Johnson v. Fleming

Supporting religion on the front lines 

America’s military chaplaincy has religious roots and predates the birth of our nation. During the French and Indian War, then-Colonel George Washington—believing in religion’s importance and beneficial influence on soldiers—urged the Governor of Virginia and Virginia legislative leaders to finance a chaplain for the Virginia regiment. Later, as General of the Continental Army, Washington worked to expand and professionalize the chaplaincy to meet the religious needs of his religiously diverse troops. He also was instrumental in persuading the Continental Congress to preserve and fund the chaplaincy for future generations. 

That historical tradition is also a constitutional duty: under the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, because the government removes service members from their faith communities as part of military service, it must also furnish the means for religiously diverse servicemembers to access worship and spiritual care while serving. Today, military chaplains carry out that duty by leading religious services, officiating burials, and guiding servicemembers through long separations, high stress, dangerous assignments, trauma, and loss. Chaplains are not generic counselors. They are representatives of religious traditions endorsed by their respective church, synagogue, mosque, or religious community to provide pastoral care to the brave men and women who serve our country.  

Virginia backs the chaplaincy—but only to a degree 

The Virginia National Guard is a dual-status military force that serves as a combat reserve for the U.S. Army and Air Force while also answering the call of the Virginia Governor to defend the Commonwealth. Crucial to the Virginia National Guard’s mission is the chaplaincy, which is tasked with providing “the highest levels of religious support” across military operations. Virginia supports that mission by maintaining a formal chaplaincy structure, paying chaplains when they are called into state active duty, and requiring chaplains to complete advanced religious training, including theology coursework.  

Yet Virginia excludes Guard members who want to become chaplains from its tuition-assistance program. Any Guard member committed to two years of service can get tuition assistance toward a college degree. But if a Guard member studies to become a chaplain, Virginia denies aid. This is as unconstitutional as it is illogical: the Guard requires its chaplains to have a master’s degree with at least 36 credits in theology, but signing up for a theology degree gets them cut from the tuition assistance program.  

Becket urges Fourth Circuit to protect the military chaplaincy 

A student in the Virginia National Guard is seeking a Master of Divinity to become a chaplain, but the Commonwealth denied him tuition assistance because it said his degree was too religious. He then filed a lawsuit against Virginia in federal court. After the district court allowed Virginia’s policy to stand under a Supreme Court decision known as Locke v. Davey, the students appealed to the Fourth Circuit. On June 2, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of retired Chaplains Douglas L. Carver and Thomas J. Solhjem, who both retired at the rank of Major General and served as the Army’s 22nd and 25th Chief of Chaplains, respectively.  

Becket argues that Locke—a narrow decision about state funding for devotional theology degrees for anyone—does not apply to chaplain candidates seeking to serve in the military chaplaincy. The government has a constitutional duty to support and provide the military chaplaincy. While states need not provide tuition-assistance to all postsecondary education, they certainly cannot target chaplain candidates for disfavor among a generally available tuition-assistance program. Here, Virginia already funds and relies on chaplains, requires theological training, and subsidizes some religious coursework. Virginia is not required to provide tuition assistance for postsecondary education. But having chosen to offer such assistance, Virginia cannot exclude Guard members pursuing chaplaincy-related degrees simply because their degrees are religious. Allowing Virginia to decide which religious training is too “religious” for funding would let the government discriminate among the religious needs of servicemembers themselves. These are threats to baseline First Amendment protections and the very logic of a government-supported military chaplaincy.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:  

  • Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship. Religious individuals must be free to follow their faith in all aspects of life, especially those who serve in our military to defend the freedom of all Americans.
  • Public square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. Consistent with our constitutional history and tradition, religious exercise can, and should, have a special place in the public square.   

 

Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis

Faithful educators singled out and punished for their beliefs

In August 2021, St. Louis Public Schools imposed a COVID vaccine mandate on all administrators, teachers, and staff. The policy allowed employees to request an exemption if taking the vaccine would conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices. The policy also allowed employees to seek exemptions for medical or disability reasons. Those who failed to comply would be placed on unpaid leave or fired.

Despite purporting to offer employees a path to religious accommodation, the district denied all 198 religious exemption requests it received, claiming accommodation would be too difficult. It did so without considering vaccination rates at each school, whether teachers taught students old enough to be vaccinated, or whether qualified teachers were available to take over classes. As a result, over 100 teachers and staff with religious objections were placed on unpaid leave or terminated. Meanwhile, the district granted all 48 medical exemption requests it received and provided accommodations identical to those that employees with religious objections to the vaccine had requested, allowing employees with medical exemptions to keep working.

St. Louis’s blatant double standard harmed teachers and students 

The district’s double standard took a toll on both teachers and students. Several teachers had to take extra jobs to make ends meet, while other teachers and their families faced serious financial hardship, uncertainty, and stress after being placed on leave. 

For some teachers, the district brought in substitutes who were not trained in their subject areas. Other classes and programs were canceled entirely. For example, when one teacher was placed on leave, the district suspended her elementary theater program altogether. When another was placed on leave, the district canceled his aviation program. And when a third was placed on leave, students could no longer receive dual credit for her world history classes. Dedicated educators were sidelined, and students paid the price with lost opportunities and disrupted learning. 

Becket to Eighth Circuit: The Constitution doesn’t disappear in a pandemic 

By January 2022, the school district reversed course—granting employees’ religious accommodations and requesting they return to work. But that did not undo the damage to teachers who had lost months of pay, families who were forced into financial hardship, and students whose educational opportunities had vanished. A group of teachers sued, arguing that the district violated their rights by refusing to accommodate their faith while granting exemptions to other employees. A federal jury sided with the educators, awarding them $4 million for the suffering they endured. The school district then appealed to the Eighth Circuit.  

On May 27, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the teachers and staff, arguing that constitutional protections for religious freedom do not disappear in a pandemic.The brief explains that when the government creates a system of exemptions, it cannot favor secular requests while shutting religious believers out, and even public health concerns do not give governments the power to trample religious exercise. And under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, employers cannot force religious believers to choose between their faith and their job. Religious liberty must be respected even—and especially—in times of public health uncertainty.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.   

MoChridhe v. Academy of the Holy Angels

Passing on the faith to future generations 

Since 1851, the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis has played a vital role in helping parents educate their children in the Catholic faith. Today, it oversees 91 Catholic schools that offer students a holistic education combining rigorous academics, spiritual formation, and a commitment to serve God and neighbor. In these schools, faith and learning go hand in hand: students are held to high standards in core subjects, learn personal responsibility and leadership skills, and grow in spiritual life through prayer and the sacraments.

To fulfill its religious and educational mission, the Archdiocese requires its schools to operate in full accordance with teachings of the Catholic Church. One way it accomplishes this goal is by giving schools guidance on Catholic teaching, including on the subject of human sexuality and sexual identity. In 2019, the Archdiocese issued “Guiding Principles” emphasizing that Catholic schools’ policies, practices, and employee agreements must be consistent with the Church’s teaching that God created every person in his image, as male or female, and God’s creation must be honored.

Archdiocese defends Catholic teaching 

In 2021, Rezyl Grace MoChridhe was hired by the Academy of Holy Angels—one of the Archdiocese’s schools—as a librarian and media specialist on a one-year contract. In the contract, MoChridhe acknowledged that “employees must conduct themselves in a manner which is consistent with and supportive of the mission and purpose of the Church,” and that MoChridhe could be dismissed for any “public conduct which is inconsistent with the faith, morals, teachings, or laws of the Catholic Church.” 

At the time of hiring, MoChridhe identified as a male, consistent with MoChridhe’s biological sex. But when MoChridhe’s contract came up for renewal in 2022, MoChridhe informed Holy Angels that MoChridhe was starting the process of a gender transition and would return to the school the next year identifying as a female. This violated both MoChridhe’s contract and the Archdiocese’s Guiding Principles. So the school declined to renew MoChridhe’s contract.  

MoChridhe then sued the school and the Archdiocese, alleging discrimination. Both the state trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the lawsuit—explaining that “MoChridhe asks the judiciary to require the Archdiocese to employ a person who does not support and will not abide by the church’s faith-based Guiding Principles in the school setting, despite the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require adherence to those principles when executing its mission to educate students in the Catholic faith.”  

Ensuring Catholic education remains Catholic   

In December 2025, MoChridhe asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision, and the court agreed. Becket is representing the Archdiocese at the Minnesota Supreme Court to defend its right to guide its educational mission according to its faith.  

MoChridhe is seeking to penalize the Archdiocese for one of its most basic acts of church governance: telling a Catholic school what religious principles it needs to follow to remain faithfully Catholic. Allowing this case to proceed would invite civil courts to second-guess internal questions of Catholic teaching and church governance—something the law forbids them from doing. The Constitution and Supreme Court precedent protect religious institutions’ autonomy to determine matters of faith, doctrine, and internal governance without government interference.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

McMahon v. World Vision

A humanitarian ministry rooted in faith 

Christian minister Bob Pierce founded World Vision in 1950 after he witnessed the power of the gospel demonstrated through those who provided food, clothing, and care for the suffering overseas. Today, World Vision primarily focuses on helping the world’s most vulnerable children—those who live in extreme poverty or fragile situations, as they are deeply affected by societal hardship and broken relationships. The ministry works alongside donors, supporters, and churches to serve these children, and has trained over 100,000 pastors and faith leaders to minister to millions abroad.   

World Vision embraces its Christian faith in all aspects of its ministry. Its religious mission permeates not only its humanitarian service across the globe, but also its internal workplace culture, which includes frequent chapel services, religious meetings, and prayer. To effectuate its mission, World Vision US hires only Christians and asks all its employees to agree to live by biblically grounded standards of conduct both in and outside of work.  

Faithful ministry sued for its beliefs 

In 2021, Aubry McMahon applied for a customer service representative role. World Vision’s representatives are known as the “voice, face, and heart” of World Vision because they are on the front lines of advancing its humanitarian service by speaking to donors, supporters, and partner churches about its ministry. Representatives are expected to personally pray with and for donors and supporters, and to help them grow in their understanding of God’s love for the poor.  

During her interview process, McMahon repeatedly said that she would fully support and comply with World Vision’s Christian beliefs. But after she received an offer to become a representative, McMahon disclosed that she could not in fact abide by World Vision’s religious expectations for its employees. After prayerfully considering the correct and loving response, World Vision chose to withdraw McMahon’s offer, explaining that it asks all employees to support its religious mission in both word and deed. McMahon responded by suing World Vision, asserting that its religious hiring practices are illegal.  

The law protects World Vision’s freedom to hire in accordance with its faith

A lower court initially sided with World Vision, ruling that it was free to withdraw McMahon’s job offer because she openly disagreed with World Vision’s religious standards for employees. But McMahon promptly asked the court to reconsider, arguing that World Vision’s religious hiring expectations were illegal on their face and that World Vision had no constitutional right to follow them. The court agreed with her this time, reversed its prior decision, and ruled in favor of McMahon. 

On August 21, 2024, Becket and its co-counsel filed an opening brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to protect World Vision’s ability to operate consistent with its faith. The brief argued that as a religious ministry, World Vision has the freedom to ensure that its employees uphold and model its beliefs, including its customer service representatives, who play a critical role in advancing its religious mission. On August 5, 2025, a unanimous three-judge panel ruled for World Vision, holding that its customer service representatives qualify as “ministers” under the ministerial exception because of the critically important religious functions they perform. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:  

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, Inc. v. Drummond

Opening doors to educational opportunities in the Sooner State  

Since 2007, Peter Deutsch has built a network of Hebrew-language charter schools, known as the Ben Gamla Charter Schools, across the state of Florida. They have served over twenty thousand diverse students and offer an education focused on Hebrew language, culture, and history. Ben Gamla schools have an outstanding record of academic excellence and ethical instruction, while also maintaining open admissions and diverse hiring of individuals who support their mission. 

Drawing on that experience, Deutsch incorporated the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation in Oklahoma and applied for charter authorization in Oklahoma to start an online charter school open to students of all faiths. He wants to give Sooner families a high-quality option that pairs strong academics with religious learning and spiritual formation. Oklahoma’s charter school regulations are uniquely suited to such educational innovation and would allow Ben Gamla to provide an education tailored to the individual needs of many diverse students. 

Oklahoma Supreme Court excludes faith-based charter schools  

Unfortunately, in March 2026, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board denied Ben Gamla’s application. While members of the Charter School Board praised Ben Gamla’s model, they determined that under the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in St. Isidore v. Drummond, faith-based charter schools are not allowed to participate on equal footing with other private schools. That case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which split 4–4, leaving the constitutional questions unresolved. Oklahoma has continued to treat St. Isidore as a blanket prohibition on religious charter schools. 

Becket fights for Ben Gamla’s right to serve Oklahoma families

This is yet another example of government officials attempting to exclude religious groups from publicly available education benefits. In fact, Attorney General Drummond was honored as “Secularist of the Week” by anti-religion group Freedom From Religion Foundation for opposing Ben Gamla and other religious schools. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear guidance in Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson—which held that religious institutions cannot be denied access to public funding simply because of their religious character—states continue to take steps that shut out religious schools from programs offered to other private institutions.

Importance to Religious Liberty:  

  • Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.   

Hussey v. City of Cambridge

Police veteran punished for a brief, private Facebook post 

Brian Hussey has served as a police officer in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for over two decades. For years, he maintained a personal, private Facebook page—which did not identify him as a Cambridge police officer—where he shared comments or articles of personal interest. In February 2021, Hussey reposted a news headline about a federal police-reform bill named for George Floyd and added a short comment criticizing the decision to name the bill after Floyd. Of his own volition, he deleted the post within a few hours. But after the police department received a complaint about the post, it launched an investigation into Hussey, placed him on administrative leave for nearly two months, and ultimately suspended him for four days without pay.

Hussey’s story is part of a broader and accelerating trend of government employers punishing employees for their private speech, especially their religious speech. For example, former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired after publishing a Christian book in which he expressed his traditional religious views on human sexuality. Similarly, Dr. Andrew Fox, a former volunteer fire chaplain in Texas, lost his job after posting his religious view that men should not compete on women’s sports teams. And Dr. Eric Walsh, a health official and lay pastor in Georgia, was fired for the content of the sermons he preached for his Seventh-day Adventist Church on the weekends.

A dangerous exception that invites governmental muzzling of unpopular speech

Hussey filed a lawsuit against the City of Cambridge, arguing that the City had violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for his speech. A trial court dismissed his lawsuit. On appeal, a divided panel of the First Circuit also ruled against Hussey. The court concluded that his speech “touched on important political issues,” and acknowledged that “normally” this kind ofspeech is entitled to heightened legal protection. But it nonetheless ruled that Hussey’s speech did not qualify for that protection because it was “mocking, derogatory, and disparaging.” Hussey successfully asked the full First Circuit to rehear his case, and the court granted en banc review.

Becket urges the full First Circuit to protect core speech

If allowed to stand, the panel’s anti-disparagement standard would create a slippery slope, giving governments across the political spectrum vast discretion to silence employee speech they dislikeor find politically inconvenient. One administration might use it to silence criticism of a sitting president or advocacy for gun rights. Another might use it to punish pro-life advocacy or traditional religious views on marriage and sexuality.

On February 25, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Hussey. The brief explains that the anti-disparagement standard would leave religious government employees particularly vulnerable. Many religious believers hold views that differ from the prevailing social consensus on deeply contested issues, and critics seeking to suppress those views routinely label them “disparaging” and offensive. That pattern is not new. In Anglo-American history, government suppression of speech has repeatedly and disproportionally targeted religious speech, which is why religious speech has long been treated as core speech and given the strongest protection. Becket is asking the full court to reaffirm that speech does not lose protection simply because the speaker works for the government and speaks as a private citizen outside the workplace.

Becket has repeatedly defended the right of free expression and freedom of assembly before the appellate courts and the Supreme Court, including in 303 Creative v. Elenis, Heffernan v. City of Paterson, and Matal v. Tam. 

Importance to religious liberty:  

  • Free speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular.  
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. 

Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center

A minister’s wage lawsuit puts religious freedom at risk 

San Francisco Zen Center is a nonprofit Sōtō Zen Buddhist institution that operates residential training programs at three practice sites: City Center, Tassajara Mountain Center, and Green Gulch Farm. Participants in these programs live on site as monks and follow a structured religious discipline that includes meditation, worship, study, and “work practice,” which the Zen Center treats as an integral part of spiritual formation rather than ordinary employment. 

Annette Lorenzo entered the Zen Center’s residential training program, lived on site, and participated in work practice as part of that religious formation. After leaving the program, she filed a claim and later sued seeking back pay—minimum wage and overtime—for the years she spent living and training at the Zen Center. The Zen Center argues that courts should not referee disputes between a religious community and its ministers. 

A dangerous rule that leaves religious communities exposed 

A trial court ruled in favor of the Zen Center. But the California Court of Appeal reversed and allowed the case to proceed. Instead of applying a clear rule that protects religious communities from these disputes, the court required the Zen Center to fight claim-by-claim and show that resolving the case would force a court into religious questions. That approach leaves religious groups exposed to years of litigation and pressures courts to second-guess a religious group’s beliefs—deciding what parts of spiritual formation are “religious” and what parts are not. 

Becket urges California high court to restore a clear boundary for all faiths 

On January 29, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court letter, urging the California Supreme Court to take the case and restore a straightforward rule: civil courts should not referee disputes between ministers and their religious organizations. President Garvey’s brief warns that the decision below wouldharm Catholic groups and other faith-based organizations by forcing them to defend their spiritual practices in endless lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized this protection, including in Becket cases such as Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, which affirm that religious communities—not courts—have authority over their ministers. 

Importance to religious liberty:  

  • Religious communities: The First Amendment upholds special regard for the authority of religious institutions to govern themselves and ensure their distinctive religious ways of life, whether they be in fashion or not with state regulators.  

Mirabelli v. Bonta

California keeps parents in the dark

California’s Department of Education issued guidance that directed public schools to treat a student’s expressed transgender status at school as private information that could be withheld from parents. Schools were told to respect a student’s wishes about who could be informed—including whether parents would be told at all—and to avoid sharing that information except in rare situations. As a result, parents across California have been left unaware when schools begin treating their children as a different gender during the school day, and teachers have been forced to carry out that secrecy and deception.

Religious parents and teachers push back 

With the help of LiMandri & Jonna and Thomas More Society, a group of parents and teachers filed a lawsuit challenging California’s secret transition policy. Catholic families involved in the case discovered that their children had been socially transitioned at school without their knowledge or consent, cutting them out of decisions central to their children’s upbringing and faith. In one family’s case, the parents learned what had been happening only after their daughter attempted suicide. Teachers also challenged the policy, arguing that being required to hide a student’s transgender status from parents violated their deeply held religious beliefs about honoring the role of parents as the primary guides in raising their children. These families still don’t know how the schools are interacting with their children on this important and sensitive issue.  

In December 2025, a federal district court ruled for the parents and teachers and blocked California’s secret transition policy, relying in part on Becket’s landmark Supreme Court victory in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Days later, a federal appeals court put that ruling on hold. On January 8, 2026, the parents and teachers filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to restore their hard-won protection. 

Becket defends parents’ right to raise their children according to their faith 

On January 20, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the parents and teachers. The brief urged the Supreme Court to protect the right of parents to raise and educate their children according to their faith. It explained that the Court has long recognized this principle—from its earliest parental-rights decisions to its recent ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor—and that these protections do not disappear when families choose public schools. 

Becket’s brief also noted that disputes over schools transitioning children without parental knowledge are increasingly common, reaching courts across the country. This case gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to reaffirm its existing precedent and provide clear guidance to lower courts and school districts, ensuring that parents are not sidelined in matters central to family life, and children’s wellbeing and religious upbringing.

The Supreme Court blocked California’s policy and protected parents’ rights to know what is happening with their children at school. In its per curiam opinion released on March 2, 2026, the Court wrote that California’s policies were an even “greater” intrusion on parents’ rights than the policy in Mahmoud and that “California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands. The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” 

Importance to religious liberty:   

  • Parental rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children—an authority parents do not surrender at the schoolhouse door. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. On such core questions, Becket defends the religious authority of parents.   

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto

Illinois bullies pro-life healthcare professionals into supporting abortion

For nearly 40 years, Illinois protected healthcare providers who declined to participate in abortion by giving them immunity from lawsuits and disciplinary action. But in 2016, the state gutted that long-standing protection. The Illinoislegislature amended its Health Care Right of Conscience Act to require any healthcare professional who refuses to participate in abortion for reasons of conscience to do two things if they want to receive any conscience-based protections: tell women about the supposed “benefits” of abortion, and refer them to a list abortion of providers. For pro-life pregnancy centers and many religious healthcare professionals, this mandate attacks the core of their work. These ministries exist to offer life-affirming care rooted in the belief that every person is made in the image of God. The law instead demands that they speak a message that contradicts their faith and the very purpose of their ministry. 

