← The People’s ScoreboardReality Matters · Special coverage

The rulebook. The ruling. The receipts.

Free Expression
Review Desk

When does protection from religious bias become a question about free speech?

Follow the actual rule, who it covers, what can trigger action and what courts have decided. Michigan is our home court. The national board puts related measures in context.

Research snapshot · November 11, 2026

Not a live legal database or legal advice. A proposal is not a law. A campus sanction is not a criminal conviction. A search result is not a court ruling.

50 statesIndexed-source screen, not exhaustive audit
Michigan firstLocal text and court decisions
3 faithsCompare protections, not stereotypes
Source-ledEvery featured claim has a receipt

Before calling a foul, read the rule

On the bench · proposal

Filed does not mean in force

Check the version, votes, governor action and effective date. A definition can change between introduction and a substitute.

Campus rulebook · discipline

Not criminal does not mean consequence-free

University rules can lead to suspension, expulsion or job consequences. Speech safeguards and fair procedures still matter.

Official ruling · courts

Separate a concern from a decision

A critic may predict a chilling effect. A court can determine whether actual government conduct violated rights. Those are different evidence levels.

The speech boundary

Belief alone is not the offense

Offensive beliefs alone are not hate crimes. Speech may be evidence of motive when an underlying unlawful act is established. Read the specific legal elements.

DOJ explanation →

The record room

Michigan and local records lead the board. Filter by state or type. Each card keeps the measure’s legal stage visible.

19 records shown

Home court · state

Michigan · Hate-crime law

Enacted framework

Religion is protected without preferring one faith. The law concerns specified conduct such as force, injury, stalking, property damage or a true threat, not offensive beliefs alone. Speech protections remain.

Michigan State Police legal update →
Home court · local

Hamtramck · §130.010

Enacted ordinance · September 12, 2023

Requires malicious intent to intimidate or harass because of a protected characteristic, plus physical contact, specified property interference or threats of those acts with reasonable cause to believe they will occur. Religion is one of several protected characteristics and includes Christians, Jews and Muslims; the ordinance is not limited to minority faiths. Maximum penalty: 90 days, $500 or both. Ordinary criticism alone is not the listed offense.

Published municipal code →
Court review · court

Dearborn / Wayne County · Bible Believers

Court ruling · 2015

The Sixth Circuit held officials violated Christian evangelists’ rights when they removed them in response to a hostile crowd at the 2012 Arab International Festival. Hostile listeners cannot simply silence protected speech. The opinion also discusses Saieg v. Dearborn (2011), involving leafletting restrictions. These are actual government actions and court findings, not evidence of a current Islamophobia criticism offense.

Official Sixth Circuit opinion →
Court review · court

Hamtramck · City flagpoles

Court ruling · August 21, 2026

The Sixth Circuit upheld the city’s flag-display resolution as government speech. This concerns city-controlled flagpoles, not a general ban on private religious criticism. Keep it separate from the intimidation ordinance.

Official federal court opinion →
Home court · local

Dearborn Heights · Community relations

Civic commission · not a speech offense

The Community & Cultural Relations Commission’s published purpose is communication across religious, racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. No comparable Islamophobia-specific criticism offense was located in this limited pass. That is not proof that every local rule has been reviewed.

Official commission page →
Home court · resolution

Michigan · HR182 (2024)

Resolution text · not a criminal prohibition

The introduced resolution condemns a Wall Street Journal article about Dearborn and requests a retraction and apology. Condemnation and a request are not a criminal offense. Adoption status was not verified for this entry.

Official introduced resolution →
Campus rulebook · campus

Ohio · Campus requirements

Enacted state framework

Ohio law expressly addresses antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Christian discrimination together through campus policies, investigations and a task force. Constitutional speech protections remain. Institutional discipline can matter even when conduct is not a crime.

Ohio Revised Code §3320.05 →
Campus rulebook · campus

Owens Community College

Effective December 13, 2025

The binding rule incorporates the UN Islamophobia definition into complaint and disciplinary procedures, with express constitutional protections. This is an institutional rule, not a statewide criminal ban on religious criticism.

Official administrative rule 3358:11-4-17 →
Campus rulebook · campus

Bowling Green State University

Effective February 16, 2026

The rule incorporates an Islamophobia definition and disciplinary procedures, with constitutional speech safeguards. Whether a specific complaint satisfies the rule requires case-specific evidence.

