Welcome to the Napa Legal Podcast, where we discuss religious liberty from the perspective of faith-based nonprofits.

In this week's episode, Frank DeVito and Kyle Nazareth discuss the Justice Department and an Orthodox synagogue suing Montgomery County, Maryland over its ban on carrying firearms near houses of worship, a new state-law challenge to Texas's Ten Commandments statute after the Establishment Clause arguments failed, and the Massachusetts law removing nearly every remaining limit on late-term abortion.

In this episode, we discuss:

[1:07] Montgomery County bars firearms in or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly, including every house of worship in the county, and now faces parallel suits from the Justice Department on Second Amendment grounds and from an Orthodox synagogue arguing the ordinance is neither neutral nor generally applicable and burdens a religious obligation to provide for its own security.

[12:49] Three Houston-area mothers abandon the Establishment Clause theory that lost in the Fifth Circuit and challenge SB 10 under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the state's new Parental Rights Amendment, raising the question of whether a poster a child passively sees can count as religious coercion at all.

[26:08] Massachusetts eliminates its four-part framework governing abortion at or after 24 weeks, and Frank explains why the abortion pill rather than late-term surgical abortion is the real battlefield, while Kyle walks through Canon 915 and the excommunication question now being raised about a governor who calls herself Catholic.

Chapter markers

0:00 Intro

1:07 Montgomery County's 100-yard gun ban

2:44 Two lawsuits: DOJ and an Orthodox synagogue

3:49 Bruen and the history and tradition test

5:59 The colonies that required men to bring guns to church

6:55 Not neutral, not generally applicable

8:30 What is the compelling interest, exactly?

10:58 Does disarming worshipers make churches safer?

12:49 Texas: Roth v. State of Texas

13:45 Judge Duncan's opinion in Nathan v. Alamo Heights

14:17 Six hallmarks of a founding-era establishment

15:04 Why Mahmoud v. Taylor does not apply

16:12 Three mothers and a new theory of the case

16:40 Texas RFRA and the Parental Rights Amendment

17:50 Lee v. Weisman and psychological coercion

19:22 The offended observer problem

20:47 What Dignitatis Humanae actually says about coercion

21:50 The TRO denial and the hearing set for today

23:23 Is a poster a substantial burden?

24:08 The parental rights argument

26:08 Massachusetts signs H.5595 into law

27:49 The bishops respond

28:55 Why the moderate position on abortion is illogical

30:17 The abortion pill is the real battlefield

31:51 Abolitionist in theory, incrementalist in reality

34:26 Fourteenth Amendment personhood and the risk of backlash

36:42 Kansas, Ohio, and what the referenda showed

37:41 Spiritual recourse and the 2002 Doctrinal Note

38:38 Canon 915 and the excommunication question

39:51 Why excommunication is pastoral, not political

For more about Napa Legal and our work, visit our website here: https://www.napalegalinstitute.org/

For more of the Napa Legal Podcast, visit our site here: https://www.napalegalinstitute.org/the-napa-legal-podcast

The Napa Legal Podcast, August 18, 2026 #freedomofreligion #religiousliberty #secondamendment