An impossible choice

Under the law, anyone who refuses to promote abortion loses the legal immunity that normally protects healthcare providers from malpractice suits, discrimination claims, and enforcement actions by the state licensing board. That loss of protection puts pro-life healthcare professionals to an impossible choice—either speak and promote the state’s message about abortion, or face legal and professional consequences for refusing to say what violates their beliefs. A group of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors challenged the law in federal court. In spring 2025, the district court blocked the “benefits-discussion” requirement but left the referral mandate in place, and both sides appealed.

Becket defends America’s long tradition protecting religious speech

On December 16, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Catholic bishops of Illinois, the Illinois Catholic Health Association, and two Orthodox Church bodies. The brief argues that, while the pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors should prevail under the First Amendment rule against government compelling speech, there is an even simpler way to decide the case. It urges the court to reaffirm that, in the Anglo-American legal tradition, protections for speech first developed to safeguard religious speech; and for that reason, governments have never been permitted to force religious groups to voice a message they do not believe. The court should ensure thatIllinois is not allowed to do so here.

For the Catholic Conference of Illinois, being required to speak positively about abortion risks confusing the faithful and weakening the Church’s public witness. For the Illinois Catholic Health Association, which includes Catholic hospitals and healthcare ministries, the mandate threatens the integrity of the healing work they carry out every day, forcing them to contradict the very mission that animates their service. And for the Orthodox Church in America and Serbian Orthodox Church, minority religious groups whose teachings are not always widely understood, government-forced speech creates the danger of pressure and misunderstanding that can chill its ministry.  

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Religious communities: The First Amendment upholds special regard for the authority of religious institutions to govern themselves and ensure their distinctive religious ways of life, whether they be in fashion or not with state regulators. 
  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other. 

Winder v. United States

A historic tradition of ministering to our troops 

Since the Founding, the U.S. Army has met the religious needs of its soldiers through its chaplaincy corps. Army chaplains lead religious services, officiate burials, and celebrate sacraments. They also help to guide service members through personal struggles that come with long separations, high stress, and dangerous assignments. Chaplains are not generic counselors. They are clergy endorsed and sent by their churches, synagogues, mosques, and faith communities to provide pastoral care to the brave men and women who serve our country. 

Judges and juries asked to carve up a chaplain’s pastoral counseling  

This case began because a servicemember sought help from a chaplain during a serious family crisis. The chaplain offered advice shaped by his religious training and faith tradition—the kind of spiritual guidance chaplains provide every day. The lawsuit argues that courts should be able to review that conversation, pull out bits and pieces, and treat some of his counsel as religious and some as secular. But chaplains’ religious counsel is not a mix-and-match activity. Chaplains’ guidance flows from their role as clergy, and picking it apart after the fact misunderstands spiritual support and invites courts to meddle into religious matters. 

Becket asks the court to protect the chaplaincy from government intrusion 

On June 25, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy for the Anglican Church in North America, the Aleph Institute, The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod Ministry to the Armed Forces, and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. The brief argues the lawsuit threatens to entangle courts in inherently religious matters, harming chaplains and the soldiers they serve.  

If courts can divide pastoral counseling into secular and religious parts, chaplains will hesitate to speak openly as spiritual leaders—especially in moments of crisis when servicemembers need them most. That would weaken the chaplaincy and limit the spiritual support troops have depended on throughout our nation’s history. The brief urges the court to keep chaplains free to offer sincere, faith-based counsel without fear that their words will later be reviewed in a courtroom. 

On November 4, 2025, Becket helped argue the case in support of the chaplaincy before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On December 12, 2025, a unanimous panel on the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, helping ensure that military chaplains can continue to faithfully serve soldiers free from judicial second-guessing.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the relationship between church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City

A Nationwide Crisis

Between 2017 and 2021, the number of American young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria—an experience of severe distress over their biological sex—increased 300%. Research shows that the vast majority of these children will grow out of their distress naturally if allowed to go through puberty unhindered. Nevertheless, thousands of these children have instead been put through a “gender transition,” including a regime of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. There is no reliable evidence that these procedures offer any long-term benefits, and abundant evidence that they cause lasting harms—including increased risk of cancer, loss of bone density, sexual dysfunction, and permanent sterilization.

Because of these harms, 26 states and several European countries have banned or severely restricted gender transitions for children. And victims of this treatment are increasingly coming forward, asking why they were offered medical treatment to change their bodies, instead of compassionate care to help them navigate natural puberty and careful counseling to help them heal from the underlying causes of their discomfort. (See their stories.)

Counselors Can Help

Faith-based counselors nationwide help youth who struggle to accept their biological sex by taking a more cautious approach. They talk with children to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, help them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible life-altering medical intervention. This approach is supported by the best available scientific evidence and supported by recently enacted laws in dozens of states and several European countries.

Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri, however, ban counselors from using a cautious approach. Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their discomfort, local ordinances require counselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born in the wrong body—and only allow counseling that assists a child in undergoing a gender transition. As a result, therapists who offer compassionate talk therapy to children who want that help, like Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich, face the loss of their business license, fines of up to $1,000, and even jail time. 

A defense of compassionate counseling

On October 24, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Eighth Circuit in support of Bury and Eisenreich. The brief argues that the bans on talk therapy disproportionately harm religious children and silence one side of an important medical debate—punishing counselors who want to help children work through the underlying causes of their distress without rushing into irreversible medical procedures. The brief urges the court to protect the ability of therapists to offer compassionate care that reflects both sound science and their deeply held beliefs.

Kansas City and Jackson County aren’t the only jurisdictions targeting compassionate counseling for children struggling with their biological sex. In Michigan, Becket represents Catholic therapist Emily McJones and a local Catholic Charities counseling ministry in a case challenging a similar state law. Becket is also supporting a faith-based counselor in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Like Bury and Eisenreich, these counselors are asking the courts to protect their ability to help children in distress without being forced to steer them toward life-altering medical interventions.  

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other.
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. 
  • Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions, and Becket defends the right of parents to guide their own children on such matters.

Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy

Video: How one Massachusetts City is fighting to honor its firefighters & police

Symbols of sacrifice 

Across the country, police and fire departments have long used the figures of Michael the Archangel and Florian, an early Roman firefighter, to symbolize the ideals of their professions. Fire departments use the Florian cross as their emblem, and police officers often identify with Michael as they pursue their goal of protecting communities against wrongdoers. 

When the City of Quincy planned its new public safety headquarters, it decided to erect statues of Michael and Florian to reflect this tradition. The sculptures were commissioned from the same artist who created the city’s statues of John Adams and John Hancock. The goal was to honor public servants using symbols already meaningful to the departments they serve. 

An artist's rendering of Quincy's new public safety building, showing the 10-foot-tall statues of Saint Michael and Saint Florian (Source: Filings in Norfolk County Superior Court)
An artist’s rendering of Quincy’s public safety building, showing the statues of Michael and Florian (Source: Filings in Norfolk County Superior Court)

The ACLU tries to stop Quincy from honoring its first responders 

Before the statues could be installed, the ACLU sued on behalf of a group of residents, arguing that Quincy could not honor its first responders in this way because Michael and Florian have religious meaning in some faith traditions. According to the ACLU, Quincy must strip its historic symbols from civic life whenever they carry any religious associations. But the Supreme Court has upheld the use of symbols with religious roots in public life, including a World War I memorial featuring a cross, when they carry historical, cultural, or commemorative significance. 

Becket defends Quincy in battle 

If the ACLU’s theory were adopted, it would give courts and officials across Massachusetts sweeping license to strip away treasured symbols of history and culture simply because they may have religious as well as secular significance. That would not protect diversity—it would erase it. Courts have long drawn a clear line: the government cannot act out of hostility toward religion. That principle includes protecting civic art from being censored simply because some symbols trace back to religious traditions. 

For centuries, communities have drawn from a wide range of historic and cultural figures to honor public service. Michael and Florian have become part of that fabric, recognized within the police and fire communities as emblems of protection, bravery, and sacrifice. Becket is ensuring that Quincy can continue this tradition without being forced to treat religion as something unwelcome in public life.

In December 2025, Becket asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to hear the case. A month later, the court agreed to decide whether Quincy can install the statues to honor its first responders.  

Quincy is also represented by the city solicitor, James Timmins.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. 

Weiss v. The Permanente Medical Group

A loyal employee rediscovers her faith 

For over twenty years, Mimi Weiss devoted her career to serving others as a Senior Consultant and Department Manager at Kaiser Permanente, helping people lead healthier lives and earning a reputation as a dedicated and dependable employee. Amid the isolation of the pandemic, Weiss struggled with loneliness and depression but found solace in her Christian faith. In early 2021, she recommitted herself to her Jewish roots and embraced Jesus as her Messiah.

Fired for following her religious beliefs 

In 2021, Kaiser began requiring all employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Weiss, who worked entirely remotely, promptly requested a religious exemption through the web portal that Kaiser Permanente created for vaccine-exemption requests. She told Kaiser that her “religious beliefs as a Christian Jew do not allow me to receive a Covid-19 vaccine,” and explained her beliefs using Bible passages like Deuteronomy 14:1 and I Corinthians 6:19, which she believes prevent her from receiving needle wounds except for “direct curative benefit” and from altering her God-given immune system.

Based on her answers, Kaiser granted Weiss a religious exemption. But within weeks, Kaiser sent her a new set of questions—mostly repetitive—asking her if she had “ever taken medications of any kind,” when she last took such medicine, and why her religious beliefs prevented her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine but not from taking other medications.   

Weiss briefly restated her religious beliefs, but when it came to the questions about her medical history, she objected, pointing out that these broad questions about all medicines were not “applicable” or “relevant” to her specific religious objection to altering her God-given immune system. Shortly after, Kaiser revoked her exemption and placed her on administrative leave without pay.

Despite Weiss’s multiple efforts to contact Kaiser officials and explain her religious beliefs, the healthcare giant refused to engage in any in-person, telephone, or videoconference discussion about her request or allow her to appeal the decision. In January 2022, Kaiser fired Weiss.  

Taking on the healthcare giant in court

In July 2023, Weiss filed a lawsuit to hold Kaiser accountable for violating her rights. The district court ruled against her, saying that her detailed answers to two sets of questions from Kaiser were not sufficient to notify Kaiser of her religious conflict. But under the law, religious employees don’t need to satisfy an intrusive corporate checklist to live out their faith, and certainly should have the ability to appeal when their religious beliefs are ignored. In its recent decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court made clear that employers must respect and accommodate sincere religious believers. With Becket’s help, Weiss is now asking the Ninth Circuit to affirm that every person has the right to live out his or her faith in the workplace. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.

McCutchan v. Nicholson

Texas’s marriage law

Texas law has long specified who may officiate marriages. Christian ministers and priests, rabbis, and as well as federal and state judges in Texas are authorized to perform wedding ceremonies and sign marriage licenses. Texas law also, more broadly, permits an officer of any “religious organization” to officiate weddings. Anyone else who conducts a ceremony without that authority commits a criminal offense and risks fines. 

The Center for Inquiry (CFI), a secular humanist group, sought to change that. CFI offers secular marriage ceremonies and runs a “secular celebrant” program to certify members who wish to officiate weddings. One member, Eric McCutchan, wanted to officiate marriages for couples in Texas. But because he could not officiate weddings under current law, he and CFI filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have their secular celebrants authorized to officiate marriages. 

What is religion? 

This case raises a crucial question: what counts as “religion” under the law? CFI acknowledged that it is not a religion nor a religious organization, and does not wish to be treated as such. Yet it is asking that its celebrants be recognized in the same way as clergy and other religious leaders are under the law. To this end, CFI has asserted that its rights were being violated by Texas law. In response, Texas argued that CFI was, in fact, a religious organization and therefore was already authorized by Texas law to officiate marriages. The district court disagreed. Although it dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds, it still rejected Texas’s argument that CFI was “religious” in nature. The court found that interpreting “religion” and “religious” to include CFI ignores our nation’s historical and legal understanding of what religion is. The court expressed concern that to find otherwise would set a dangerous precedent that would negatively affect genuine religious groups. McCutchan and CFI then appealed the ruling to Fifth Circuit.  

“Religion” should be understood according to history and tradition 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Fifth Circuit in support of neither party, arguing that the court should define religion consistent with the term’s meaning at the nation’s Founding. In his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison described religion as “the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it.” The Supreme Court has consistently applied that understanding. This inclusive view covers diverse faith traditions—including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism—that affirm a transcendent authority or truth. But it does not extend to organizations like CFI that explicitly deny the transcendent altogether. Preserving that line ensures that protections for religious liberty remain strong and coherent in a diverse society. 

The case is not about whether couples in Texas may choose a non-religious wedding ceremony; they already can, by having a judge officiate. It is about ensuring that the word “religion” keeps its historic, traditional, and constitutional meaning. If “religious organizations” can include such groups as the Boy Scouts, Sierra Club, Rotary International, Lions Club, or even the Dallas Cowboys, the term would lose all meaning. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Public square:  Religious organizations are crucial to maintaining a free society. Expanding the definition of religion to include avowedly non-religious organizations would put authentically and sincerely faithful communities at risk of losing the protections they need to freely carry out their religious work and missions. Further, this ensures that religion does not become a proxy for personal or political ideology. 

Weems v. Association of Related Churches

A dispute between a pastor and his former church

Charles Stovall Weems founded Celebration Church in Jacksonville, Florida, where he served as senior pastor for over two decades. Around 2018, after Weems said he saw a vision of Jesus Christ during a church service, he developed a new “Missions Plan” for the church. This involved creating several affiliated for-profit and nonprofit entities, which he controlled and which received funding from the church. 

Over time, Celebration Church began to raise concerns about Weems’ spiritual leadership and the relationship between his new entities and the church— including questions about the alleged use of COVID relief funds, cryptocurrency transactions, and the purchase of a million-dollar home designated as a parsonage. The church initiated an investigation into those concerns and issued a report describing them in detail. But before the church could remove Weems, he resigned in 2022. 

Judges and juries asked to referee a religious disagreement 

Weems first sued Celebration Church directly in state court, claiming it forced him out and interfered with his business ventures, but that case was dismissed. Weems then filed a lawsuit against the Association of Related Churches (ARC), a national non-denominational church association that helps start churches. ARC had no governing authority over Celebration Church and no role in its internal corporate structure. But Weems claimed that ARC and its leadership had negatively influenced his continued leadership of Celebration Church’s and damaged his relationships with donors, partners, and the entities that Weems had created.

Weems claimed that ARC conspired to produce the report that raised concerns about Weems’s conduct, including allegations of spiritual abuse, unbiblical leadership, and financial misconduct, and to use it to force him out of leadership. The district court dismissed the case in December 2024, ruling that his claims could not proceed because they were fundamentally tied to church leadership decisions—issues that civil courts cannot referee. 

Becket asks Court to protect churches’ freedom to select their leaders 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Eleventh Circuit supporting ARC. The brief defends the right of churches and religious organizations to make decisions about leadership and internal discipline free from court interference. It explains that the law protects not just hierarchical churches, but also networks, associations, and ministries that support and advise them. Allowing lawsuits like this to proceed would entangle courts in spiritual disputes, which the law squarely forbids. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the relationship between church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Protecting fairness in girls’ sports 

West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act requires public schools to separate sports teams by biological sex, preserving equal athletic opportunities for female athletes. Before the law took effect, the ACLU and Lambda Legal sued on behalf of a male student who identifies as transgender and sought to compete on a girls’ team. The case centers on Title IX, a federal law guaranteeing equal opportunity for women in education. The ACLU and Lambda Legal are trying to twist the law’s meaning by arguing that it requires girls’ teams to admit male athletes who identify as transgender, even though Title IX says nothing about gender identity. After the Fourth Circuit blocked the law from taking effect, West Virginia is now defending the Save Women’s Sports Act at the Supreme Court. 

The ripple effects of redefining sex 

This case isn’t just about school sports. Because Title IX is incorporated into other federal laws—including the Affordable Care Act—a redefinition of “sex” in Title IX to shoehorn gender identity would cascade far beyond the playing field. It would trigger lawsuits against religious schools, healthcare providers, and other religious institutions nationwide.  

That’s exactly what followed the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which reinterpreted the word “sex” in Title VII (a federal employment law) to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Although the Court suggested that religious employers would be safeguarded by existing laws protecting religious liberty, Becket warned that the decision would lead to costly proxy wars against faith-based institutions that hold traditional beliefs about sexuality. That warning quickly proved correct. Federal agencies and individuals used Bostock to sue religious employers for operating in accordance with their faith. 

Becket asks Court to safeguard the freedom of the faithful 

On September 19, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court not to repeat what happened with Bostock. The brief explains that because Bostock did not provide robust protections for religious freedom, religious schools were sued for following their beliefs about sex and identity, and federal agencies continued efforts to pressure religious healthcare providers to perform gender-transition procedures in violation of their faith and best medical judgment. 

By interpreting Title IX as written, the Court can prevent another wave of regulatory coercion and years of lawsuits against religious groups for simply living out their faith. Religious schools and healthcare providers should not be forced into years of litigation for staying true to their beliefs.  

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Religious communities: The First Amendment upholds special regard for the authority of religious institutions to govern themselves and ensure their distinctive religious ways of life, whether they be in fashion or not with state regulators.    

McRaney v. The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention

A fellowship of churches rooted in faith for 180 years 

Founded in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. It includes nearly 47,000 independent churches, with nearly 13 million members, who voluntarily cooperate to share the Christian faith, provide advanced Christian training at Baptist seminaries, and demonstrate the love of Christ through ministries to the most vulnerable. One of its key ministries is the North American Mission Board, which helps churches plant new congregations, supports evangelism, provides chaplaincy ministry, and serves communities by caring for refugees, providing disaster relief, and fighting human trafficking.  

The Mission Board pursues these ministry priorities through partnerships with 42 different state or regional conventions of Baptist churches. One of these is the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware (“Baptist Convention”), an organization of more than 500 Baptist churches in Maryland and Delaware. In 2012, the Mission Board and the Baptist Convention entered into a strategic partnership to coordinate ministry efforts. That same year, the Baptist Convention hired Will McRaney as its executive director to lead its role in the partnership. 

Private disagreements and a public lawsuit 

As the partnership progressed, the Mission Board and McRaney developed serious disagreements about how to carry out the ministry work—including missionary selection and funding, charitable giving, and requirements for how missionaries carried out their religious work. The Mission Board concluded that McRaney had shown “serious and persistent disregard” for the religious principles of the partnership and the Baptist Convention’s board ultimately voted unanimously to remove McRaney from his leadership role. 

In 2017, McRaney filed a lawsuit claiming that the Mission Board had defamed him and interfered with his employment. His allegations, however, were rooted in the same internal religious disagreements that had led to the end of the partnership. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Mission Board, explaining that forcing courts to referee such disputes would entangle judges in questions of religious leadership and mission—something the First Amendment squarely forbids. 

The court steps in to protect the freedom of the faithful 

After eight years in court, the Fifth Circuit ruled in September 2025 that civil courts may not meddle in disputes over internal religious leadership and ministry decisions. Judge Andrew Oldham, writing for the majority, made clear that the law shields churches and ministries from being pulled into court over spiritual disagreements: “the church autonomy doctrine prohibits any court from adjudicating McRaney’s claims.” 

The court emphasized that claims like defamation can’t be used to force religious groups to defend their internal decision-making in court. In making that point, the court cited Becket’s brief twice, noting that these protections apply broadly across different faith traditions and governance structures, including the non-hierarchal fellowships and associations like Baptists. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the relationship between church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

 

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety

Faith behind bars 

Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, honored his vow for nearly twenty years by growing dreadlocks, a profound and living symbol of his unyielding devotion to God. Both Landor and the prison staff knew the law protected his right to keep his dreadlocks, especially after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had recently ruled that forcing Rastafarian inmates to cut their hair violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law passed with bipartisan support to protect religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons. For four months, prison staff allowed Landor to wear his hair or keep it under a rastacap. 

Religious freedom cut short 

With only three weeks left before his release, Landor was transferred to Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. At intake, he explained his beliefs, showed proof of past accommodations, and handed the guard a copy of the Fifth Circuit decision protecting Rastafarian inmates. The guard threw it in the trash. The prison warden then demanded that Landor “prove” his religion by providing documentation from his sentencing judge—something impossible to get immediately. When Landor offered to contact his lawyer, the warden said it was “[t]oo late for that.” Guards proceeded to take him to another room, forcibly handcuff him to a chair, and shave his head bald.  

After his release, Landor sued the warden, the state corrections secretary, and the prison guards for damages. The district court dismissed his claims, and a divided Fifth Circuit upheld that decision. While a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit “emphatically condemn[ed]” the abuse Landor suffered, it nevertheless found that it was bound by prior decisions to rule that RLUIPA does not allow former prisoners to sue individual officials for damages. When Landor asked the full court to rehear his case, the majority of Fifth Circuit judges declined—even while denouncing the abuse as “stark and egregious.” Several Fifth Circuit judges dissented and urged the Supreme Court to take the case. 