Official administrative rule 3341-3-86 →
Campus rulebook · campus

Youngstown State University

Effective April 20, 2026

Its policy defines antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Christian discrimination side by side. Sanctions may include termination or expulsion. It protects constitutional expression and expressly distinguishes university-policy violations from violations of law.

Official administrative rule 3356-2-03 →
State review · education

Connecticut · PA26-1 §24 / SB298

Enacted · effective July 1, 2026

Provides Islamic and Arab studies curriculum resources within available appropriations and resources, and encourages instruction. This is an education provision, not a prohibition on criticism.

Official public-act summary →
State review · state

Connecticut · PA26-77 / SB90

Enacted · signed May 26, 2026

Broader hate-crime consolidation, with relevant provisions effective October 1, 2026. Addresses conduct such as threats, stalking and false reports with bias motives. It is not Islamophobia-specific.

Official public-act summary →
State review · proposal

Connecticut · SB980 (2025)

Proposal · no passage verified

Proposed campus religious-bias training, procedures and task forces including Islamophobia. Latest located action was a March 3, 2025 notice of a March 7 hearing. Do not treat its committee text as enacted law.

Official committee text →
State review · proposal

New Jersey · A1146

Proposal · committee referral verified

Would require officials to consider its Islamophobia definition when assessing discriminatory intent under existing laws. It includes constitutional safeguards and creates no standalone crime of criticizing Islam. Current official dynamic status was inaccessible; the detailed review explains that limitation.

Full Scoreboard bill breakdown →
State review · proposal

Maryland · HB1462 / SB847 (2025)

Proposal · no enactment verified

Campus policies, reporting and a workgroup. ACLU testimony raises concerns about overbroad expressive-activity restrictions and undefined categories. Those are attributed concerns, not a court finding or established outcome.

Official HB1462 record →

Read the ACLU testimony

State review · education

New York · A410 / S5405A

Education proposals

These concern hate-crime curriculum and instruction, including Islamophobia. They are not standalone religious-criticism prohibitions. A410 was referred to Education January 7, 2026; use the specific amended version for S5405A.

Official A410 record →

S5405A amended text

State review · proposal

Minnesota · HF2587 (2019)

Historical proposal

Proposed an Islamophobia and antisemitism task force with recommendations for legislative action. Located history shows introduction/referral and an author addition, not enactment.

Official bill history →
State review · proposal

Virginia · SB624 (2026)

Continued February 2 · not enacted

A proposed hate-bias definition tied to assault and battery. The offered committee substitute explicitly preserves protected speech and says no separate offense is created. Those clauses belong to that substitute, not automatically every version.

Official bill status →

Read the offered substitute

State review · failed

South Dakota · HB1155 (2024)

Failed committee · February 7, 2024

Committee rejected the measure 3–9 and deferred it to the 41st legislative day. It is not an enacted law. Read the original text and procedural history rather than treating a filed bill as a current rule.

Official bill record →

Original HB1155 text

Christians, Jews and Muslims: same questions, precise differences

The basic protection against covered religious discrimination applies to all three. Added definitions and government programs are not identical. Their existence alone does not show who gets more protection in practice.

Shared framework

Ohio names all three

Ohio’s campus law addresses antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Christian discrimination. Youngstown defines them within the same institutional framework. Different wording does not by itself prove unequal enforcement.

State law →
Jewish-specific example

Florida’s definition

Florida §1.015 adopts IHRA antisemitism terminology and examples, including some Israel-related statements. It excludes comparable criticism of Israel and preserves First Amendment rights. This section itself does not create a standalone crime of criticizing Judaism.

Florida statute →
Christian-specific example

Federal task force

Executive Order 14202 created a DOJ task force to review alleged anti-Christian government conduct and recommend remedies. It is an executive review initiative, not a new crime prohibiting criticism of Christianity.

Official executive order →
Compare like with like: New Jersey A1146 is a Muslim-specific proposal; it does not add a matching Christian-specific definition, while existing religious protections remain. Florida’s definition is enacted. A federal task force is another kind of action. Putting them side by side does not make their powers or penalties equivalent.
Common protections and important distinctions

Title VII employment protections cover Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religions. Title VI shared-ancestry protections are different: they concern ancestry or ethnic characteristics, not religion alone, and can cover members of all three groups in appropriate circumstances.

