Nebraska Supreme Court Rules Father Can Send Children to Church Camp

The court upheld the award of sole legal custody to Libby but found that she could not unilaterally block the children's attendance at the camp. Justice Derek Vaughn wrote that absent a showing of substantial harm, the noncustodial parent retains the right to direct the child's religious upbringing during his or her parenting time.

Jacob and Libby married in 2010 and had children in 2016 and 2018. They agreed to joint physical custody on a rotating schedule after Libby filed for divorce in February 2024. Both were raised in the church that Jacob continues to attend, which teaches that women should be subservient to men and that the church should be led by men.

Libby left the church about five months before filing for divorce, citing disagreement with its teachings on women and what she described as a culture of fear and shame. She objected to the children attending the church or its camp, though she had initially allowed church attendance after the separation.

The church camp, located on property where Jacob's parents serve as caretakers, mixes Bible classes with crafts, activities and nature time. Campers do not need any religious affiliation. Jacob testified that the camp was a major part of his childhood, that he met Libby there, and that he wants his children to have the same experience of independence and self-discovery.

The trial court had characterized the camp as an extracurricular activity over which the legal custodian holds authority. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected that framework, noting that both parents viewed the camp as a religious activity and that Libby had no objection to a non-church camp.

The trial court expressly found little or no evidence that Jacob's religious practice presented any threat to the children's well-being. The supreme court agreed after its own review, concluding there was no immediate and substantial threat to the children's temporal well-being.

Separately, the U.S.

Supreme Court faces a Monday deadline in a case that could restrict access to mifepristone, the most common abortion pill in the United States. The court is weighing emergency requests from two manufacturers after a federal appeals court decision that would reinstate an in-person dispensing requirement.

The case centers on whether states can challenge FDA decisions on drug safety and whether the agency properly removed the in-person requirement in 2023. A ruling against the FDA could affect regulation of thousands of other drugs by allowing courts to second-guess scientific determinations.

Nine former FDA commissioners, including Janet Woodcock and Robert Califf, filed an amicus brief arguing that the agency's actions were cautious and science-based. They warned that overturning the decision would upend the FDA's drug approval system.

The pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group PhRMA argued that allowing the appeals court ruling to stand would discourage companies from developing new drugs by creating regulatory uncertainty. Louisiana maintains that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Comstock Act.

California abortion pill suppliers have prepared workarounds, including greater reliance on a misoprostol-only regimen that can be offered virtually and by mail even if mifepristone access is curtailed.

The Supreme Court's April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais reinterpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, clearing the way for states to redraw majority-minority congressional districts. The ruling has prompted protests and criticism from Democrats including Rep.

A Washington Examiner commentary countered that Democratic outrage over the decision is about power rather than protecting voters.

“The fundamental question is: Who gets to regulate mifepristone? Can a state go further than the FDA? Is the FDA the floor or the ceiling?”

The Nebraska ruling underscores ongoing tensions in family law over religious upbringing when parents hold differing beliefs after divorce. The court emphasized that its decision turned on the absence of evidence of harm rather than any endorsement of the church's teachings.