Becket defends freedom of the faithful in prison 

On September 2, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court in support of Landor. The brief explains that just like its sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), RLUIPA authorizes damages suits against individual officials who violate religious rights. It also emphasizes that damages are essential to make RLUIPA’s protections real. Without liability for damages, officials can violate religious freedom without consequence. And even absent bad faith, the ordinary realities of prison life—transfers, releases, and time-limited stays—make it very difficult to vindicate religious freedom, even in the most egregious cases like Landor’s. 

Importance to religious liberty:  

  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons. 
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in prison. 

Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention

A fellowship of churches rooted in faith for 180 years

Founded in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. It includes nearly 47,000 independent churches, with nearly 13 million members, who voluntarily cooperate to share the Christian faith, provide advanced Christian training at Baptist seminaries, and demonstrate the love of Christ through ministries such as disaster relief efforts and services to at-risk children and families. While each cooperating church is autonomous and governs itself, the SBC sets standards for “friendly cooperation” based on shared theological commitments. Those commitments include expectations for how churches respond to issues like abuse. 

In 2022, the SBC received a report alleging that a pastor at a cooperating church had engaged in sexual misconduct. To ensure the church was remaining faithful to their shared theological commitments, the SBC sent a letter to the church asking whether it was aware of the allegation and how it addresses such situations.  

The SBC dragged into court for protecting the faithful  

After the letter was sent, the pastor named in the report—Preston Garner—sued the SBC, claiming the letter had harmed his reputation. But the SBC never published the letter publicly, never identified him publicly, and never took formal action against him. All it did was conduct an internal inquiry with cooperating religious bodies to ensure they were meeting their commitments to protect church members from predatory shepherds. The SBC argued in court that the First Amendment protected its right to do that. But a Tennessee trial court and an appeals court allowed the case to move forward—opening the door for courts to second-guess how churches respond to serious allegations within their congregations, and discouraging churches from addressing allegations of abuse. 

The Tennessee high court steps in 

In June 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. At stake is whether churches, denominations, and other religious organizations can be dragged through litigation over how they investigate allegations of pastoral abuse within their own ministries. Becket argues that churches must remain free to protect their faith communities from abuse without facing intrusive and costly lawsuits. The Tennessee high court now has the opportunity to affirm what the U.S. Supreme Court has long made clear: civil courts have no business interfering in how churches govern themselves, particularly when it comes to internal decisions rooted in faith. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the relationship between church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport

First Choice offers hope to those who need it most 

Since 1985, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has accompanied thousands of new and expecting mothers in their time of need, providing counseling, medical services, and tangible support like baby clothes, diapers, maternity clothes, and food. Through its ministries, First Choice has assisted over 36,000 women across New Jersey and has also provided educational programs to thousands of high school students. At its heart, First Choice is a pro-life, faith-based organization. All employees, board members, and volunteers adhere to a statement of faith, vowing to uphold the dignity of every person from conception to natural death. Churches are crucial partners to First Choice’s ministry. Only by staying true to its faith-based mission has First Choice been able to aid and educate so effectively.  

New Jersey goes on a fishing expedition  

In 2023, New Jersey’s Attorney General Matthew Platkin tried to subject First Choice’s internal religious decisions to an aggressive, wide‑ranging investigation. The move was part of a broader campaign Platkin launched in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to target pro-life pregnancy centers. He demanded from First Choice the names tied to roughly 5,000 individual contributions—including those who gave at benefit dinners and through church baby‑bottle campaigns—along with more than a decade of internal records, private communications with churches and supporters, faith‑based policies for staff and volunteers, and even the materials the ministry uses to counsel women. He made these draconian demands without identifying a single complaint or pointing to any evidence that First Choice was violating the law.   

Becket defends First Choice’s vital ministry  

First Choice filed a lawsuit against Platkin in federal court, arguing that forcing it to divulge such sensitive information would make it harder for the ministry to live out its mission and serve women. In 2024, both the trial court and the appeals court sided with the Attorney General. First Choice then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and on June 16, 2025, the Court agreed.   

On August 14, 2025, Becket filed a friend‑of‑the‑court brief at the Supreme Court in support of First Choice. The brief argues that when the government intrudes into a ministry’s internal religious governance—how it makes decisions about its policies, its communications, and its partnerships—federal courts should step in to protect that ministry’s autonomy to manage its religious affairs free from state interference. If state governments can use their wide-ranging investigative powers against internal religious decisions without federal courts upholding the First Amendment, then the very process of state inquiry can pressure religious organizations to change their religious decisions around a state’s desires.   

Importance to religious liberty:   

  • Religious communities: The First Amendment upholds special regard for the authority of religious institutions to govern themselves and ensure their distinctive religious ways of life, whether they be in fashion or not with state regulators.  

United Faculty of Saint Leo v. NLRB and Saint Leo University

A university grounded in faith

Saint Leo University is the oldest Catholic university in Florida. For over a century, it has provided students with a high-quality education rooted in the 1,500-year-old Benedictine tradition. Its religious identity is evident in all aspects of campus life: students take required religion courses, attend Mass, and participate in ministry programs and service projects. Crucifixes hang in each classroom, and a Benedictine monastery stands at the heart of campus. Faculty are expected to support the university’s religious mission, even if they are not Catholic themselves. 

Saint Leo forced into court 

For decades, Saint Leo worked with a faculty union to negotiate over pay, benefits, and workplace policies. But in 2020, the university ended its formal relationship with the union to work directly with its faculty members. Saint Leo’s leadership believed this shift would foster greater unity, strengthen its campus culture, and better reflect its Catholic identity. The new governance model gave the faculty more say in how the school runs; they helped revise the handbook, and the new faculty senate took part in decisions on academic standards, working conditions, compensation, and strategic planning. 

In response, the old faculty union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming the university had broken federal labor rules. Saint Leo responded by explaining that the Board had no authority to intervene in the relationship between a religious school and its faculty. That principle was first set out by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, then fleshed out by other federal courts, and finally adopted by the Board, which said that schools like Saint Leo—religiously affiliated, nonprofit, and publicly committed to their faith—are beyond the Board’s control.

Saint Leo has the right to shepherd its own campus 

In 2023, the Board ruled in Saint Leo’s favor, confirming that the Board has no authority over the school. But the union appealed, asking a federal court to undo that decision and give the Board control over how Saint Leo operates. 

On May 13, 2025, Becket filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of Saint Leo, explaining that forcing Saint Leo to negotiate through a union would interfere with how the university makes decisions rooted in its Catholic mission—like how it teaches, hires, and runs campus life. Allowing a government agency this kind of power over a religious school would set a dangerous precedent, inviting more government control over faith-based education nationwide. One month after Becket filed its brief defending Saint Leo, the union, apparently fearing a loss in the Eleventh Circuit, abandoned its appeal, ending the case in Saint Leo’s favor. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

Chiles v. Salazar

A Nationwide Crisis 

Between 2017 and 2021, the number of American young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria—an experience of severe distress over their biological sex—increased 300%. Research shows that the vast majority of these children will grow out of their distress naturally if allowed to go through puberty unhindered. Nevertheless, thousands of these children have instead been put through a “gender transition,” including a regime of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. There is no reliable evidence that these procedures offer any long-term benefits, and abundant evidence that they cause lasting harms—including increased risk of cancer, loss of bone density, sexual dysfunction, and permanent sterilization. 

Because of these harms, 25 states and several European countries have banned or severely restricted gender transitions for children. And victims of this treatment are increasingly coming forward, asking why they were offered medical treatment to change their bodies, instead of compassionate care to help them navigate natural puberty and careful counseling to help them heal from the underlying causes of their discomfort. (See their stories.) 

Counselors Can Help 

Faith-based counselors nationwide help youth experiencing gender dysphoria by taking a more cautious approach. They talk with children to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, help them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible life-altering medical intervention. This approach is supported by the best available scientific evidence and supported by recently enacted laws in dozens of states and several European countries. 

Colorado, however, banned counselors from using a cautious approach. Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their discomfort, state law requiredcounselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born in the wrong body—and only allowed counseling that assists a child in undergoing a gender transition. As a result, therapists who offered compassionate talk therapy, like Kaley Chiles, faced the loss of their license and fines of up to $5,000. Meanwhile, Colorado permitted a wide range of high-risk treatments for youth mental illness—including medical marijuana, psychiatric hospitalization, electroconvulsive therapy, and surgeries that remove healthy body parts. But when it came to simple conversation aimed at helping a child accept her body, Colorado imposed a total ban. 

A defense of compassionate counseling 

On June 13, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Chiles. The brief argued that Colorado’s ban on talk therapy disproportionately harms religious children and silences one side of an important medical debate—punishing counselors who want to help children work through the underlying causes of their distress without rushing into irreversible medical procedures. The brief urged the Court to protect the ability of therapists to offer compassionate care that reflects both sound science and their deeply held beliefs. 

Colorado wasn’t the only state targeting compassionate counseling for children experiencing gender dysphoria. In Michigan, Becket defended Catholic therapist Emily McJones and a local Catholic Charities counseling ministry in a case challenging a similar state law. Like Chiles, they asked the courts to protect their ability to help children in distress without being forced to steer them toward life-altering medical interventions. In December 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with Becket’s clients, becoming the first federal appeals court to block a statewide counseling ban of this kind. 

In its 8-1 ruling on March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law restricted speech based on the speaker’s viewpoint and must be subjected to the most rigorous constitutional scrutiny. The Court cited Becket’s victory in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer. 

The Court held that government attempts to control what counselors may say violates the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch said that “the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.” 

Importance to religious liberty:  

  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other. 
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. 
  • Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions, and Becket defends the right of parents to guide their own children on such matters.    

 

Etienne v. Ferguson

A sanctuary for the soul

Since the Church’s earliest centuries, Catholics have approached the sacrament of confession seeking mercy and reconciliation—what is said during that time is completely confidential. That protection is known as the seal of confession or sacramental seal, and it is one of the oldest and most solemn rules in the Catholic Church. A priest is bound by sacred vow to never speak about what he hears during the sacrament of confession – not even to the penitent himself. The seal is so central to the Catholic faith that any priest who breaks it is automatically excommunicated.

The Church teaches that priests must defend the seal even at the cost of their lives. History is replete with examples of priests who have been martyred for refusing to violate the sacramental seal—like St. John Nepomucene, Fr. Andreas Faulhaber, and Blessed Felipe Císcar Puig. That same commitment holds true today in parishes across Washington. 

Clergy singled out while lawyers get a pass on reporting 

In 2025, Washington passed a law requiring clergy to report suspected abuse or neglect, even when the information is learned during confession. Despite purporting to protect minors from “abuse and harm,” the law did not extend to others who might hear—or are even more likely to hear—about the same information, like lawyers or family members. Instead, it singled out clergy and threatened them with up to 364 days in jail, a $5,000 fine, and potential civil liability if they refused to break the seal of confession.

The Church already requires priests to report abuse and neglect to law enforcement and other state authorities  

The Catholic Church in Washington has spent years strengthening its approach to protecting minors from abuse. All Church personnel at every diocese in the state are required by diocesan policy to report any instances of abuse. These policies cover diocesan parishes, schools, and other ministries. Even beyond that—and beyond state law—all Catholic priests in Washington state are required by diocesan policies to report to law enforcement even suspected instances of abuse. Across the Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Spokane and Yakima, priests are required to report suspected abuse to law enforcement or child protection agencies.  

On May 29, 2025, Becket, WilmerHale, and First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit against Washington’s Governor, Attorney General, and other prosecuting authorities on behalf of Archbishop Paul Étienne, Bishop Thomas Daly, Bishop Joseph Tyson, and several other clergy. The lawsuit asked the court to stop Washington from punishing priests for refusing to violate an ancient and untouchable sacrament Christ instituted over 2,000 years ago. 

Days before the law was scheduled to take effect, a Tacoma federal district court blocked the law and protected the sacred seal of confession.  

In a landmark settlement approved by the Court on October 14, 2025, the State of Washington agreed to not force priests to violate the sacramental seal. Now clergy throughout the state won’t have to make the impossible choice between obeying their faith or following the law.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod v. Concordia University Texas

A kingdom “not of this world” 

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes that its Church is fundamentally “not of this world,” and must be protected from control by the State. These beliefs, shaped by the tradition’s historical suffering of persecution and state co-option, have caused the Church 130 years ago to create a civil corporation—the LCMS—to represent the Church before civil courts and to manage the Church’s property, contracts, and legal affairs. But the Church’s ecclesiastical body—known as the Synod—exercises the Church’s spiritual authority and governs the Church’s religious beliefs. This distinction between spiritual and secular authorities is a key religious belief underpinning the Church’s organization and governance. This structure allows the Church to stay focused on its religious mission while LCMS supports that mission, among other places, in court. 

A university for the faithful  

In 1926, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod established Concordia University Texas to help train pastors, teachers, and other church workers to serve in Lutheran congregations. LCMS paid for the land, buildings, furniture, and the books in the library. From the start, Concordia was not just another college; it was an extension of the Church’s religious mission. 

Concordia’s attempt to separate from the Church 

Yet almost a century after it was founded by the Church, Concordia’s Board of Regents voted in November 2022—without Church approval—to cut LCMS out of the picture. It rewrote the school’s charter and bylaws to eliminate LCMS’s oversight and claimed the school was no longer bound by Church authority. The board asserted exclusive control over who sits on the board, what theology is taught, and how Concordia defines its relationship to the Church. 

When the Church learned of these events, it immediately requested that Concordia return to the Church’s fold, but Concordia refused. The Church’s highest authority reviewed Concordia’s actions and ruled them invalid as a matter of Church law. But again, Concordia refused to comply. Left with no other recourse, LCMS filed a lawsuit in federal court to preserve the Church’s role and protect the school’s mission. 

The law protects the Church’s right to organize itself 

Even though LCMS has always handled the Church’s legal affairs—including its relationship with Concordia—a federal court said it couldn’t bring the case in court. The court claimed that only the Church’s spiritual body, the Synod, had the right to sue. But the Synod is a purely spiritual body. It doesn’t own property, have bank accounts, sign contracts, or go to court. That’s LCMS’s role—and it has been for 130 years.  

This arrangement isn’t just practical—it reflects the Church’s belief in a clear distinction between spiritual leadership and civil authority. LCMS handles legal affairs; the Synod leads on doctrine and spiritual matters. To force the Synod to serve LCMS’s role would violate the Church’s beliefs that God’s kingdom isn’t subject to state control and create chaotic uncertainty about the ability of churches in general to select a form of association before the state to order their civil affairs in support of a spiritual mission and fellowship. On April 28, 2025, Becket appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to ensure that churches—not courts—get the final say in how they’re organized. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

 

Photo: David Prasad, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond

Opening doors to education in the Sooner State 

Families throughout Oklahoma, especially those living in rural school districts, need more educational options for their children.  For over a century, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa have operated Catholic schools to serve Oklahoma families. These schools offer parents the opportunity to provide their children with an education that nurtures both the heart and mind, giving students the tools they need to thrive. To extend this rich tradition to more Oklahomans—especially those in rural and underserved communities—the dioceses launched a virtual charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore to join the over 30 privately-run charter schools in the state.  

St. Isidore targeted for its faith  

Shortly after St. Isidore signed its contract to operate as a charter school, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the charter school board. Drummond argued that St. Isidore should not be allowed to participate in the state charter school programs simply because it is religious. He claimed that approving a Catholic virtual charter school would essentially create a state-sponsored religious public school, even though the school, the Diocese, and the charter school board all agree that St. Isidore continues to be a private school. In 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the School Board from allowing St. Isidore to participate in the program. 

This is yet another example of government officials attempting to exclude religious groups from publicly available education benefits. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear guidance in Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson—which held that religious institutions cannot be denied access to public funding simply because of their religious character—states continue to take steps that shut out religious schools from programs offered to other private institutions. This is taking place not just in Oklahoma but also in Maine and California where state governments are defying Carson and blocking otherwise-qualified religious schools from participating in programs intended to help rural and disabled students. This case is an opportunity to close some of the loopholes that states have been using to continue excluding religious organizations from generally available funding.    

Becket takes a stand to defend Orthodox Jews 

On March 12, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of St. Isidore and on behalf of the Orthodox Union, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish synagogue organization, representing nearly 1,000 congregations as well as more than 400 Jewish non-public K-12 schools across the United States.  

For many Orthodox Jews, sending children to Jewish day school is a requirement of their faith. Like other schools in America, Orthodox Jewish schools often rely on government funding to provide additional security measures and much-needed assistance to students with disabilities. If states are allowed to continue skirting Carson and other Supreme Court rulings, Orthodox Jewish communities will be harmed. Oklahoma’s attempt to label religious schools as “state actors”—simply because they receive government funding—would force Orthodox Jewish schools to choose between maintaining their religious identity and protecting their students. That’s bad for Orthodox Jewish schools, bad for the families who depend on St. Isidore, and bad for diverse religious families across the country.  

On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. Less than a month later, the Supreme Court split evenly 4-4, leaving the lower court’s ruling in place and providing no answer on the constitutional questions in the case.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.   

Rolovich v. Washington State University

A Man of Faith and Football 

Football has been a part of Nick Rolovich’s life for decades. In college, he played quarterback at the University of Hawaii, where he commanded a high-powered offense and led his team to a winning record during the 2001 season. After graduation, Rolovich began coaching and quickly built a reputation for his unique “run and shoot” offensive system. In 2020, he was named head coach of the Washington State Cougars, stepping into the role just before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted college athletics.  

In August of 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued a vaccine mandate for all state employees, including WSU staff. That summer, Coach Rolovich discerned that taking the vaccine would violate his conscience as guided by his Catholic faith. Citing prayer, personal study, advice from a priest, and Catholic teachings on therapeutic proportionality and complicity with abortion, Rolovich concluded he could not in good conscience receive the vaccine.

Coach Rolovich sidelined for religious beliefs 

Coach Rolovich soon informed WSU’s athletic director, Patrick Chun, that he planned to request a religious exemption from the mandate, which was permitted by the state’s rules. In response, Chun, who had previously compared Rolovich’s vaccine beliefs to those of a “cult,” warned the coach that the exemption would be hard to get and he would “forever question” his character if he submitted his religious request. Despite Chun’s hostility, Coach Rolovich pressed forward and submitted his request for a religious exemption.  

Meanwhile, Chun—together with the Board of Regents and WSU’s President—had developed what they privately called the “Rolo strategy” to ensure that Coach Rolovich’s requested religious exemption would be denied. After WSU’s standard blind-review panel had determined that his beliefs were religious, sincerely held, and approved an exemption, Chun and the athletics department challenged the decision. They pressured WSU’s Human Resources department to reverse its approval by questioning the sincerity and religious nature of Rolovich’s beliefs. Similarly, although WSU’s Environmental Health & Safety department had proposed accommodations, Chun rejected them, citing opposition from donors and supposed harms to WSU’s “brand.” On October 18, 2021, WSU fired Rolovich with cause. 

Personal foul, targeting, Washington State   

On November 14, 2022, Coach Rolovich filed a lawsuit against WSU to hold the school accountable for firing him over his religious beliefs. He argues that WSU officials targeted him from the start, ignoring their own policies and bowing to pressure from donors and the media even though accommodation is legally required. In January 2025, the Eastern District Court for the District of Washington ruled in favor of WSU. Becket has stepped in to help Coach Rolovich appeal his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.   

 

Photo Credit: Darryl Oumi via Getty Images

Southern Methodist University v. South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church

A university founded on faith 

The United Methodist Church has a long history of establishing and overseeing institutions of higher education. In 1911, the Church founded SMU to advance this educational mission. From the start, the Church played a hands-on role in overseeing SMU, guiding the University’s leadership and operations consistent with its faith. For over a century, SMU’s governing documents consistently affirmed that SMU would be “forever owned, maintained, and controlled” by the Church. This gave the Church authority over key matters such as trustee appointments and the University’s strategic direction. 

SMU seeks to sever its ties from the Church  

In 2019, SMU attempted to break its longstanding connection with the Church by making changes to its governing documents. The University’s Board of Trustees voted to claim ultimate authority over the University, sidelining the Church’s role as the guiding force behind SMU’s educational mission. These changes were made without the Church’s approval, violating the rights guaranteed in the University’s founding documents. On December 4, 2019, the Church filed a lawsuit to protect its right to continue overseeing SMU and ensure its mission remained aligned with the Church. 

The law protects the Church’s educational mission 

On January 2, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Texas Supreme Court in support of the Church. The brief argues that the Church has the right to govern SMU, as it has for over a century, without interference from the state. It also emphasizes that the law does not allow civil governments to meddle in religious organizations’ decisions about their internal affairs. When the Church founded SMU, it ensured the University would remain under its control, including the right to approve any changes to SMU’s governing documents. Religious institutions have the freedom to decide matters of governance, faith, and doctrine without civil government interference. 

