In recent years, the Supreme Court has reshaped jurisprudence on the First Amendment with such cases as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin. Tim Rosenberger and Noam Josse explain what the newly formed precedent might mean for some upcoming religious-freedom cases:

Crucially, the Court affirmed that states cannot discriminate against an institution simply because it intends to put public funds to “religious use”—that is, to offer faith-based programming. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Carson majority opinion, “the prohibition on status-based discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause is not a permission to engage in use-based discrimination.” Local governments cannot create programs and make them impossible for religious groups to access—by restricting the use of the funds—as a way to get around the Constitution’s protections for people of faith.

The Supreme Court has a chance to build on its recent rulings concerning religion and public life. Three cases currently on its docket are relevant. The first is Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s state unemployment-insurance system bizarrely asserts that, notwithstanding the organization’s name, Catholic Charities should not be considered a religious organization. If an organization is just “charitable” rather than “religious,” it must fully participate in the state’s unemployment-insurance scheme and cannot enjoy the exemptions afforded to religious entities.

In keeping with the original meaning of the First Amendment, however, the Court can justifiably rule that religious groups engaged in charitable work do not have to lose their religious freedom simply because their ministries serve the public.

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.