ lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn’t been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority’s decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices’ ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.
The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees’ lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.
The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants’ advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.
The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge’s oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.
The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.
Supreme Court’s Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable’ - Bloomberg
Alito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | Reuters
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - Bloomberg
A federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution’s promise of equality.
Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration’s broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.
The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.
The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump’s rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling’s protections to all affected individuals.
Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, judge rules | Reuters
Share this post