On June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Church’s lawsuit could continue, giving it the ability to fight for its right to guide SMU’s direction consistent with the Church’s faith.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

Dier v. Landry

America’s tradition of religious symbols in the public square 

Religious symbols have been a fixture of American public life since before the founding. Just after declaring independence, the Continental Congress tasked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams with designing a national seal. Both Franklin and Jefferson proposed overtly religious designs drawn from the Hebrew Bible: Franklin’s featured Moses causing the Red Sea to overwhelm Pharaoh, and Jefferson’s depicted the Israelites guided by a cloud and a pillar of fire. While the Great Seal eventually adopted a different design, it still includes religious imagery—an eye of Providence above the Latin phrase “He [God] has favored our undertakings.” 

Over the centuries, many state and local governments have followed the Founders’ lead by including religious elements in their flags, seals, and buildings to commemorate history and culture and to acknowledge the beliefs of their citizens. Among the most enduring of these religious symbols is the Ten Commandments, which is even featured prominently on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law 

Louisiana recently passed H.B. 71, which requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms by January 1, 2025. The displays must contain a specific context statement explaining the history of the Commandments in American public education, and schools have flexibility in how to design them. For example, schools may choose to incorporate the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, and the Northwest Ordinance. No school board is required to spend its funds to purchase the displays; they must instead accept private donations or donated displays. 

Schools can also be even more creative in implementing the law. For example, mockups of potential displays show how the Ten Commandments can be used to draw comparisons between the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Moses, explain the structure of the House of Representatives, or explore important Supreme Court cases. 

Courts shall not rid Louisiana of religious symbols 

Soon after the governor signed H.B. 71 into law—and before any actual displays ever appeared in any classroom—a teacher in New Orleans filed a lawsuit against Louisiana in federal district court. He claims the displays are religiously “coercive” in violation of the First Amendment.  

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, and Becket are working together to defend Louisiana’s law. The teacher’s lawsuit is the second attempt to stop Louisiana from following our nation’s long tradition of passively displaying religious symbols within the public view. The other lawsuit, filed by the ACLU, is scheduled to be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 23, 2025. 

Both cases are similar to atheist activist challenges to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins. Becket was able to help beat challenges to the Pledge and Motto. Courts should reject this lawsuit just as they rejected those ones. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. 

 

Roake v. Brumley

America’s tradition of religious symbols in the public square 

Religious symbols have been a fixture of American public life since before the founding. Just after declaring independence, the Continental Congress tasked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams with designing a national seal. Both Franklin and Jefferson proposed overtly religious designs drawn from the Hebrew Bible: Franklin’s featured Moses causing the Red Sea to overwhelm Pharaoh, and Jefferson’s depicted the Israelites guided by a cloud and a pillar of fire. While the Great Seal eventually adopted a different design, it still includes religious imagery—an eye of Providence above the Latin phrase “He (God) has favored our undertakings.” 

Over the centuries, many state and local governments have followed the Founders’ lead by including religious elements in their flags, seals, and buildings to commemorate history and culture and to acknowledge the beliefs that motivated their settlers. Among the most enduring of these religious symbols is the Ten Commandments, which is even featured prominently on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law 

Louisiana recently passed H.B. 71, which requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms by January 1, 2025. The displays must contain a specific context statement explaining the history of the Commandments in American public education, and schools have flexibility in how to design them. For example, schools may choose to incorporate the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, and the Northwest Ordinance. No school board is required to spend its funds to purchase the displays; they must instead accept private donations or donated displays. 

Schools can also be even more creative in implementing the law. For example, mockups of potential displays show  how the Ten Commandments can be used to draw comparisons between the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Moses, explain the structure of the House of Representatives, or explore important Supreme Court cases. 

Courts shall not stop Louisiana from displaying religious symbols 

Just five days after the governor signed H.B. 71 into law—and before any actual displays ever appeared in any classroom—the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana in federal district court. The ACLU claims the displays will harm schoolchildren by forcing them to be in the presence of religious messages in public school classrooms.

With Becket’s help, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga are defending Louisiana against the ACLU lawsuit. Louisiana argues that the ACLU’s lawsuit is premature and should be dismissed because no displays have been installed, and that Louisiana is following a long national tradition of displaying passive religious symbols within the public view. Indeed, this case is very similar to atheist activist challenges to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins. Becket was able to help beat challenges to the Pledge and Motto. Courts should reject this lawsuit just as they rejected those ones.

After a federal judge agreed with the ACLU and temporarily put Louisiana’s law on hold, Louisiana filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit left the lower court’s ruling in place. On October 6, 2025, the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel’s opinion and agreed to rehear the case “en banc,” or in front of all active judges on the court. 

After oral argument in early 2026, the full Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling and allowed Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in schools. The Fifth Circuit determined that the ACLU could not sue to block future displays no one has ever seen and whose details have not yet been decided, explaining that because the Ten Commandments have a “dual character” as both religiously and historically significant, there was no “categorical rule against their display on public property.”  

The ACLU has 90 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. 

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists v. Horton

A global community of faith and service  

The Seventh-day Adventist Church traces its origins to a religious revival movement that started in the 1840s. Today, the Church is made up of over 22 million members and is one of the world’s most racially and ethnically diverse Chrisitan denominations. The Church operates ministries in over 120 countries, offering education and humanitarian relief to those in need.  

The Church’s faith is evident in all that it does, including in its workplace culture and environment. For example, many Church-run institutions begin each day with worship services, which include devotional speakers, prayer, musical worship, and Bible study. The Church also expects its employees to uphold and model the faith in every aspect of their lives. This includes following Seventh-day Adventist teachings on modest dress, marriage and sexuality, healthful living, and observance of the Saturday Sabbath. 

The Church’s religious hiring practices are threatened  

The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, headquartered in Maryland, serves as the central governing body of the global Church, overseeing its ministries throughout the world. Adventist Risk Management (ARM), also based in Maryland, is the insurance and risk management provider for the Church and has been serving Adventist ministries since 1935. 

A recent change in Maryland law, however, threatens these ministries. In 2023, the Maryland Supreme Court reinterpreted the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, significantly limiting the law’s religious exemption that had previously allowed Seventh-day Adventist organizations to hire only those who share their faith. Now, only employees who directly advance the Church’s core mission can be hired based on shared beliefs. And courts get to decide what are the Church’s core missions. As a result, the Church’s long-standing hiring practices conflict with Maryland law, jeopardizing the Church’s ability to fulfill its religious mission. 

The law protects the Church’s freedom to live its faith      

On October 2, 2024, Becket filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of the General Conference and ARM. The complaint argues that as religious ministries, the General Conference and ARM must have the freedom to ensure all their employees share and uphold the Church’s beliefs. It also argues that this new interpretation of Maryland law requires courts to delve into complex questions about what the Church’s core mission is and which employees are essential to advancing that mission—matters that are deeply tied to the Church’s beliefs. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that courts have no business meddling in such matters of a Church’s governance, faith, and doctrine.   

In June 2025, the district court ruled against the Church. The General Conference appealed the decision on September 8, 2025, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to protect the Church’s ability to operate according to its religious beliefs, without government interference. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

Photo Credit: Seventh-day Adventist Church

 

Lasche v. New Jersey Department of Children and Families

Religious couple opens their home to children in need 

Mike and Jen Lasche are a Christian couple in New Jersey who have long provided love and support to foster children. Jen’s deep interest in fostering children began in her own childhood; she was adopted and grew up in a family that fostered over 22 children. Mike and Jen are also strongly motivated by their Christian faith to foster children, driven by the biblical command to care for “orphans and widows.”  

The Lasches first became foster parents in 2007. They spent about six to eight weeks in initial classes and around thirty hours on classes, paperwork, and interviews. Over the years, Mike and Jen have repeatedly received recognition from the state for their service as foster parents. From the start, Mike and Jen have been transparent with New Jersey about their entire lives—including their love of God, their Christian faith, and their desire to help children in need, all from a Christian perspective.

New Jersey removes foster child from loving home

In 2017, the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency asked the Lasches if they would be willing to foster two girls who had recently been removed from another foster home. Mike and Jen happily welcomed the girls into their home, taking them on hikes, visits to the museum, and frequent trips to the beach. They also attended Church as a family, participated in family devotions each morning, and studied the Bible together. In fact, the placement was such a great fitthat the state told Mike and Jen they would have the first choice to adopt the girls when the time came.  

However, the state later informed the Lasches that they had identified a same-sex couple in Illinois interested in adopting the girls—but hid from Mike, Jen, and the girls that this was a same-sex couple. From that moment on, the state became increasingly hostile toward the Lasches and one of their foster children over their Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality. They began to treat Mike and Jen’s faith as a disqualifying factor for being both adoptive and foster parents, subjecting them to repeated interrogations and questioning their ability to provide a loving home. In fact, one caseworker remarked that the foster child in Mike and Jen’s home would require counseling to deal with the “harm” of hearing Christian teachings.

A state-provided therapist also used intimidation to pressure one of their foster children to abandon her own religious beliefs out of fear that they had been influenced by Mike and Jen. And the state foster employees later interrogated that same child in a Dunkin’ Donuts parking lot, trying to convince her that she didn’t really want to live with Mike and Jen. When none of this worked, the state then took the child from the Lasche’s home—equating their religious beliefs with emotional trauma—and then suspended Mike and Jen’s ability to foster other children. As one caseworker said, the Lasches religious beliefs about marriage are “not something we can support,” so foster children could not be in their home. After a decade serving children, the Lasches were heartbroken—and so was the child who was ripped from their home. 

The law protects religious families and the children they serve 

On November 19, 2018, the Lasches filed a lawsuit against New Jersey to restore their ability to serve as foster parents consistent with their faith. They argued that that the state retaliated against them for their religious beliefs.

After a court initially dismissed their case, the Lasches appealed, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, allowing Mike and Jen’s lawsuit to continue in the lower court. On July 26, 2024, the Lasches, with Becket’s help, asked for permission to file an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. They argue that New Jersey violated their rights because the law protects the ability of religious people and organizations to foster children in need without having to forfeit their beliefs.

Additionally, recent Becket cases, including Burke v. Walsh and the unanimous Supreme Court victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, make clear that state child welfare agencies cannot exclude, suspend, or target religious families because of their faith. A federal court agreed with Becket that these new claims can now proceed against New Jersey, ensuring that the state cannot engage in this kind of religious discrimination again. New Jersey should support loving foster families, not banish them from public life. 

In May 2026, the district court denied New Jersey’s request to dismiss the case. The ruling is a significant victory for the Lasches, who have been fighting against the state’s discrimination for almost a decade. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: The government discriminates against religious groups if it prevents them from providing services simply based on their religious beliefs.

Kuilema v. Calvin University

A university founded on a religious mission 

Founded in 1876 by the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin University exists to prepare students for lifelong learning, scholarship, worship, and service. Calvin faculty are expected to subscribe to the confessional standards of the Christian Reformed Church and to integrate faith and learning in their teaching and scholarship. A focal point of university life is its chapel, which holds daily services to provide students and staff a break from work and time to seek God together. Beyond campus, Calvin extends its degree program offerings into Handlon Correctional Facility through the Calvin Prison Initiative and provides students with opportunities to serve in the local Grand Rapids community. For example, Calvin students help tutor refugee children at the Refugee Education Center, offer companionship to patients at Gentiva Hospice, and provide homebound seniors with meals through Meals on Wheels Western Michigan. 

Faithful university in court for its beliefs 

To ensure its religious mission remains strong, Calvin asks its employees to agree to uphold its Christian beliefs in word and deed. While the university allows for some personal disagreements with church teaching, it has clear guidelines for teaching, scholarship, and personal conduct that all employees must follow, including expectations about how to handle disagreement. In 2021, a professor broke these guidelines when he officiated a same-sex marriage in violation of Calvin’s religious beliefs. After multiple attempts to resolve disagreements with the professor, Calvin decided not to renew his contract. The professor then sued Calvin under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming that the university had discriminated against him for his participation in the same-sex wedding ceremony and should be held liable for adhering to its religious beliefs.   

The law protects Calvin’s freedom to live its faith      

On June 13, 2024, Becket filed an opening brief at the Michigan Court of Appeals to protect Calvin’s ability to operate consistent with its faith. The brief argues that as a religious university, Calvin has the freedom to ensure that those who teach the faith to students uphold and model its beliefs. Additionally, allowing courts to meddle in disputes over Calvin’s religious beliefs about marriage violates the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled—and recently in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru—that religious institutions have the freedom to decide matters of governance, faith, and doctrine without courts getting involved. 

In addition to Becket, Calvin is also represented by attorneys Stephen J. van Stempvoort and Jacob L. Carlton of Miller Johnson PLC. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

Catholic Charities v. Whitmer

Children Are Struggling 

Between 2017 and 2021, the number of American young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria—an experience of severe distress over their biological sex—increased 300%. Research shows that the vast majority of these children will grow out of their distress naturally if allowed to go through puberty unhindered. Nevertheless, thousands of these children have instead been put through a “gender transition,” including a regime of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. There is no reliable evidence that these procedures offer any long-term benefits, and abundant evidence that they cause lasting harms—including loss of bone density, increased risk of cancer, sexual dysfunction, and permanent sterilization.  

Because of these harms, 26 states and five European countries have banned or severely restricted gender transitions for children. And victims of this treatment are increasingly coming forward, asking why they were offered medical treatment to change their bodies, instead of compassionate care to help them navigate natural puberty and careful counseling to help them heal from the underlying causes of their discomfort. (See their stories.) 

Counselors Can Help 

Emily McJones is a Catholic therapist living in Lansing, Michigan. After serving for years as a therapist for suicidal teens, Emily opened her own counseling practice, Little Flower Counseling, where she helps both children and adults with a wide range of issues. At Little Flower, Emily integrates evidence-based psychotherapy techniques with her religious beliefs, including the belief that God made human beings male or female. 

Some of Emily’s clients are children experiencing discomfort with their biological sex. Emily helps these children by talking with them to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, allow them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible life-altering medical intervention. In Emily’s experience, this cautious approach is the best way to help children experiencing such discomfort. This approach is also supported by the best available scientific evidence and by recently enacted laws in 26 states and five European countries, which have banned or severely restricted medical gender transitions for minors. 

Michigan Muzzles Counselors 

Unfortunately, Michigan recently enacted a new law that prevents counselors from using this cautious, science-backed approach to helping children in distress. Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their challenges, the law requires counselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born on the wrong bodies and to “provide[] assistance to [a child] undergoing a gender transition”—which often includes puberty blocking drugs, cross sex hormones, and surgeries that cause irreversible harm. As a result, counselors like Emily, who believe they have an ethical and religious duty not to rush children into harmful, life-altering medical procedures, face the prospect of losing their licenses and fines of up to $250,000. The law thus deprives children and families of the compassionate counseling they desperately need. 

Counselors Take a Stand  

On July 12, 2024, Emily, along with the local Catholic Charities’ counseling ministry, filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Michigan. They argue that the state’s law blocks them from counseling in a way that is consistent with the best available scientific evidence and violates the constitutional protections for freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and parental rights. They also argue that the laws will have real consequences for youth struggling with their biological sex—kids who already suffer from high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. The counselors are asking the court to protect their freedom to offer cautious, compassionate therapy to help these children. They do not want to deny children the counseling services they need to live whole, integrated lives. 

After a federal court refused to block Michigan’s new law, Becket appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

On December 17, 2025, the federal appeals court protected the Catholic therapists’ ability to provide compassionate, professional counseling to children struggling to accept their biological sex. In a 2-1 opinion, the court wrote that Michigan’s law is textbook viewpoint discrimination and violates counselors’ rights.  

Importance to religious liberty:  

  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other. 
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. 
  • Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions, and Becket defends the right of parents to guide their own children on such matters.

Frankel v. Regents of the University of California

UCLA’s exclusion of Jews

In the months following the terrorist attacks on Israel in October of 2023, pro-Hamas, anti-Jewish protests emerged throughout the country, most notably on college campuses. In spring 2024, extremist students and outside agitators at UCLA set up barricades in the most popular area of campus and established an encampment in violation of the school’s policies.  

Those agitators refused to let students through unless they disavowed Israel’s right to exist. The effect of this encampment was a Jew Exclusion Zone, which segregated Jewish students and faculty with religious and ethnic obligations not to condemn Israel, preventing them from accessing the encampment and other parts of campus, including the campus’s most popular undergraduate library and classroom buildings. The activists used checkpoints, built barriers, and locked arms to prevent Jews from walking through the encampment.  They also created an identification system, giving wristbands to those who had passed their anti-Israel ideological test and preventing those without one from entering. 

For a full week, UCLA’s administration failed to clear the Jew Exclusion Zone and instead ordered campus police to stand down and allow the illegal encampment to stay. The administration even stationed security staff around the encampment to keep students unapproved by the protesters out of the area. Even after the first encampment was cleared, activists continued to stage encampments and occupations of public spaces at UCLA.  

Jewish students and faculty harassed, intimidated, and assaulted

Agitators within the encampments viciously targeted Jewish students and faculty. Yitzchok Frankel, a law student and father of four, faced antisemitic harassment and was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Joshua Ghayoum, a sophomore and history major, was repeatedly blocked from attending classes, meetings, and study sessions. He also heard chants at the encampment like “death to Israel” and “death to Jews.” Eden Shemuelian, another law student, had her final exam studies severely compromised when she was forced to walk around the encampment to access the law school and forced to endure antisemitic chants rising from the Jew Exclusion Zone as she studied. Dr. Kamran Shamsa, a cardiologist and faculty member at UCLA’s medical school, was shoved to the ground by activists and stopped from accessing public parts of campus by UCLA security. These students and faculty were hardly alone; many other Jews were assaulted by antisemitic agitators. 

Even after UCLA’s belated decision to disband the initial encampment, agitators continued to erect encampments replete with anti-Semitic imagery and, in one case, an attack on a campus rabbi. 

UCLA taken to court over Jew Exclusion Zone  

With Becket’s help, three students filed a federal lawsuit against UCLA on June 5, 2024. They asked the court to hold UCLA accountable for enabling the Jew Exclusion Zone and other encampments and to ensure that no such encampment exists on campus in the future.   

On August 13, 2024, the court ordered UCLA to protect its Jewish students and allow them to access all parts of campus, saying that the previous exclusion of Jewish students from parts of the UCLA campus was “unimaginable” and “abhorrent.” On October 22, the three UCLA Jewish students, joined by Dr. Shamsa, filed an amended complaint with the help of Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. It highlighted UCLA’s continued failure to stop antisemitism on campus and described how student groups responded to the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s brutal terrorist attacks on Israel, with one student group even memorializing the October 7 massacre.  

The complaint also mentioned a report by UCLA’s own antisemitism task force, which sharply criticized the university for its antisemitic actions and environment. The report, which surveyed 428 members of UCLA’s Jewish community, detailed the systematic exclusion of Jews from UCLA’s campus and documents over 100 reports of individuals who were physically attacked or threatened. The task force noted that it was “troubled by the defense that was offered by the university” in this case and urged the university to stop fighting it: “Jews and Israelis have been victims of discrimination and harassment on the UCLA campus, and the University should commit to remediation, rather than fighting the case.”  

UCLA finally agrees to end antisemitic exclusion

Despite losing in court, UCLA defended its actions for over a year, denying responsibility and even questioning whether Jewish students had been harmed. Finally, on July 29, 2025, UCLA surrendered. The university accepted judgment resolving the students’ and professor’s claims under the First Amendment and numerous civil rights laws, including Title VI and the Ku Klux Klan Act. It agreed to make permanent the court’s order prohibiting exclusion of Jewish faculty and students and to pay $6.13 million in damages and fees.  

UCLA boasts of its commitment to diversity and its welcoming campus environment. But it failed miserably to live up to those ideals when it comes to the Jewish members of its community. No person should have to fear for their safety when walking around any public space or pass a religious test to access any public area, let alone on the campus of a prominent American university. The court’s permanent order helps ensure that Jewish members of the UCLA community will not have to face such “abhorrent” barriers on their own campus again.  

Importance to religious liberty:   

  • Education: Students don’t give up their rights when they attend a public college. Establishments of higher education are meant to ensure that all students have equal access to campus and receive equal protection under the law.   
  • Free Speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. It also prevents the government from forcing individuals to parrot approved opinions. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other. 
  • Public Square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. This includes public university campuses, which are reflections of the students who attend them and the taxpayers who support them, including religious students and taxpayers. 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC

Stronger protections for pregnant women, healthy pregnancies, and healthy babies  

Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) in 2022 to provide more robust protections for pregnant women in the workforce. Among those protections, the PWFA makes it illegal for employers to deny reasonable accommodations—like time off, bathroom breaks, and modified work schedules—to women who have physical limitations brought on by pregnancy or childbirth. The PWFA also bars employers from denying employment opportunities for pregnant women because they require accommodations. During the PWFA’s Congressional debates, lawmakers made it clear that the PWFA does not require employers to accommodate abortion. In fact, not a single legislator supporting the law argued on the floor of Congress that the law concerned abortion—and the law doesn’t mention abortion at all. Instead, they emphasized over and over that the law provided “very simple” protections for pregnant women, and that it was hard to imagine “a more commonsense, less controversial” law. 

