An animal-rights group has filed suit against four rabbis, several ḥasidic congregations, and the city of New York to stop ultra-Orthodox Jews from performing the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kapparot, in which a chicken is ritually slaughtered and then donated to a poor family for consumption. The plaintiffs allege that the ritual involves cruelty to animals and constitutes a public-health hazard. Wesley Smith addresses the constitutional questions the suit raises:

[T]here is no question that the animal rightists seek to interfere with the free exercise of religion. But that is not the end of our inquiry. Does the government have a compelling state interest in preventing this ritual slaughter? Perhaps. . . .

[The] allegations [made in the suit] are sufficiently serious and weighty to warrant a thorough investigation, both as to the animal-cruelty and public-health issues. I don’t have an opinion on the “correct” answer. Free exercise of religion is not an absolute right, but the burden of proof should be on those who would interfere with religious freedom. . . . [But those] who don’t care about the religious angle should never call themselves civil libertarians. Any “civil libertarian” who doesn’t defend the free exercise of religion is no civil libertarian.

In a statement released on social media on Monday, the president-elect declared that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration, “there will be all hell to pay” for those who “perpetrated these atrocities against humanity.” But will Hamas take such a threat seriously? And, even if Donald Trump decides to convert his words into actions after taking office, exactly what steps could he take? Ron Ben-Yishai writes:

While Trump lacks direct military options against Hamas—given Israel’s ongoing actions—he holds three powerful levers to pressure the group into showing some flexibility on the hostage deal or to punish it if it resists after his inauguration. The first lever targets Hamas’s finances, focusing on its ability to fund activities after the fighting ends. This extends beyond Gaza to Lebanon and other global hubs where Hamas derives strength. . . . Additionally, Trump could pressure Qatar to cut off its generous funding and donations to the Islamist organization.

The other levers are also financial rather than military: increasing sanctions on Iran to force it to pressure Hamas, and withholding aid for the reconstruction of Gaza until the hostages are released. In Ben-Yishai’s view, “Trump’s statement undoubtedly represents a positive development and could accelerate the process toward a hostage-release agreement.”