Education Department shared-ancestry explanation

No comparative enforcement dataset was reviewed. This desk does not rank religions by how aggressively government protects them.

Enforcement replay: what actually happened?

Three documented workplace resolutions show real government enforcement involving Christian, Muslim and Jewish employees. They are not a ranking of faiths, a controlled comparison, or cases punishing ordinary criticism of religion.

Christian employee · individual relief

Lansing, Michigan

Court-entered consent decree · February 15, 2023

DOJ alleged that the city failed to accommodate detention officer Sylvia Coleman’s Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath observance, terminated her employment and retaliated against her. These are allegations, not trial findings.

Required relief: $50,000 to Coleman ($10,000 back-pay claims and $40,000 non-economic compensatory claims), revised accommodation and anti-retaliation policies, and employee training.

What was decided: A binding settlement. Decree §§7–10 expressly state there was no adjudication or merits finding; Lansing denied discrimination and retaliation. Payment completion was not independently verified here.

DOJ case record · Consent decree, PDF pp.4–5

Muslim employee · individual relief

Chipotle, Kansas

Settlement announced · April 1, 2025

EEOC alleged a supervisor repeatedly pressured an employee to remove her hijab, partially removed it himself, and that she faced retaliation after reporting it. The suit concerned religious harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge.

Required relief: $20,000 in monetary relief; a three-year decree requiring employee and supervisory training and reporting religious-harassment complaints to EEOC.

What was decided: The lawsuit was settled, not resolved by a reported trial verdict. The cited release describes allegations and agreed relief. This review did not independently verify payment or the full decree’s admission language.

EEOC settlement announcement

Jewish employees · class fund

Columbia University

EEOC class settlement · claims period closed

EEOC charges alleged workplace harassment based on Jewish faith, Jewish ancestry and/or Israeli national origin, and related retaliation, following October 7, 2023. The covered period runs through July 23, 2025 and includes eligible student employees.

Reported relief: EEOC says Columbia paid $21 million into a class settlement fund. This is a fund for multiple claimants, not a $21 million award to one employee. Individual award amounts and completion of all distributions were not verified here.

What was decided: Columbia voluntarily resolved the charges without admitting liability. This is not a merits judgment. The EEOC page says the claims process is closed; older invitation language lower on that page should not be read as a current filing invitation.

EEOC fund and claims explanation

The dollars are not a fairness score. An individual employment case and a class fund differ in claimant count, losses, allegations, litigation posture and negotiated remedies. These three examples cannot establish equal or unequal enforcement across religions.
What these receipts show, and what they do not

They show government action and concrete settlement obligations. A consent decree can be enforceable without a finding that the defendant committed the alleged conduct. “Required to pay,” “paid into a fund” and “each person received payment” are separate claims.

The Columbia fund is separate from the broader agreement’s $200 million fine mentioned on the EEOC page. No combined total or dollar-per-person comparison is presented here.

Workplace accommodation, harassment and retaliation are different legal questions from whether government may punish public criticism of religion. For an actual free-speech court ruling, see the Dearborn/Wayne County Bible Believers card above.

Source review: November 11, 2026. These examples are illustrative, not a census of enforcement. No comparative case-outcome dataset was reviewed.

The 50-state research board

All 50 states received an indexed-source screen using alternative terminology and official-domain records, with original-record checks for positive leads. The board shows research coverage, not a claim that all laws, campuses, cities or cases have been audited.

No additional verified statewide standalone crime of ordinary criticism of Islam was located in that screen. “Not located” does not mean “does not exist.” States without a detailed profile may have related education, symbolic, civil-rights or other measures.

The review is honest about its limits

What is verified here

Specific original texts, public-act summaries, administrative rules and court opinions linked on each card. Local enforcement and court outcomes are distinguished from the wording of a rule.

What still needs checking

Later amendments, unindexed bills, uncodified municipal changes, individual arrests and charging documents, campus case outcomes and full comparative enforcement data. Detroit and Wayne County searches did not locate a comparable Islamophobia-specific ordinance, but were not a complete code or agenda audit.

Correction log · November 11: The expanded review adds binding Ohio campus rules and enacted Connecticut education provisions that a narrower first pass missed. This is why we keep source dates and limits visible.

Have a newer official text, court opinion or exact correction? Submit a source for review. This page does not update automatically.