Throughout the legislative process, USCCB—an organization of Catholic bishops who are the senior religious leadership of the Catholic Church in the United States—enthusiastically supported the PWFA’s passage. That support reflected the law’s purpose of protecting the well-being of expecting mothers and their unborn children, a goal consistent with the Catholic Church’s belief in the inherent dignity of all human life. 

A law to protect pregnant women is weaponized 

Despite the law’s text, purpose, and legislative history, and after a sharply divided 3-2 vote, EEOC—the federal agency that Congress granted authority to issue regulations under the law—mandated that employers nationwide must accommodate employee abortions. The rule requires that employers must knowingly agree to allow their employees to take leave to have an abortion. Employers cannot enforce life-affirming workplace policies and practices against employees who choose to obtain an abortion. Employers also may not communicate about pro-life beliefs in ways that “interfere” with abortion accommodations, and must censor some forms of pro-life employee speech.

At the same time that EEOC issued its new and unprecedented abortion mandate, it also tore down existing religious liberty protections. EEOC will consider these defenses only on a “case-by-case” basis—i.e., after expensive and entangling investigations and litigation.  

Catholic leaders stand against federal abortion mandate 

On May 22, 2024, several Catholic ministries filed a lawsuit in federal district court to block EEOC from enforcing its abortion mandate. The ministries believe EEOC hijacked a law that was intended to protect women and their unborn children and weaponized it against more than 130 million Americans to turn their workplaces into pro-abortion zones. After a ruling that only partially protected the ministries from the abortion mandate in May 2025, Becket appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 3, 2025, the lower court agreed to protect the Catholic ministries from the mandate while the case is ongoing. The ministries are continuing to seek full protection of their religious beliefs in the district court and the Fifth Circuit. 

The EEOC’s actions follow a lengthy and sorry history of federal agencies weaponizing their regulatory authority against religious objectors. For nearly 15 years, federal agencies attempted to impose a mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortion pills. That meant groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns that runs homes for the elderly poor, had to go to court for years to receive an exemption from the mandate. And after all that litigation, the federal government ultimately admitted that it never needed to conscript the Little Sisters or other religious objectors in the first place. EEOC shouldn’t repeat the same illegal error, forcing employers who object to abortion into a needless decades-long legal battle. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Federal mandate cases: Winning this case confirms important precedent that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals, employers, and organizations must be free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, both privately and publicly, at home and in the workplace.
  • Free Speech: Religious people have a right to hold onto and profess their teachings, including in the workplace and not just in houses of worship. 
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without threat of government interference. 

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

Bringing together faith, service, and sports 

Founded in 1954, FCA is a religious ministry that supports student-athletes committed to living out their Christian faith on and off the playing field. FCA helps form “huddles” on college, high school, and middle school campuses, where student-athletes come together for prayer, testimonies, and Bible study. In addition to its huddle ministry, FCA operates athletic camps and other community service events for tens of thousands of students annually. FCA clubs are open to students of all faiths or none, and there is no membership requirement for those who participate. 

FCA has long served schools in Washington, D.C. Each year, FCA’s DC chapter offers $30,000 in scholarships for local student-athletes to attend FCA-run summer sports camps. FCA also partners with the D.C. Dream Center, a community center in Southeast D.C., to host “all abilities” sports camps for student-athletes with disabilities. Beyond helping students gather for fellowship and service, FCA DC’s huddles help local schools address high rates of student absences—a well-known problem in the District. FCA meetings, which are on-campus and during the school day, build high-quality friendships among students and encourage them to attend class.  

FCA sidelined for its faith 

In 2022, an FCA huddle returned to campus at Jackson-Reed High School in D.C. after a brief pause during the pandemic. Two weeks later, however, a part-time freshman baseball coach told local FCA staff that, because of FCA’s beliefs, there was “no place for a group like FCA in a public school.” He filed a complaint with D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) accusing Jackson-Reed of violating the District of Columbia Human Rights Act by allowing FCA on campus.  

Because of the coach’s complaint, DCPS immediately stripped the Jackson-Reed FCA huddle of official recognition, stopped it from meeting, removed it from the list of student clubs, deleted its club website, and launched a formal investigation into FCA. During the investigation, FCA representatives explained to DCPS that any student is welcome to participate in FCA huddles; all FCA asks is that its student leaders—those who lead prayer, Bible study, and religious teaching—agree with its religious beliefs. Despite these facts, DCPS kicked FCA off campus at Jackson-Reed, and offered to let Jackson-Reed back on campus only if it assured that anyone could lead FCA, “regardless of … religious affiliation, or personal belief.” As a result, Jackson-Reed students who wished to meet as a recognized FCA huddle on campus, couldn’t. 

FCA seeks equal access to public school campuses 

After losing official recognition, FCA unsuccessfully appealed the decision to DCPS, pointing out that DCPS could not exclude FCA from campus because it asks its leaders to agree with its beliefs. In fact, Jackson-Reed already recognized many student groups formed around particular beliefs and characteristics—including the Asian Student Union, which is “for students of Asian heritage,” and the Wise Club, which offers a “separate space for young women.” DCPS itself even runs entire schools that condition admission on race and sex. Thus, DCPS’s selective targeting of FCA over its religious leadership requirements clearly violates the law. 

With the help of Becket, FCA filed a federal lawsuit against DCPS on May 7, 2024. The complaint points to a similar Becket case involving FCA, Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District, in which an FCA club won its right to return to campus after being harassed and kicked out of public schools in San Jose, CA, for its leadership requirements. The “en banc” Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals––a special panel of 11 judges—ruled in 2023 that San Jose unlawfully penalized FCA for its religious beliefs and used a double standard that failed to treat FCA like all other student groups. In spring 2024, FCA asked the court for the same equal access to public school campuses in the nation’s capital. On July 11, 2024, the court ruled that FCA can return to Jackson-Reed High School’s campus and that it can ask its leaders to embrace its core religious beliefs. The District of Columbia did not appeal this decision.  

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Education: There is a nation-wide trend of curbing free speech—especially religious speech—on public-school campuses. But students do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religious exercise, and freedom of association when studying at a public school. 
  • Religious Communities—Religious groups must be able to select the members of their ministries according to their religious mission and sincere faith, free from government interference. 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. O’Connell

Supporting the Church’s charitable outreach around the world 

USCCB is an organization of senior religious leaders of the Catholic Church serving in the United States and U.S. Virgin Islands. For over 100 years, USCCB and its predecessor organizations have helped unify, promote, and carry out Catholic ministries in the United States and abroad, including to the elderly, poor, and marginalized communities. 

USCCB helps parishes communicate to their parishioners about a millennium-old annual Vatican collection called Peter’s Pence, which supports the Holy See’s needs and helps the Pope provide relief to marginalized people and Catholic communities. This annual offering is named after the original Pope, Saint Peter. The Vatican runs Peter’s Pence and local dioceses participate as a matter of Catholic church law (known as “canon law”). USCCB does not collect the Peter’s Pence offering or control how the Vatican uses this offering from the faithful. 

Entangling courts in religious offerings

In 2020, a parishioner at a Catholic parish in Rhode Island filed a class action lawsuit against USCCB over the Peter’s Pence collection. The parishioner claims he was misled during a Sunday Mass about how the Church would use his Peter’s Pence offerings. He provided no evidence about who spoke from the pulpit, what was said, when he heard it, or the amount he decided to offer. But now the lawsuit asks federal courts to sift through sermons nationwide to see what was said from the pulpit about Peter’s Pence, entangle civil juries in internal church decisions about how the Pope spent offerings sent to the Vatican to support Peter’s Pence, and require the Church to turn over sensitive internal religious communications between USCCB, dioceses, and the Vatican related to the offering. For good reason, no court has ever accepted such an intrusive request. 

Protecting churches’ spiritual decisions about how to use offerings

The USCCB asked a federal court to dismiss the case, arguing that courts have no business second-guessing the Church’s religious communications and decisions about the use of offerings. USCCB also pointed out that the lawsuit’s claims failed at every step, as they lacked the basic legal information required in cases like this one. But in 2023, the lower court refused to dismiss the case, instead allowing intrusive legal proceedings targeting internal church affairs.

The First Amendment ensures churches can decide how to spend offerings, as well as how the Church preaches about such offerings from the pulpit—all without government interference. Becket is urging the Supreme Court to protect the Church’s ability to preach to the faithful about voluntary religious offerings. Becket explains that allowing the case to go forward would threaten virtually every faith tradition in the nation with class action lawsuits whenever members are unhappy about how the church explained or spent their offerings. If parishioners can claw back a religious offering they voluntarily gave, every religious offering to a house of worship, and every decision made by a faith-based charity, is in jeopardy. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government interferes in church services and controls sermons from the pulpit and offerings in the pews, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to autonomy from judicial entanglements. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre

Yonas Fikre and the No Fly List 

The FBI placed American citizen Yonas Fikre on the No Fly List, a government database of people who are prohibited from flying through U.S. airspace. According to Fikre, FBI agents questioned him about his mosque in Oregon and offered to remove him from the list if he agreed to become a confidential government informant regarding the mosque, which he declined. The government denied Fikre’s request to take him off the list, and Fikre filed a federal lawsuit arguing that he was being deprived of his right to free travel based on his religious affiliation. 

The FBI backtracks 

After Fikre filed suit, the FBI removed him from the No Fly List. A federal district court then accepted the FBI’s motion to dismiss his case as “moot,” meaning that the court saw the harm to Fikre as no longer ongoing. Fikre appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that his rights were still at stake because the FBI could put him back on the No Fly List at any time. The Ninth Circuit sided with Fikre and reversed the lower court’s decision. In 2023, the government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and it agreed. 

At the Supreme Court, Fikre argued that his case should not be dismissed because the government offered no assurance that it would not put him back on the No Fly List. The FBI asserted that the Court should trust the government’s word because it had testified that it would not return Fikre to the List “based on currently available information.” 

Becket argues against special treatment for government 

In November of 2023, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in support of neither party. The brief explains that governments should have to meet a high standard to prove that a legal dispute is no longer live when it reverses policies or activities at issue in a case. Courts should hold governments to the same high standard as private citizens in determining whether their voluntary change in conduct means a case should be dismissed as “moot”.  

Granting governments special treatment would be especially harmful to religious Americans. Federal, state, and local governments frequently make policy changes after being taken to court for violating religious liberty protections to avoid being held accountable. For example, Becket has challenged several versions of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate in which government officials have used this tactic to attempt to evade religious liberty claims. There is no reason for court to give governments a do-over when they deprive religious Americans of their constitutional rights.  

In March of 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the government should be held to the same strict standard as everyone else when it attempts to strategically make a case irrelevant. As Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, “To show that a case is truly moot, a defendant must prove ‘no reasonable expectation’ remains that it will ‘return to [its] own ways…That much holds for governmental defendants no less than for private ones.”  The Court’s reasoning closely tracked the argument in Becket’s brief, emphasizing that the government does not get special treatment in these cases. The decision will help ensure that the government is held accountable for violating Americans’ bedrock freedoms. 

Gaddy v. Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Church taken to court over its religious beliefs 

Laura Gaddy was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for most of her life. In 2018, she found information on the internet that she believed conflicted with the Church’s teachings on its founding and history. As a result, Gaddy left the Church. She then filed a federal lawsuit in 2018 making fraud and racketeering claims against Church leadership.  

Former members challenge the Church in federal court 

In her lawsuit, Gaddy accuses the Church of misrepresenting its history and beliefs as a ploy to increase membership, which she says resulted in more tithes. She also levied a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim against the Church, accusing it of making false statements about how it would spend members’ tithes. A federal district court in Utah dismissed her case at the outset, ruling that her lawsuit could not move forward because it would require the court to decide whether Church teachings about religious matters are true or not. Gaddy, together with two other former members, is now appealing the lower court’s decision to the Tenth Circuit.  

Becket defends the Church against court inquisitions  

On March 7, 2024, Becket filed a friend-of-the court brief at the Tenth Circuit in support of the Church. Becket’s brief explains how the law bars courts from getting involved in religious disputes between religious organizations and their former members. Religious institutions have the right to decide for themselves matters of faith, doctrine, and internal governance, free from government interference.  

The law also protects the Church’s teachings concerning its members’ tithes. Tithing is an important spiritual calling for members of the Church, and determining how to encourage and spend these funds is a matter of immense religious significance –often involving prayer, deliberation among religious authorities, and the use of sacred text. It is no business of courts to interfere in these decisions.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Religious Communities: Religious communities have the right to build and lead their ministries according to their beliefs free from governmental interference

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

Ninth Circuit discounts the faithful 

In 2018, the Ninth Circuit decided Martin v. City of Boise, which was a challenge to Boise, Idaho’s anti-camping laws. The court based its decision on the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” The Ninth Circuit ruled that the city could not enforce its anti-camping laws because it did not have enough shelter beds available to its homeless population. In doing so, the court discounted any beds in shelters that had a “religious atmosphere,” “Christian messaging on the shelter’s intake form,” and “Christian iconography on shelter walls.”  

Court doubles down on anti-religion ruling 

Just weeks after the court’s decision in Martin, a group of homeless individuals sued the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over its laws that restrict individuals’ ability to sleep overnight in public places like streets, parks, and sidewalks. Breaking the laws can result in penalties up to several hundred dollars and repeat offenders can be barred from all city spaces. A federal district court ruled against Grants Pass, preventing the city from enforcing the laws.  

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court and ruled that Grants Pass’s anti-camping laws were cruel and unusual punishment because of a lack of available shelters—all while refusing to count the Christian shelter in the city, the Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission. The city asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and it agreed to do so. 

Becket defends religious ministries from bad law 

On March 4, 2024, Becket filed a friend-of-the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of neither party. Becket’s brief argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling relied on a wrongheaded legal standard known as the Lemon test that the Supreme Court overruled in 2022 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. For decades, the Lemon test had caused courts to incorrectly apply the Establishment Clause, driving religious people and religious ideas out of public life. In the Kennedy case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing an official state religion. Even though Lemon was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022 in Kennedy, some lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit, continue to rely on it.   

Becket’s brief urges the Supreme Court to reject the Ninth Circuit’s misguided view of the Establishment Clause and reiterates that courts should apply a historical test based on what was understood as a religious “establishment” at the time of the Founding. The Court heard arguments on April 22, 2024. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Grants Pass’s anti-camping laws were not “cruel and unusual punishment” and that federal judges do not have the authority to dictate homelessness policy. Instead, local governments have the primary responsibility to do so and will be able to partner with religious organizations to address pressing social issues like homelessness.  
 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Public square: Religious organizations are crucial to maintaining a free society. Government policies that presume religion does not belong in public life get our best traditions, our bedrock principles, exactly backward. 

Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States

Feds weaponize the law to target pro-life states 

Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986 to prevent hospitals from refusing care to uninsured patients. EMTALA applies to all hospitals with ERs who serve anyone who receives Medicaid or Medicare, as well as the hospitals’ physicians and other staff. Weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reinterpreted EMTALA to expand abortion access. For the first time ever, HHS decided that the decades-old law contained a mandate to provide abortions. The government argues that EMTALA requires doctors and hospitals to perform abortions in certain situations, including when a woman presents “with an incomplete medical abortion.” HHS released its novel interpretation in a guidance document and letter and stated that these requirements override any conflicting state abortion law. 

The federal government quickly filed a federal lawsuit against Idaho over its Defense of Life Act, which bans abortion except when necessary to save the life of a mother, or in cases of rape or incest. A district court sided with the federal government and blocked Idaho’s law. Idaho then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which put a hold on the lower court’s decision while the case was pending. Idaho and its legislature asked the Supreme Court to take the case, and it agreed. 

HHS’s history of punishing religious groups 

The EMTALA guidance is yet another example of the government weaponizing HHS to achieve its policy goals, regardless of its impact on religious objectors.  For example, in 2011, HHS issued a federal contraceptive mandate as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This mandate required employers to provide contraceptives in their health insurance plans, including those that many religious groups consider to be abortion-causing drugs. Despite the many religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS included only a narrow religious exemption. This exemption did not protect  groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns that runs homes for the elderly poor. The Little Sisters were forced to litigate for over a decade to protect their religious exercise, with the Supreme Court stepping in three times. Their battle is still not over. 

Similarly in 2016, HHS issued regulations under the ACA that required doctors and hospitals to perform gender transition procedures and other treatments to alter a patient’s body in response to gender dysphoria. Healthcare professionals could be penalized for declining to help with a gender transition, even if it was against their medical judgment and religious beliefs. Becket represented the Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA), a nonprofit organization of over 12,000 Christian healthcare professionals, and other parties who objected to this transgender mandate on religious grounds. CMDA spent more than six years in court fighting HHS’s transgender mandate before a federal appeals court ultimately concluded that the federal government had violated CMDA’s religious exercise.  

Becket defends religious healthcare professionals  

On February 27, 2024, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of CMDA in support of Idaho. The brief argues that the government’s abortion mandate fails to consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). When HHS issues regulations it is required to consider protections for religious Americans, and it failed to do so in this case. That is especially glaring given the government’s long history of losing in court when it fails to take RFRA seriously. 

The government’s mandate also runs counter to public opinion. According to the 2023 Religious Freedom Index, 71 percent of Americans think that healthcare workers should have the freedom not to participate in abortion if it goes against their religious beliefs. Religious healthcare professionals should never have to abandon their faith to care for those in need. 

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court published a brief opinion stating that the case had come to the high court too soon and that it should return to the lower courts for further consideration. While the Court did not decide how the case should ultimately turn out, several justices signaled support for the rights of religious health care professionals. In a concurring opinion, Justice Barrett—joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh—noted that during oral argument “the United States clarified that federal conscience protections, for both hospitals and individual physicians, apply in the EMTALA context.” These protections will prevent the government from “strip[ping] healthcare providers of conscience protections.” 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom: The freedom of conscience is the human right to believe, express beliefs, and act according to the dictates of an individual’s conscience. Becket defends the right of all individuals to live according to their consciences without government coercion. 

M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana officials investigate Catholic parents for their religious beliefs 

Mary and Jeremy Cox are a faithful Catholic couple living in Indiana. In 2019, their son left them a note informing them that he identified as a girl. Because of their religious belief that God creates human beings with an immutable sex—male or female—they could not refer to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology. The Coxes also believed that he needed help for underlying mental health concerns, including an eating disorder. As a result, they provided therapeutic care for their child’s mental health and scheduled appointments with a specialist to help him with the eating disorder. During this time, Mary and Jeremy spoke to their son about their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, and they agreed to find middle ground with him by calling him by the nickname “A”.  

In 2021, Indiana investigated Mary and Jeremy following a complaint that they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity. The reporting source falsely claimed that the parents were neglecting and verbally abusing their child. The state’s report also accused them of failing to utilize Indiana’s LGBTQ resources for parenting transgender children. Indiana then removed the teen from his parents’ custody and placed him in a home that would affirm his preferred identity.  

State courts allow removal of child from fit parents 

At the initial trial court hearing, Indiana officials argued the child “should be in a home where she is [ac]cepted for who she is.” The court restricted Mary and Jeremy’s visitation time to a few hours once a week and barred them from speaking to their child about their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity. 

After completing its investigation, Indiana made an about-face and abandoned all allegations against Mary and Jeremy, admitting that the accusations of abuse and neglect were unsubstantiated. State officials then surprised the parents by pointing to the disagreement over gender as a reason to keep him away from his parents. The state said it contributed to an eating disorder, even though that disorder became worse after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home. The trial court relied on Indiana’s argument to keep the child out of his parents’ custody and keep the gag order in place. And an appeals court upheld the removal, reasoning that the Coxes’ First Amendment rights did not apply to private speech in the home.

Religious parents ask Supreme Court to protect parental rights 

Almost two years after Indiana removed their child from their home, Mary and Jeremy had no other option but to ask the Supreme Court to step in. On February 15, 2024, Becket and attorney Joshua Hershberger filed a reply brief at the Court, asking the Justices to protect the parents and others from government interference in raising their children. The Coxes fear that Indiana could remove their other children from their home, and that other loving parents throughout the nation may lose custody of their children because of their religious beliefs.  

On March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to take the case. Mary and Jeremy remain committed to fighting for religious freedom and parental rights, to ensure that what happened to their family does not happen to others.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions, and Becket defends the right of parents to guide their own children on such matters. 

 

Cathy Miller v. Civil Rights Department

VIDEO: How California Defied the Supreme Court and sent Cathy Miller’s Custom Cake Battle to High Court

Meet Cathy Miller, cake baker and faithful Christian

Cathy Miller is a faithful Christian and custom baker living in Bakersfield, California. Cathy believes that her bakery, Tastries, is “God’s business.” Her bakery’s mission statement is to “honor God in all that we do,” and her Baptist faith influences everything from the Bible verses she puts on her business cards to the music she plays in the shop.  

Cathy’s process for designing wedding cakes goes beyond just batter and icing. When Cathy meets with couples, she takes time to get to know them and help them understand the religious and symbolic meaning behind the wedding cake they are commissioning. She invests her creative gifts to help launch couples into their lives together, ensuring that each cake is not only visually stunning but also deeply meaningful to the couple that commissions it. 

Early on, Cathy realized that sometimes customers would ask her to create designs that her faith forbids, so she developed written design standards to ensure that all her artistic work reflects her religious beliefs. For example, Tastries will not design custom bakery items that depict gory or pornographic images, celebrate drug use, witchcraft, or violence. Cathy will also not design wedding cakes that violate the Christian sacrament of marriage—including cakes celebrating divorce and same-sex unions. When customers ask for custom items that conflict with these design standards, Tastries refers them to a nearby bakery. 

Cathy’s livelihood targeted by California 

In 2017, a same-sex couple commissioned Cathy to design and create a cake to celebrate their wedding. When Cathy met the couple at their design meeting, Cathy realized that she was being asked to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, which she could not do. After a moment of prayer and reflection, she told the couple that she could not design their cake but would be happy to refer them to a nearby baker who could help them. In the backlash that followed, Tastries was flooded with angry social media posts, harassing emails and phone calls, and a civil rights investigation.  

The California Department of Civil Rights soon filed a lawsuit in state court to punish Cathy for upholding her religious beliefs. Ever since, California has repeatedly compared Cathy’s religious beliefs about marriage to racism and asserted that Cathy’s beliefs harm “the dignity of all Californians.” Meanwhile, Cathy and her staff have lost contracts, received death threats, and been the victims of criminal harassment because of her faith.   

Cathy seeks to serve her community in accordance with her beliefs 

Six years after California started its prosecution of Cathy, and after a five-day trial, a judge on the Superior Court of California ruled that Cathy cannot be forced to design a wedding cake that violates her sincere religious beliefs. On October 23, 2023, the state appealed the court’s decision to the California Fifth District Court of Appeal. 

With the help of Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Thomas More Society, Cathy filed her brief at the appeals court in January 2024, asking the court to protect her right to operate her business according to her faith. In February 2025, the state appeals court ruled against Cathy and her bakery. 

Cathy takes her case to the High Court 

After the California Supreme Court chose not to hear her case, Cathy asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in. On December 8, 2025, the Justices declined to review her case.  

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace.
     

Shlomo Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey

Religious education in the Garden State 

The state of New Jersey is home to people of diverse faith traditions, including Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Adventists, and others. Many of these religious groups operate schools to provide students with an excellent education rooted in their faith. In accordance with that mission, faith-based schools typically strive to hire administrators, teachers, and staff who live out their religious beliefs.  One such school is Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey, a Jewish day school located in the town of River Edge. Rosenbaum Yeshiva exists to help young Jewish men and women excel academically while remaining committed to Torah learning and Orthodox Jewish traditions. 

An Orthodox Jewish school’s mission threatened 

In early 2019, Rosenbaum Yeshiva leadership learned of allegations that a Rabbi, Shlomo Hyman, had engaged in inappropriate contact with female students that violated Orthodox Jewish law. Rosenbaum Yeshiva conducted an extensive investigation into Hyman’s actions, which included consultation with religious advisors. The investigation concluded that Hyman had massaged girls’ shoulders, placed stickers on or near their chests, and created classroom games in which he touched them. Rosenbaum Yeshiva placed Hyman on administrative leave and later ended his contract. Also, after consultation with religious advisors, the school wrote a letter to parents informing them that Hyman would no longer serve as a rabbi at the school. 

After Rosenbaum Yeshiva sent its letter, Hyman filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court, criticizing the investigation as a “sham” and arguing that he had been defamed. Rosenbaum Yeshiva argued that because Hyman was a minister in his role at Rosenbaum Yeshiva, he could not sue over the school’s religious decision to end his contract or to send the letter to the schools’ parents.  

Protecting the freedom of religious groups in New Jersey 

After two state courts rejected Hyman’s claims against Rosenbaum Yeshiva, he appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. He argues that the ministerial exception, a legal doctrine that protects religious groups’ ability to select and govern their ministers, does not apply when ministers bring civil misconduct claims like defamation against the religious organization. On October 6, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

On December 21, 2023, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Diocese of Eastern America of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Romanian Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas, and the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. The brief details the importance of allowing religious groups to control and discipline leaders, including decision to inform the faithful of disciplinary actions taken against ministers. While some claims fall outside of the exception—like a priest who sues a bishop for punching him in the face—it protects religious groups from defamation claims like the one brought by Hyman.  

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on March 26, 2024. A decision is expected later this year.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.  

Holt v. Payne

Muslim prisoner secures victory at the High Court 

Abdul Maalik Muhammad is an inmate in Arkansas state prison and a devout Muslim. In 2011, Muhammad sued the Arkansas Department of Corrections when he was denied his ability to maintain a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim beliefs. After losing his case in the lower court, Becket and Professor Douglas Laycock of University of Virginia Law School stepped in to represent him at the U.S. Supreme Court. In January 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Muhammad’s favor, agreeing with Becket that denying his request to grow a religious beard violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a Congressional act passed with bipartisan support in 2000. 

Arkansas continues its campaign against religious inmates 

After his victory at the Supreme Court, the Arkansas Department of Corrections then tried to bar Muhammad from wearing a religiously required cap (kufi) and attending Friday prayer services. Though his prison held up to five different services for different Christian denominations, it refused to hold more than one Quran-based Friday prayer service each week. This forced Muslims like Muhammad and his fellow plaintiffs Rodney Martin and Wayde Earl Stewart to pray alongside adherents of Nation of Islam and Nation of Gods and Earth, who they believe do not share their Islamic beliefs. Muhammad believes that for their Friday prayer service to be valid, it must be led by and limited to Muslim believers. The district court ruled that Muhammad and his fellow Muslim inmates were not sincere in their beliefs because some had occasionally attended mixed prayer services, while others chose to boycott and didn’t attend any services that violated their faith. 

Religious believers are protected behind bars 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court at the Eighth Circuit brief identifying at least 20 other prison systems that allow inmates like Muhammad to wear their kufi throughout the prison and asking the Court to hold Arkansas to the rigorous standard the Supreme Court set last time around. Although prisoners lose many of their rights when they are imprisoned, they should not be forced to sacrifice their commitment to their faith.  

On November 2, 2023, the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of Muhammad and his fellow plaintiffs, rebuking the district court for wrongly dismissing many of the plaintiffs’ arguments. The Eighth Circuit reaffirmed the religious liberty standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court and upheld by many other courts of appeals nationwide, and sent the case back down so that the court could apply the correct legal standard.  

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: Individual religious freedom encompasses more than just thought or contemplation—it involves action. Individuals must be free to follow their religious convictions into practice, including when they are incarcerated.
     
  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons 

Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Revitalizing the spiritual home of the Church 

During the late 1840s, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints migrated to the American West to escape religious persecution in Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and other states. Led by the Church’s second president, Brigham Young, these pioneers eventually settled in the Salt Lake Valley, where Young selected a plot of land to build a temple dedicated to God. Today, that site—known as Temple Square—serves as the spiritual seat of the Church’s worldwide leadership and is home to the iconic Salt Lake City Temple and renowned Tabernacle Choir. 

When the area south of Temple Square needed renovation in the early 2000s, Church leaders made a religious decision to invest in its revitalization. Through its then-president Gordon B. Hinckley, the Church announced it was developing the property to protect the environment surrounding the Temple and to promote the economic vitality of the local community. Church leaders explained that the Church would not directly finance the project through tithing, the millennia-old, Scripture-based practice of voluntarily donating a portion of one’s income to the Church as an act of financial support and trust in God. Instead, it would use earnings from invested funds it had set aside for future use.  

A church community attacked from within 

Over a decade after the Church decided to revitalize the area surrounding Temple Square, businessman James Huntsman—who has deep family ties and a long history of leadership roles within the Church—sued to recoup millions of tithing dollars he had paid in religious offerings over the prior two decades. He argued the Church had committed fraud by not describing with greater clarity that the earnings from reserve funds used to finance the revitalization project had tithing as their principal. The Church explained that its statements were all true, since it never solicited, let alone used, tithes themselves for the project. Moreover, its statements could not have possibly misled anyone, least of all someone as knowledgeable about Church affairs as Huntsman, who was well aware that all Church assets have their origin in tithing. 

Protecting the Church from disgruntled donors 

In 2021, Huntsman filed a lawsuit against the Church in federal court, attempting to recover at least five million dollars of his tithing offerings. The district court ruled for the Church, concluding that all its statements about the use of tithes for the revitalization project were true. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court’s decision, ruling that a jury ought to decide whether the Church had committed fraud in not describing more clearly how it would fund the project.  

On September 20, 2023, the Church asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in front of a full panel of judges. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of rehearing, arguing that the court’s decision poses a serious threat to religious institutions’ ability to carry out their missions. The brief explains that courts have no business second-guessing a church’s inherently religious decision about how to define tithing, which is itself an inherently spiritual practice. The ruling threatened religious organizations by allowing disaffected members to sue anytime they disagree with how a Church, through the exercise of its spiritual judgement, chooses to carry out its mission. 

On January 31, 2025, an eleven-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of the Church. The court held that the Church spoke truthfully in describing how tithing would be expended. Five of the judges argued further that the church autonomy doctrine bars courts from resolving disputes about a church’s internal governance. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.

Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear

Faithful education in the Bluegrass State

Kentucky is home to an array of faith-based schools that exist to help students harness the skills they need to thrive and grow deeper in faith. Many of these schools operate as ministries of their churches, including Pleasant View Baptist School, Veritas Christian School, and Micah Christian School. As part of their mission to provide children with an education in their faith, these schools teach religion in the classroom and hold chapel services for their students. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Kentucky’s faith-based schools were diligent in implementing significant and costly measures to stop the spread of the virus, including social distancing, temperature checks, and mask wearing. 

Governor Beshear targets faith-based schools 

Eight months after the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S., Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued two executive orders. The first required all elementary, middle, and high schools—including private religious schools—to stop in-person instruction and transition to virtual learning. In contrast, the second allowed other businesses, like daycares, preschools, colleges, factories, gyms, bowling allies, theaters, and casinos, to continue to operate in person so long as they followed public health guidance. 

This unequal treatment was particularly troubling for private religious schools. The Governor’s actions denied religious communities the ability to pass down their faith to the next generation of believers. It also kept religious schoolchildren from vital in person chapel services, religious instruction, and other communal events that cannot be translated to an on-line format. The Governor’s rules led to absurd results: a church could offer Sunday School classes on Sunday and open a daycare on Monday, but if it used the same classrooms—and the same public health measures—to operate a religious school, it could face criminal penalties and fines.  It also meant that kids could go to the movies and teachers go gambling, but neither could go to school. 

Worse, the Governor was a repeat offender. He had already been slapped down twice by federal courts for shuttering religious ministries while allow secular entities to continue operating. And just after his order came out, the Supreme Court barred the governor of New York from doing the same thing to Jewish synagogues and Catholic churches. Yet Governor Beshear issued his new order closing religious schools and kept enforcing it even after the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

Vindicating religious education in Kentucky 

On November 23, 2020, a group of churches, religious schools and individual parents filed a lawsuit against Governor Beshear, challenging his restrictions on faith-based education. They argue that the governor’s actions unlawfully treat religious activity worse than other activities that posed the same risk of spreading COVID-19.  

The district court ruled that the governor’s actions were protected by qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that can shield public officials from legal liability. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling. In September of 2023, the coalition of churches, schools, and parents, asked the court to reconsider the case in front of a full panel of judges. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a rehearing, arguing that the court’s ruling violated its prior decisions and Supreme Court decisions.  

On October 3, 2023, the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing the case. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened.  

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

A commitment to Catholic education 

Dan and Lisa Sheley are Colorado parents raising seven children in the Catholic faith. As parishioners of St. Mary Catholic Parish, they have built their family’s life around the parish and school—the place where their children learn, pray, and grow with peers who share and support the Catholic teachings the Sheleys are passing on at home. Five of their children attend St. Mary’s school today, and their youngest is expected to begin preschool there in 2028. 

For families like the Sheleys, a Catholic preschool doesn’t just provide a quality academic education. It provides their family with a community formed by faith—where religious instruction, prayer, and formation are integrated into the curriculum, and where parents can entrust their children to educators who reinforce, rather than undermine, their religious beliefs. This is precisely what the Archdiocese of Denver’s schools have provided for decades: academic rigor coupled with moral and spiritual formation, in close partnership with parents. To maintain this faith-filled community, the Archdiocese’s schools ask that all families who attend display a positive and supportive attitude toward the Catholic Church, its teachings, and the religious mission of Catholic schools. Any family willing to do this is welcome.

“Universal” preschool, unless you are Catholic 

In 2023, Colorado’s Department of Early Childhood launched a preschool funding program to provide eligible families with approximately $6,300 to cover the cost of 15 hours per week of preschool. Marketed as “universal,” the program was designed to give families the flexibility to enroll their children at public, private, or faith-based preschools. Like other young families in Colorado, Catholic families were eager to participate. 

However, when the program was implemented, families seeking to use this benefit at the Archdiocese of Denver’s Catholic preschools found themselves excluded. More than 1,500 children across over 30 Catholic preschools were deemed ineligible for the funding, solely because of their preschool’s religious affiliation. 

The Department justified this by claiming the Archdiocese’s religious exercise—specifically, its inability to use opposite-sex pronouns or offer dress code and bathroom accommodations for a hypothetical transgender preschooler—were inconsistent with the funding program’s requirements. Yet the Department readily acknowledged there was no evidence even a single transgender preschooler had sought to attend Catholic preschool in Denver. And, worse, Colorado’s universal preschool program director admitted to applying a double standard—testifying that families could use state funding to send their children to preschools that served only LGBTQ families, transgender children, or even children of a specific race. 

The Constitution forbids religious discrimination

Colorado is punishing families who choose to send their kids to Catholic preschools. The State didn’t have to offer families this government benefit at all. But having decided to make this funding available “universally,” what Colorado bureaucrats can’t do is use this program to discriminate against families who want to send their children to Catholic preschools. 

The Supreme Court has three times in the past ten years affirmed that governments cannot exclude people from public benefits because of their religious beliefs or religious exercise. Colorado families should be free to send their kids to a Catholic preschool without forfeiting an important public benefit—especially one Colorado has described as “universal.” 

Colorado’s actions have already had devastating effects. Families like the Sheleys who send their children to Catholic schools are put to a difficult choice: pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for Catholic preschool or pull their children from the school and out of their Catholic community. This choice—like putting a tax on Catholic education—weighs heaviest on middle- and low-income Colorado families. What is more, preschool enrollment across the Archdiocese has declined by roughly 20% while two Catholic schools—Wellspring Catholic Academy and Guardian Angels Catholic School—were forced to close due to shortfalls in funding and decreased enrollment. Colorado’s actions have made it harder for all families to access quality preschools.  

Colorado is at it again 

In November 2025, Becket asked the Supreme Court to stop Colorado from excluding Catholic families from the state’s “universal” preschool program. In April 2026, the Court agreed to hear the case. The case will be argued in fall 2026. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case draws further attention to Colorado’s record on religious freedom issues. Since 2018, Colorado has been on the losing side of three freedom-of-religion cases at the Supreme Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop, 303 Creative, and Chiles v. Salazar. Catholic families across Colorado are asking the Supreme Court to step in once more and stop Colorado from denying them equal access to a “universal” government benefit.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Education: Religious families and schools should be given equal access to tuition funding and not excluded because of their faith.

Religious Organizations: Religious organizations must be free to act according to their faith. The government should not discriminate against religious groups by demanding they give up their religious beliefs in order to have equal access to a generally available government benefit. 

Crisitello v. St. Theresa School

Religious education in New Jersey

Religious schools are common in New Jersey, and reflect the wide diversity of the state, including Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Adventist schools, among many others. These schools strive to provide a top-notch education for children, including in matters of faith. To ensure that their religious ministry remains strong, religious schools in New Jersey often request that their staff respect and promote their faith’s teachings by following a personal code of conduct.  

A challenge to St. Theresa School’s educational ministry 

One such school is St. Theresa School, a Catholic school in Kenilworth, New Jersey, that is a ministry of the Archdiocese of Newark headed by Cardinal Joseph Tobin. Like all other schools in the Archdiocese St. Theresa requires all its staff to respect and promote the Church’s teachings. For this reason, all staff must sign an agreement to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church in both their professional and private lives—serving as examples of the faith to both the students and the community alike. 

During the 2013 school year, a teacher named Victoria Crisitello voluntarily told St. Theresa that she was in violation of her contract and Church teaching. As a result, St. Theresa decided not to offer a new contract for the following school year. Soon after, Crisitello sued the school, alleging discrimination. Nine years of litigation ensued, culminating in an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court that was heard in April 2023. 

The law protects the ability of religious schools to follow their faith 

Religious institutions, especially religious schools that exist to instill religious beliefs, values, and conduct in their students, must have the ability to require that their employees conduct themselves in ways that uphold and advance their beliefs. That is especially so for Orthodox Jewish schools, which are crucial to the continuing existence of Orthodox Judaism. In its brief for Agudath Israel of America and at oral argument at the New Jersey Supreme Court, Becket argued that the doctrine of church autonomy—which provides religious groups the power to decide matters of faith, doctrine, and internal governance—protects religious schools, including especially Orthodox Jewish schools, in making such decisions. Requiring a religious school of any faith to keep a teacher on staff who publicly violates religious teaching would undermine its ability to carry out its mission of educating future generations in the faith. 

On August 14, 2023, the court ruled that religious schools throughout the state are free to decide who should carry out their ministries of passing on the faith to the next generation. 

Mark Roselli of Roselli Griegel Lozier & Lazzaro, PC in Hamilton acted as New Jersey co-counsel in the appeal.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association. 

Burke v. Mahaniah

Religious couple opens their hearts to children in need

Mike and Kitty Burke are a Catholic couple from Massachusetts who have long wanted to become parents. Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs children, and together they run a small business and perform music for Mass. Unfortunately, the Burkes learned early on in their marriage that they would not be able to have children of their own. Mike and Kitty began exploring becoming foster parents through the state’s foster care program with the hope of caring for and eventually adopting children in need of a stable, loving home like theirs.

Children in foster care throughout Massachusetts are waiting for their forever family like the Burkes. The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) currently does not have enough foster homes or facilities to meet the needs of the children in its care, leaving over 1,500 children without a family. The crisis has become so extreme that the state has resorted to housing children in hospitals for weeks on end—not because the children need medical attention, but because the Commonwealth has nowhere else to put them. Now more than ever, Massachusetts needs loving couples like the Burkes to foster children in need.

Massachusetts cuts foster kids off from loving, faithful homes

When Mike and Kitty applied to become foster parents in 2022, they underwent hours of training, which they completed successfully. Their instructor reported their positive contributions in the class to DCF, noting that the couple helped to enrich the training program for other parents. The Burkes also underwent extensive interviews and a home study. Throughout this process, Mike and Kitty emphasized their willingness to foster children from diverse backgrounds and with special needs. They expressed their openness to fostering sibling groups, as well, so that children in need could maintain those critical family ties. In all respects, the Burkes were an ideal foster family.

During their home interviews, however, the Burkes were troubled that much of the questions centered on their Catholic views on sexual orientation, marriage, and gender dysphoria. In response to these questions, the Burkes emphasized that they would love and accept any child, no matter the child’s future sexual orientation or struggles with gender identity. However, because Mike and Kitty said they would continue to hold to their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, Massachusetts denied them a license to foster any child because, as the reviewer put it, “their faith is not supportive and neither are they.”

The law protects religious families and the children they seek to serve

This sad conflict was entirely avoidable. Massachusetts wants to maximize foster families and rightly protect potential foster parents from religious discrimination. Instead, Massachusetts turned its policies into a ban on certain religious beliefs. This is as unconstitutional as it is unnecessary.

Massachusetts has put vulnerable children into hospital rooms and office spaces because it lacks enough loving foster families. Hundreds of children in the state’s foster care system need homes, and religious parents like Mike and Kitty Burke are ready to open their hearts and homes. Massachusetts cannot exclude religious couples like the Burkes from fostering because they are religious, nor can they punish qualified families for their deeply held religious beliefs. If this can happen to the Burkes, it can happen to loving, qualified foster families of diverse faiths across Massachusetts.

Federal law protects the ability of religious people and organizations to foster children in need without having to forfeit their beliefs. Because Massachusetts was unwilling to uphold law including in its own Foster Parent Bill of Rights—Becket is going to court to enforce them.

Importance to Religious Liberty:  

Individual freedom: The government discriminates against religious groups if it prevents them from providing services simply based on their religious beliefs.

Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute

A historic beacon of faith and hope 

Moody was founded in 1886 by prominent evangelist Dwight L. Moody, at the behest of Emma Dryer – a teacher who was instrumental in helping launch the school. Originally named the Chicago Evangelization Society, the purpose of the school was to train men and women from all walks of life to bring the Christian faith to all people. Today, Moody offers undergraduate, seminary, and missionary aviation training to equip students to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be Biblically grounded, and to engage the world through Gospel-centered teaching and living. Moody offers various degrees to develop the next generation of Christian leaders, including Biblical Studies, Biblical Languages, Biblical Preaching, Pastoral Studies, Theology, Worship Music, Children and Family Ministry, Ministry Leadership, and Communications. Moody offers full-time residential undergraduate students at Moody’s Chicago campus a full tuition grant to help minimize the cost of an undergraduate education, allowing graduates to serve wherever they are called.  

Moody graduates have served the most vulnerable members of society in the U.S. and around the world—all while sharing their faith. For example, Moody missionary aviators fly patients to hospitals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and medical supplies to remote parts of Papua, Indonesia. A Moody Theological Seminary graduate operates a women’s shelter in Chicago to care for and minister to victims of sexual exploitation. Moody graduates feed the poor in Cambodia and care for refugees from Central and South America. Graduates have also recently traveled to war-torn Ukraine to bring hope and comfort to families driven from their homes and their country. And a statue honoring Moody alumnae Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, an educator and civil rights activist, was recently erected in the U.S. Capitol’s Statutory Hall. 

In addition to its faith-centered in-person and online education, Moody educates and equips through its media ministries, Moody Radio and Moody Publishers. Moody relies on all aspects of its ministry to share the Gospel message around the world. Moody’s Communications Department and other faculty are foundational in equipping students with the knowledge and expertise to communicate faith and hope to the world.  

A threat to Moody’s 137-year-old ministry 

Every member of the Moody faculty plays a role in the formation of Moody’s students in foundational Biblical truths. Moody ensures that its ministry remains steadfast by asking all faculty to adhere to its religious beliefs. One of these beliefs is that men and women have unique, complementary roles in the local church. Moody believes that all people have equal dignity and value as lovingly created by God, and that Christian women and men can serve as leaders in faith and ministry. Consistent with its interpretation of Scripture, Moody also believes that the specific biblical church office of pastor (or “elder”) is reserved for men who meet the Bible’s stringent spiritual qualifications.

Despite knowing about and agreeing to adhere to these religious beliefs, a Moody faculty member began advocating against them. After her own admission that she did not share Moody’s beliefs and her inability to sincerely sign Moody’s annual doctrinal statement affirmation, the professor’s teaching contract was not renewed. In response, she is asking the government and the courts to take her side in a religious dispute and punish Moody for acting in accordance with its religious beliefs.  

Protecting a religious college’s religious mission 

Faith-based ministries like Moody are free to decide matters of faith and doctrine—including the qualifications for those who hold senior church offices, without judges or juries getting to second-guess those decisions. The law protects the ability of churches and religious organizations to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the teachings of their faith. This is especially important within the context of a religious school like Moody, which is charged with forming the next generations of pastors, leaders, and ministers. 

Further, several religions—including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims—make specific distinctions between men and women in their doctrines of religious leadership and worship. The law protects against government intrusion and entanglement in such sensitive religious beliefs at the heart of so many houses of worship. 

On March 18, 2024, a divided panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled 2-1 against Moody.

Importance to Religious Liberty:  

Religious communities — The ability of individuals to gather freely together to worship and teach their religion is a cornerstone of religious liberty. U.S. law has always protected the rights of religious ministries, schools, and churches to be able to make their own rules and live out their own values free from government interference. 

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Supreme Court allows government power grab 

The framework of American government was built on the idea that different branches of government should check and balance each other. That structure was created to stop a concentration of power in any one branch that would eventually lead to abuses by the government. However, in its 1984 ruling Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court gave the executive branch enormous power over the branches of the federal government. The Court ruled that when a law passed by Congress is unclear, courts should trust executive branch agencies to interpret and apply the law in the first instance. This power, known as Chevron “deference”, has given federal officials license to wield executive authority in ways that go well beyond what Congress intended. For years, the Chevron decision has empowered federal government officials to target religious believers for special disfavor. 

Chevron punishes religious groups 

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns that run homes for the elderly poor, are just one example of how Chevron has hurt religious groups. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a federal mandate as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This mandate, based on vague language in the ACA, required employers to provide contraceptives in their health insurance plans. Despite the many religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS included an exceedingly narrow religious exemption—one that did not include groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Little Sisters’ religious beliefs about the dignity of all human life meant that complying with the mandate was impossible.  

For a decade now, the Little Sisters have been in and out of court fighting to receive permanent protection from the contraceptive mandate. Even though they have secured multiple victories—including at the Supreme Court—they have been forced through years of court battles. The endless cycle of punishment for religious objectors exists because the Court’s decision in Chevron has empowered federal regulators to create new ways to punish unpopular religious groups and deny them exemptions. 

The Court should rebalance the branches of government 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of The Little Sisters of the Poor in support of Loper Bright, detailing the long history of how unchecked executive power has been a unique threat to religious groups. The brief urges the Court to adopt a rule that will check executive overreach at all levels of the legal system, ensuring that officials can no longer use their powers to run roughshod over religious believers. This will protect religious groups like the Little Sisters who will not be forced to endure years of litigation in federal courts. 

 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

Religious communities — The ability of individuals to gather freely together to worship and teach their religion is a cornerstone of religious liberty. U.S. law has always protected the rights of religious ministries, schools, and churches to be able to make their own rules and live out their own values free from government interference.

St. Dominic Academy v. Makin

Commitment to Catholic education   

For years, Catholic schools in the Diocese of Portland—including St. Dominic Academy—played a vital role in assisting parents educate their children through the state’s tuition assistance program. This program allows families who live in rural school districts to educate their children at private schools where there is no public school nearby. Unfortunately, the state has excluded religious schools from the program for decades—shutting out families who want both strong academics and a faith-based education for their kids. 

Daniel and Nancy Cronin are one such family who live in Fayette, Maine. Their son is eligible for Maine’s tuition program, but the nearest public high school doesn’t provide the academic support that he needs, and the nearest private school that participates in the program would cost them over $40,000 a year. The Cronins believe that St. Dominic offers the best environment for their son, and at $14,450 a year, it is the most affordable private day school in Maine. However, because Maine is keeping schools with St. Dominic’s beliefs out of its tuition program, Daniel and Nancy must work additional jobs to pay for his tuition at St. Dominic. 

The Cronin’s story is not unique. Keith and Valori Radonis are Catholic parents who lived in rural Maine and believed St. Dominic was the best fit for their children. Due to the state’s exclusion, they were denied the opportunity to participate in the program and were forced to pay out of pocket for tuition at St. Dominic. 

The Diocese of Portland’s schools, including St. Dominic, have long offered outstanding academics, graduating high-achieving classes of students that excel on standardized tests and go on to elite colleges and universities. Inspired by Catholic social tradition, they also teach students to devote themselves to serving others from all walks of life. For example, students in the diocese have raised money for food kitchens, cared for the elderly at senior homes, joined mission trips to Mississippi to help rebuild homes devastated by hurricanes, sponsored donation drives for asylum seekers, hosted baby showers to aid local mothers, and raised money to support veterans and their families.  

In 1982, Maine abruptly excluded faith-based schools like St. Dominic from the program simply because they were religious. Maine still paid tuition for Maine students attending out-of-state boarding schools and public schools in Quebec, but not for Maine students who wanted to go to religious schools located in Maine. In the decades following, these schools were unable to partner with rural Maine families. This exclusion hasn’t just burdened families—it’s strained the schools themselves. One diocesan high school closed one year after Maine’s exclusion began. Now, after 40 years of being cut off from the program, St. Dominic—the Diocese’s last remaining Catholic high school—is closing its doors because of declining enrollment.  

Maine skirts the law to bar funding to religious education 

In 2018, three families brought a challenge to Maine’s religious education ban in Carson v. Makin. The Supreme Court took the case, and in 2022 a six-Justice majority struck the state law down, paving the way for St. Dominic and many other faith-based schools to begin serving rural Maine families again. 

However, in the lead up to the Carson case at the Supreme Court, officials in Maine saw the writing on the wall. Anticipating that the Court would strike down Maine’s ban on religious schools, Maine passed a new law to keep the religious schools it did not like out. Maine’s new law gives the Maine Human Rights Commission—not parents or the school—the final word on admissions, conduct, speech, and policies upholding Catholic beliefs regarding marriage, gender, and family life. As a result, faith-based schools with traditional beliefs are still being excluded from the state program to help rural families. 

Protecting faith-based schools and the families they serve 

Maine is punishing schools like St. Dominic because of its commitment to providing a holistic education in accordance with its Catholic beliefs. It is also punishing rural families like the Cronins who want to use the tuition program to send their children to faith-based schools. The Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed that states cannot cut off generally available funding from faith-based schools and families because they are religious. Faith-based schools should have the ability to partner with parents who want the best education for their children.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Let Parents Parent: Restore the Opt-Out in Montgomery County

PODCAST: Why These Parents Took Their School Board to the Supreme Court

Montgomery County’s Pride Storybooks 

In fall 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced over 20 new “inclusivity” books for its pre-K through eighth grade classrooms. But rather than focusing on basic civility and kindness, these books championed pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children. For example, one book tasked three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another encouraged fifth graders to discuss what it means to be “non-binary.” Other books advocated a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense” and that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The teacher’s guide to another book about a playground same-sex romance invited schoolkids to share with classmates how they feel when they “don’t just ‘like’ but … ‘like like’” someone. The curriculum suppressed free speech and independent thinking by having teachers tell students they are “hurtful” if they questioned these controversial ideologies.  

When the Board first went public with its Pride Storybooks, it assured hundreds of concerned parents they would be notified when the books were read and could opt their children out. This meant parents troubled by the books’ blatant disregard for widely held religious beliefs and scientific perspectives would be respected. Upholding parental rights also meant that children would not be subjected to age-inappropriate instruction against their parents’ wishes. Indeed, in Maryland—as in most states across America—teaching family life and human sexuality requires parental notification and the ability to opt out. Historically, the Board has respected that law, allowing parents to opt their children out of sex ed classes and controversial readings on related topics. The Board’s own “Guidelines” regarding religious diversity go even further. They guarantee that parents may seek opt outs and alternative assignments for their children on a wide range of potential classroom activities, discussions, and reading assignments.

“Inclusion” as exclusion of parents 

Everything changed in March 2023, when the School Board issued a statement saying it would no longer notify parents or honor requests to opt out. Immediately, parents of the more than 70,000 elementary schoolkids in Montgomery County were denied their right to decide when their elementary-aged children would be exposed to books promoting transgender and queer ideology. One Board member justified the decision by claiming that allowing opt-outs because these books “offend[] your religious rights or your family values or your core beliefs is just telling [your] kid, ‘Here’s another reason to hate another person.’”  

Soon after, a diverse coalition of religious parents including Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others began to fight back. While coming from different faith backgrounds, these parents all believe the books are age inappropriate, harmful to children, and portray notions of sex and gender that conflict with their religious beliefs. Though they have many different beliefs, these parents are united in protecting their right to direct their children’s religious and intellectual education on such sensitive matters regarding family life and human sexuality.   

The law protects parents’ right to guide their children’s education 

The Board cannot refuse parents who want to opt their children out of instruction that violates their religious beliefs on sensitive matters. The Board is unlawfully coming between parents and their kids and targeting them because of their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality. That violates the Board’s own policies, Maryland law, and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that children are not wards of the state, and that parents have the right to make key decisions about the education of their children on such critical matters concerning family life and human sexuality. 

After filing the lawsuit on May 24, 2023, the district court ruled against the parents. They appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on May 15, 2024, the appellate court ruled to keep the school board’s no-notice, no-opt-out policy. Becket appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court on September 12, 2024. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and oral argument was heard on April 22, 2025. 

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents have the right to opt their children out of the storybooks. In the Court’s decision, Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “Today’s decision recognizes that the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” He went on to say that the Court “cannot agree” with lower courts who have ruled otherwise for over fifty years. 

Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, the Montgomery County Board of Education paid $1.5 million in damages to Becket’s clients and promised to comply with court-enforced protections for parental rights. They also agreed to provide parents with advance notice when instructional materials addressing family life and human sexuality will be used and to allow parents to opt their children out of that instruction.  

This is a monumental win for parental rights in Maryland and across America. With this decision, the Supreme Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children—an authority parents do not surrender at the schoolhouse door. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. On such core questions, Becket defends the religious authority of parents. 

Loe v. Jett

An education that accommodates faith

In 1985, Minnesota enacted the Post Secondary Enrollment Options Act (PSEO) to allow high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors to take college classes that would count for high school and college credit. The program covers the cost of tuition and required classroom materials like textbooks, allowing high school students to further their academic pursuits without taking on debt. This program has long served high schoolers in the state by promotingrigorous academic pursuits at both secular and religious colleges.  

Melinda and Mark Loe and Dawn Erickson are Christian parents in Minnesota who used PSEO funds in the past to send their older children to schools that uphold their religious values. Two top-notch schools in the state, the University of Northwestern – St. Paul and Crown College, provided their children excellent opportunities to learn in a college environment that also provided a Christian community. Both families had high-school aged children who also wanted to use PSEO funding to go to these schools, joining with fellow believers in receiving a quality, Christ-centered education.

Minnesota targets religion in higher education 

In 2023, Minnesota governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law that amends PSEO to exclude religious schools like Crown and Northwestern from participating because they require a statement of faith from all students who attend on-campus. The statements simply ask on-campus students—both undergraduates and PSEO students—if they will embrace the schools’ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding a strong Christian community on campus. Minnesota’s sudden change to the law would immediately hurt students who want to attend these schools, which have served thousands of Minnesota high school students.

Students should not lose the opportunity to earn college credit tuition-free just because they want to attend schools that share their religious beliefs.

The law protects religious families and schools from Minnesota’s discriminatory ban 

Minnesota cannot deny religious parents the learning environments they want for their children because they are religious, nor can they exclude schools from participating in the program because they are religious. As the Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed, public benefits that are open to private secular organizations must be open to religious organizations as well. Barring religious universities like Northwestern and Crown from offering religious high school students the great opportunity of free college credit that’s available at secular schools is against the law. 

After Becket filed the lawsuit on behalf of religious parents and the two schools, Minnesota promised not to enforce the law while the case continued in court.

The Minnesota Department of Education filed counterclaims against Northwestern and Crown. The state claimed that schools would be subject to the same constitutional requirements as the government if they accepted PSEO students, which would bar them from living out their religious values.  

In August 2025, a federal district court permanently protected the religious universities’ ability to provide free college credit to high schoolers through the program without compromising their religious exercise.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.

 

Photo credit: Fotofilm Studios LLC.

HotChalk v. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

Maintaining the faith 

Founded in 1847, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (the Church) is the second-largest Lutheran denomination in the United States. As part of its religious mission, the Church has “ecclesiastical stewardship” over the Concordia University System, a group of Lutheran colleges and universities spread across the United States. Consistent with its religious polity (or organizational structure), the Church exercised its responsibility to ensure that leaders at Concordia University – Portland adhered to the Church’s Lutheran religious beliefs in operating the University, in part by making religiously-informed decisions regarding the appointment of the school’s new spiritual leader, its president.  

Tech giant goes on fishing expedition 

For numerous reasons, including financial difficulty, Concordia University – Portland closed its doors in 2020. In the aftermath of the closure, HotChalk, a multimillion-dollar technology firm that helped run the University’s online courses, sued the school and Church, demanding over 300 million dollars. The Church agreed to produce documents regarding the contract with HotChalk, and its related finances. HotChalk, however, also sought access to internal religious communications among Church leaders about religious doctrine, church governance, and the selection of religious leaders at Concordia. 

But this is not the first time HotChalk has found itself in hot water. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education conducted an investigation into the company’s mismanagement of online student programs, resulting in a one-million-dollar settlement. 

Protecting religious organizations from government intrusion  

The First Amendment protects the right of religious groups to make internal religious decisions without threat of government interference. Forcing the Church to hand over private deliberations about matters of faith to courts would seriously interfere with the church’s ability to oversee its schools and ministry. As Becket’s amicus brief also argues, disrupting this balance would have damaging consequences for minority religious groups throughout Oregon.  

In the Jewish community, for example, rabbis frequently must make important determinations regarding what Jewish law requires. These decisions often entail sensitive internal deliberations about religious doctrine and Jewish law. The ability of religious minorities like Jews to speak freely without fearing intrusive, costly litigation is crucial to the survival of these communities and their religious beliefs.  

On May 2, 2024, the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, prohibiting HotChalk from accessing the Church’s internal religious deliberations. The case will continue in trial court.

Importance to religious liberty 

Religious communities: Religious communities must be free to operate and minister without government interference, including by keeping internal church communications private, especially when it comes to matters of doctrine and theology. 

Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser

Healthcare rooted in faith

Founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, the inspiration for Bella Health and Wellness came from a medical mission trip the pair took in the Andes Mountains of Peru. During that trip, Dede and Abby were convicted that everyone has a unique story and that every life deserves the utmost protection. After the trip, Dede and Abby discerned the call to open a life-affirming Catholic medical clinic for women in the Denver metropolitan area. Started as an OB-GYN practice, Bella Health and Wellness has since expanded its work in the Denver area to offer care to men and children as well. Today, Bella has over 28,000 registered patients.  

Like healthcare clinics across the nation, Bella’s OB-GYN practice often prescribes women progesterone, a safe, naturally occurring hormone that is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy and frequently prescribed to women at risk of miscarriage. Consistent with its Catholic beliefs in the dignity of all human life, Bella also offers progesterone to women who seek help to continue their pregnancies after taking the first abortion pill. That treatment is commonly known as abortion pill reversal. 

Colorado law targets life-affirming healthcare clinics 

In April 2023, Colorado made it illegal for life-affirming healthcare clinics like Bella to offer progesterone to women who have willingly or unwillingly taken the abortion pill, or even to advertise for such a service. Even though progesterone has been safely used for years to maintain healthy pregnancies, the Colorado Legislature categorically denied its use for abortion pill reversal. State legislators labeled progesterone’s use in this context to be “deceptive” and “unprofessional conduct,” while its use for all other purposes—including natural miscarriage—remained legal. Without a court injunction, Bella would have faced up to $20,000 per violation and the loss of the medical licenses for its providers if it continued to offer abortion pill reversal.  

The Constitution protects Bella’s right to serve in accordance with its faith 

Bella Health and Wellness has a religious duty to provide life-affirming medical care to every patient, including women at risk of miscarriage due to the abortion pill. Colorado cannot single out and attack clinics that provide life-affirming care to pregnant women who seek out their help. The Supreme Court has consistently held that governments are barred from singling out religiously motivated practices from comparable secular practices simply because of their religious nature.  

On April 14, 2023, Becket filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to stop the State from targeting religious healthcare clinics that offer women care in accordance with their faith. The district court quickly granted emergency relief to Bella. 

During a hearing on April 24, 2023, Colorado government officials committed that the State would not enforce the law, promising instead to act as if the law “never existed” pending rulemaking by the state’s Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. In an April 28 order, the district court ruled that the State “will not enforce the new Colorado law against any licensee” until three state boards implemented regulations required by the law.   

The three licensing boards issued their regulations, doubling down on the legislature’s targeting of faith-based healthcare. On September 22, 2023, Bella again asked the Court for protection against the law. In an opinion issued on October 21, the district court blocked Colorado from enforcing the law, finding that Colorado likely violated Bella’s free exercise rights in three different ways. Under the court’s protection, Bella and its providers successfully helped numerous women continue their pregnancies, resulting in the birth of at least 16 babies since the case began. 

Court permanently bans Colorado from enforcing the abortion pill reversal ban against Bella 

More than a year of full discovery confirmed that there is no safety or efficacy justification for banning abortion pill reversal while allowing medical practitioners to administer progesterone for any other purpose. On January 31, 2025, Bella asked the district court to make its temporary protections permanent. On August 1, 2025, the court granted that request, allowing Bella’s practitioners to continue exercising “their constitutional right to freely practice their religion” by helping pregnant women who want to choose life for their babies.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Individual Freedom: Freedom of conscience is the human right to believe, express beliefs, and act according to the dictates of an individual’s conscience. Becket defends the right of all individuals to live according to their consciences without government coercion.

Vitagliano v. County of Westchester

A call to serve society’s most vulnerable

Debra Vitagliano is a devout Catholic and an occupational therapist. At a young age, she discerned her vocation to serve children with special needs after seeing a poster of a little girl using Lofstrand crutches. For over 40 years, Debra has lived out her vocation by working with children diagnosed with various physical and neurological disabilities, including severe disabilities that some seek to address by abortion.

Debra’s work with special needs children has led her to see the inherent worth of each person, no matter their level of functioning. Consistent with her Catholic faith, Debra opposes abortion and sees it as the deliberate termination of an innocent human life.

Two years ago, Debra began participating in a prayer vigil at the Planned Parenthood in White Plains, New York. As part of her vigil, Debra engaged in peaceful prayer and held signs about the impacts of abortion on both expecting mothers and fathers. During this time, Debra trained to volunteer as a counselor to abortion-vulnerable women. She views this ministry as a final attempt to turn pregnant women away from abortion and to save the lives of unborn children.

Westchester “buffer zone” restricts free speech

Just before Debra started sidewalk counseling, Westchester County passed a law restricting free speech around abortion clinics. The law established a 100-foot zone around abortion clinics and prohibited anyone from approaching within eight feet of a person in that zone to provide information or counseling unless given express consent. Enacted after the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, the law was passed to stop life-affirming advocates from peacefully engaging with women in their time of most need.

Debra is motivated by her faith to help vulnerable women approaching abortion clinics, but the Westchester law barred her and all others who seek to offer this help by threats of fine or imprisonment. It also deprived women of receiving peaceful and often welcomed offers to help.

Protecting free speech in the public square

The First Amendment protects the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas, which includes an individual’s ability to have personal conversations about matters of public concern in public places. Under the Westchester law, if Debra approached a woman to tell her that she is loved and that there are alternatives to abortion, Debra could have been criminally punished.

Once Debra appealed her case to the United States Supreme Court, Westchester County quickly backtracked and repealed the law. With the support of Planned Parenthood, Westchester County admitted that it did not need to threaten sidewalk counselors with jail time for peacefully approaching and offering help and information to women in need. On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. 

Importance to religious liberty

  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other.
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom includes the freedom to practice one’s faith in all areas of life, both public and private, free of government interference.

 

 

PHOTO CAPTION: Debra Vitagliano, sidewalk counseling outside a Westchester County abortion clinic on October 12, 2023.

Loffman v. California Department of Education

Donate to Support Becket’s Efforts in Loffman v. California Department of Education

Watch: A Better IDEA

Finding an education that accommodates unique needs and faith  

Every parent that has a child with disabilities must navigate a complex system of services and resources to find the right educational fit for that child. Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Jewish parents in California who have the obligation of providing their children with an education that reflects their religious values. These parents want to find schools that not only will equip their children with the tools necessary to flourish, but also with an education structured around the Jewish tradition.  

Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are top-notch Jewish schools in Los Angeles that provide what Jewish parents want most: a premier education that seamlessly integrates their shared Jewish faith. Shalhevet and Yavneh also desire to provide a safe and supportive environment that offers a distinctively Jewish education to children with disabilities.    

Religious children with disabilities left behind by California politicians 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law ensuring that all children with disabilities in America can receive an education that is right for them. To accomplish this, IDEA provides grants to states in exchange for a free and appropriate public education that is tailored to each child’s unique needs. These grants pay for essential resources like assistive technology, staff training, special education programs, and other services. Like other states, California supplements federal IDEA funding with state special education funding. 

IDEA also provides for students to be placed in private schools that can meet their needs when public schools cannot offer a free and appropriate education. In California, however, legislators have excluded religious parents and schools from accessing federal and state special education funding and services. Even though private non-religious schools are eligible under California law, and even though a recent poll shows that only around a quarter of Californians think that the state’s public schools are doing a good job of helping children with disabilities, parents are unable to send their children to religious schools that will meet their needs.  

Additionally, religious schools are unable to receive the support necessary to fully welcome all students with disabilities into their communities. This leaves many religious families in California without the ability to give their children an education that is best for them. It also disproportionately affects lower-income families, as children from low-income households are more likely to have a disability than children living above the poverty line.  

The law protects children with disabilities from discrimination by Sacramento politicians 

California politicians cannot deny children with disabilities the safe and supportive learning environments they deserve because they are religious, nor can they exclude schools from participating in the program simply because they are religious. Parents of children with disabilities already face complex challenges in finding the right school for their children, and California is making it even more challenging for religious parents.  

As the Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed, public benefits that are open to private secular organizations must also be open to religious ones. Denying religious parents of children with disabilities the opportunity to send their children to religious schools clearly violates the law and must end. It also goes against what the state’s residents believe—according to a recent poll, nearly 60% of Californians think that children with disabilities should be able to use federal and state funding to go to religious schools, but the state’s elected representatives are making that impossible. 

The Orthodox Union, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, representing nearly 1,000 congregations as well as more than 400 Jewish non-public K-12 schools across the United States, is supporting Becket’s effort to protect religious parents, their children and religious schools’ right to access special education funding in the state of California.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.

Seattle Pacific University v. Ferguson

About Seattle Pacific University

A Christian Liberal Arts University Engages the Culture

For over 130 years, Seattle Pacific University has welcomed students to join a diverse community of thoughtful scholarship and outward-focused Christian faith. Seattle Pacific holds fast to its mission to engage the culture and change the world. While SPU welcomes students from all (or no) faith backgrounds, it encourages every student to explore or grow deeper in Christian faith. This mission requires engaging in complex topics with personal and spiritual sensitivity. At Seattle Pacific, employees are asked to be committed to and embody this mission and belief. Yet that mission is now under threat.

A Political Test for a Religious Institution

In June 2022, The Washington Attorney General’s office launched a probe into Seattle Pacific University’s beliefs and policies on marriage and human sexuality. They demanded personal information about employees and years’ worth of sensitive employee documents. The University had no choice but to ask a federal court to protect its religious identity and mission.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the state has targeted Seattle Pacific because of its religious beliefs. In the 1980s, the state of Washington attempted to interfere in Seattle Pacific University’s faith-based hiring decisions. The university sought protection in court, and after eighteen months of litigation, the state backed down. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has only further protected the right of religious institutions to make faith-based hiring decisions and resolve issues of doctrine and practice within their own religious communities, free from governmental interference.

Faced with an unconstitutional investigation, Seattle Pacific is again asking a federal court to protect the healthy separation of church and state and the University’s ability to make its own decisions about faith, employees, and leadership. If the University is subject to this kind of government scrutiny, the same thing can happen to religious schools of every faith. Fortunately, the law is clear on this point and has been for years: governments cannot tell religious institutions what to believe or who should lead them.

Government Attempt to Change Doctrine

On October 26, 2022, a Washington federal district court heard Seattle Pacific’s case. The court ruled against Seattle Pacific on purely procedural grounds, saying that the University should continue its claims in state court. Becket appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it asked the court to protect the school’s ability to educate students in accordance with its faith without government interference.  On June 7, 2024, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Seattle Pacific University could continue its efforts to defend itself and its First Amendment rights in federal court. 

 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

Church Autonomy: Seattle Pacific University is supported by a legacy of church autonomy cases, including Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe. These cases and other lower court decisions highlight the importance of a religious community being able to make its own decisions about what it believes, what it teaches, and who can lead it. Therefore, a victory for the University means that many diverse religious groups are free to decide for themselves what they believe and who leads them.

 

Photo Credit: Ian Dewar Photography

Groff v. DeJoy

SCOTUS guts religious rights 

For decades, many Americans have been forced to choose between their faith and their job because of the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In that case, the Court ruled that one of the nation’s largest airlines did not have to provide a religious accommodation to an employee who could not work on his Sabbath day due to his religious beliefs. Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says that employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices, the Court ruled that employers only need to prove a minimal burden on the operation of their business to deny employees accommodations.  

As legal scholars have pointed out, Hardison was the result of the Supreme Court’s outdated Establishment Clause thinking from its now-overturned decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman.  Lemon made the Hardison Court fear that even accommodating minority religious practices would be unconstitutional. In the years that followed, this legal standard has been used by large companies to discriminate against religious employees in ways that would be unthinkable to other protected groups under federal law.  

Hardison punishes religious minorities 

Over the years, Becket has defended multiple religious Americans—especially those of minority faiths—who were discriminated against by their employers under Hardison. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercombie, a case in which an Abercrombie & Fitch store refused to hire a Muslim woman because the district manager said her headscarf might conflict with the store’s dress code policy.  

In Patterson v. Walgreen Co., Becket represented Darrell Patterson, a dedicated Walgreens employee and devout Seventh-day Adventist who was fired from his position after he could not attend a training session on his Sabbath. Patterson asked the Supreme Court to hear his case, and while three Justices expressed the need to reconsider Hardison, the Court declined to review. In Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Becket represented a devout Seventh-day Adventist who was also denied his religious rights soon after receiving a job offer. Mitche Dalberiste requested a scheduling accommodation for his Sabbath observance from his new employer, but instead of respecting his religious beliefs, the company rescinded his offer of employment. Again, the Court decided to delay reconsidering Hardison for a future case. 

In 2023, the Supreme Court decided to review a case of a religious employee who was discriminated against by the U.S. Postal Service. Gerald Groff began working as a USPS carrier in 2012, and his religious beliefs require him to observe the Sunday Sabbath. After USPS began delivering packages on Sunday for Amazon, Groff offered to take extra shifts on weekdays and holidays to avoid working on his Sabbath. USPS initially granted him an accommodation, but then changed its mind and began scheduling Groff for Sunday work. Groff refused to violate his faith, and faced termination until he ultimately resigned in 2019. Groff’s case before the Supreme Court now has the potential to overturn Hardison, which would protect religious employees nationwide and bury this discriminatory legal standard for good. 

Religious Americans deserve protection in the workplace 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Groff’s case, arguing that the Hardison decision was the result of outdated Establishment Clause thinking from the now-overturned decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The brief outlines the history of Lemon’s impact on Hardison and argues that because Lemon is now overturned, the court has the chance to set a better legal standard that protects religious employees as Congress intended.  

Becket argued that the new standard should resemble the one from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the only other federal law with the same language regarding workplace accommodations. Under the ADA, employers must reasonably accommodate a person’s disability unless the employer can show that the accommodation imposes a substantial hardship to business operations. Applying this same standard to religious accommodations would replace the minimal burden test under Hardison that has allowed businesses to discriminate against their employees for decades.  

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “minimal burden” test from Hardison. Instead, the Court imposed a much higher standard, ruling that employers can only deny religious accommodations if they can prove that a burden is so big as to be “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” The Court’s decision protects religious Americans from choosing between their jobs and their faith. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs. 

Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1

Balancing government authority and religious freedom

In 1993, Congress passed RFRA with overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses. RFRA aimed to provide robust religious freedom protections for all people while balancing the important interests of the federal government As President Bill Clinton said when he signed it into law, “What [RFRA] basically says it that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion.”

Since its passing, 23 states, including Indiana, have adopted their own versions of RFRA that resemble the federal law. For a RFRA claim to be successful in Indiana, a person must show that they have a sincere religious belief, and that the government has or will soon violate that belief. If these conditions are met, the responsibility is on the government to show that its restriction furthers an important government interest in the least restrictive way possible. 

RFRA weaponized to combat Indiana abortion law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs returned abortion to the states, opening up a vigorous debate with religious voices on both sides. Prior to Dobbs, even though many states restricted abortion after viability, no court had used RFRA to grant a right to abortion. Now, in Indiana, a group is seeking to use Indiana’s RFRA to short-circuit the debate. Members of the class action have asserted a religious belief that they should have the right to abort their unborn children at any stage of pregnancy. However, the plaintiffs admittedly do not share the same religious beliefs, nor do they explain exactly how each woman’s religious exercise is said to be burdened. They are not claiming the right to have an abortion to save their own lives or prevent serious harm to their health, which is already covered by Indiana’s law.

Lawsuit against Indiana flunks the RFRA test 

Becket is representing the Indiana Catholic Conference, which advocates in favor of both life and religious freedom and believes they are complementary, not conflicting, rights.

In friend-of-the-court briefs at the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court, Becket has explained how this RFRA case fails at every step. Restrictions on abortion are unusual, perhaps unique. In most cases, the government can use a less restrictive alternative to accomplish its goal, while still accommodating the religious objection. Under Indiana law, however, abortion is the direct taking of an individual, innocent life. There is no alternative method to protect that life. Life is not a good that can be obtained from a different purveyor, a security risk that might be avoided through other measures, or a health risk that can be mitigated. Prohibiting abortion is the least restrictive way—indeed, the only way—of furthering Indiana’s compelling interest in protecting a particular life at its earliest, most delicate stage.

Federal and state RFRAs have done tremendous good to help religious believers of all faiths. But this lawsuit flunks the RFRA test and should lose in court. There is also no legal history of a religious right to have an abortion.

Lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement of Indiana’s abortion law against the plaintiffs and in March 2026, a trial court permanently barred the state from enforcing the law against them. The state then appealed that decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Indiana Catholic Conference warns that if RFRA is misunderstood in the case, protections for life and religious liberty will suffer.   

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Passed by a bipartisan coalition in 1993, this legislation protects religious groups by requiring the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible when its actions would pose a substantial burden on religious exercise. 

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission

VIDEO: Wisconsin Says Catholic Charities Isn’t Religious – Here’s Why They’re Wrong

Fulfilling the Catholic Church’s religious mission 

Catholic dioceses across the country organize their efforts to meet the needs of the disadvantaged within their local community through nonprofit entities called Catholic charities and other similar organizations. Since 1917, Catholic Charities has fulfilled this mission for the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin, providing a wide range of services to help the disabled, the elderly, and the poor throughout the Diocese. Catholic Charities’ mission, consistent with their Catholic faith, is to serve all those in need—regardless of their religious beliefs. Accordingly, each year Catholic Charities ministers to thousands of individuals and families in need by offering in-home healthcare, housing for the elderly and disabled, childcare services, employment opportunities, and other vital resources.  

Wisconsin denies Catholic Charities’ religious mission 

Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations in Wisconsin can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes.  

Catholic Charities requested an exemption from the state’s unemployment program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), a more efficient unemployment compensation program that provides the same level of benefits as the State’s program. 

However, in 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive a religious exemption from the State’s unemployment compensation program. The court’s decision essentially cut Catholic Charities off from the Diocese of Superior, concluding that the clear religious purpose of the Catholic Church and the Diocese in setting up and running Catholic Charities was irrelevant. Instead, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Catholic Charities’ service to the poor and needy was not “typical” religious activity. The court thus denied Catholic Charities the exemption, forcing it to remain in the state’s less efficient unemployment compensation program.  

State law and the U.S. Constitution confirm that Catholic Charities’ mission is religious 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision was deeply problematic. By separating Catholic Charities from the Diocese, the court ignored the Catholic Church’s religiously motivated decision regarding how to structure its own religious ministry. By concluding that Catholic Charities’ activities were not religious because Catholic Charities serves all those in need and doesn’t proselytize, the court penalized faiths that make caring for those in need—regardless of their religious background—a religious obligation. And, by probing “how religious” the court thought Catholic Charities and their subsidiary ministries are, the court inserted itself into deeply religious questions, violating the separation of church and state.  

This outcome was wholly avoidable. Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation law, Wisconsin’s Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution all require that courts look to the undisputed religious purpose of the Diocese of Superior when determining whether Catholic Charities qualifies for a religious exemption from the State’s unemployment compensation program.   

Catholic Charities appealed the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court. After agreeing to review the case, the Justices heard oral arguments in March of 2025. 

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Wisconsin could not discriminate against Catholic Charities because of its religiously motivated care for the needy. Justice Sotomayor wrote that Wisconsin violated the Constitution by “impos[ing] a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices”—a “textbook” violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The Court’s decision further recognized that “whether to express and inculcate religious doctrine through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines.”  

This is a historic victory for Catholic Charities and people of all faiths. The Court’s decision reaffirms that the government cannot prefer or favor one religion over another and protects the rights of all religious ministries to care for the poor and needy consistent with their sincere religious beliefs.

Instead of complying with the Court’s ruling, state officials asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider eliminating the religious exemption entirely, undermining a key protection relied on by faith-based organizations across the state. On December 15, 2025, after the state Supreme Court ordered further briefing on the issue, it blocked Wisconsin’s effort to defy the U.S. Supreme Court and ruled that Catholic Charities qualifies for the religious exemption. The decision keeps the exemption in place for churches, synagogues, mosques, and other ministries across the state of Wisconsin. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Religious Communities: Religious communities have a right to serve those in need according to the dictates of their faith. Unfortunately, religious institutions are often targeted if not in alliance with societal standards.

St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel

A Parish community dedicated to faith 

Since 1857, St. Joseph Catholic Church has served the local Catholic community of St Johns, Michigan, as the only Catholic parish in town. In 1924, St Joseph expanded and opened an elementary school—St. Joseph Catholic School—to provide children in the area with a Catholic education rooted in the teachings of the Church. Crucial to St. Joseph’s ability to pass on its religious mission to its students is the employment of teachers and staff who support and advance Catholic doctrine.  Like many Catholic parishes around the country, St. Joseph asks all staff—from kindergarten teachers to part time bookkeepers—to be practicing Catholics and to uphold the tenets of the Catholic faith. In addition to staff requirements, every family that sends their child to St. Joseph is also expected to support the faith and mission of the school and its Catholic values.   

Michigan law redefines sex 

In July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted a state civil rights statute’s definition of sex to include  sexual orientation without any exemption for religious organizations like St. Joseph. In March 2023, the Michigan legislature wrote this into state law, expanding the civil rights law to expressly prohibit discrimination because of either sexual orientation or gender identity. Both the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and members of the Michigan legislature pointedly refused to include any religious accommodations, even though those exist in federal law and in the laws of most other states.  

This new law would make it illegal for St Joseph to operate in accordance with the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage and sexuality. This threatens the school’s right to hire staff who will faithfully pass on the faith to the next generation and to run the school in a way that follows Catholic teaching. Not only that, but because St. Joseph’s opens its doors to the public, it faces the risk of being sued for discrimination because of its sincere religious beliefs about gender and marriage. It is at risk when visitors use its bathrooms, play on its sports fields, or when the local Knights of Columbus hall hosts receptions.   

The law protects St. Joseph from attacks on its religious mission 

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of religious groups—including churches and their schools—to operate in accordance with their religious mission, free from government interference.  The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently articulated this principle, most recently in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, where the Court held that religious institutions must have the freedom to make internal management decisions (like deciding who will teach and lead the religious community) free from government interference. Michigan’s redefinition of discrimination threatens St. Joseph’s right to create and maintain a parish and school environment that reflects its Catholic faith.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Religious Communities: Religious communities have a right to serve those in need according to the dictates of their faith. Unfortunately, religious institutions are often targeted if not in alliance with societal standards.  

Rogers v. HHS

A helping hand rooted in faith

Across the nation, there are more than 400,000 children in foster care and a severe shortage of loving homes. In South Carolina alone, there are over 3,500 children in the foster care system and the state works hard to find loving homes for each child. To find more homes, the state partners with a diverse array of agencies that provide children with loving homes. They recruit from and serve specific communities that come together to address this crisis. As in many states, some of these providers are faith-based organizations.

One such agency is Miracle Hill, a religious non-profit that provides foster care support services to licensed foster parents, helping them serve children in the foster care system. Miracle Hill’s legacy of service is over 80 years old.

An essential ministry under fire

When new federal regulations threatened the ability of states to partner with religious foster agencies, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster worked with the federal Department of Health and Human Services to obtain a waiver that ensured that these ministries could continue to work with the state to place foster children in need.

The American Civil Liberties Union took to Twitter, asking people to help sue Governor McMaster for protecting religious freedom. A family who had never applied to the state to become foster parents then sued.

The law protects SC’s partnership with religious foster care ministries

The First Amendment protects South Carolina’s right to partner with faith-based ministries that serve children in need. In Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that religious ministries aren’t required to lay their beliefs aside to participate in the public square.

Maddonna v. HHS is a similar case brought by Americans United at the district court of South Carolina. On September 29, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that the state can protect faith-based foster care ministries that serve children in need in both cases. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Freedom: The lawsuit claims that HHS, Governor McMaster, and other government officials are violating the Constitution’s Establishment and Equal Protection clauses. The lawsuit hoped to end the partnership with a religious agency and would create fewer choices for potential parents and fewer homes for children. Religious organizations must be free to act according to their faith, including when caring for children in need. The government cannot exclude religious groups by demanding they give up their religious beliefs to continue providing much needed social services
  • Public square: From its earliest days, America has been enriched by religious participation in the public square. Religious ministries, inspired by their beliefs, have often been the first ones to feed, clothe, and shelter their fellow Americans in need. We are all better off when Americans are empowered to live out their faith in a way that helps their fellow man.

Sisters of Life v. McDonald

A dedication to life 

Founded by Cardinal John O’Connor in 1991, the Sisters of Life surrender their lives to God when entering the order by professing vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They also vow to protect the sacredness of human life at every stage. Based in New York, the Sisters are a group of religious women who carry out this mission by caring for pregnant women and their unborn children. They provide pregnant women with housing, maternity clothes, baby formula, and other supplies for well after birth. They also connect pregnant women and their children to pro bono medical and legal services and a wide array of social services. The Sisters offer personal, holistic help rooted in a deep love for human life that sees all people as created in God’s image and likeness.  

The Sisters of Life profess: “We believe every person is valuable and sacred. We believe that every person’s life has deep meaning, purpose and worth. In fact, we give our lives for that truth.” The Sisters’ dedication to their neighbor is grounded in their unwavering Catholic faith which inspires them to build loving relationships with vulnerable women, attending to their emotional, spiritual, and temporal needs.  

Bullying laws target nuns 

After the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, there have been increasing threats from state governments to stop the life-affirming work of crisis pregnancy centers.  In mid-June 2022—after the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion—the state of New York passed one such law that allows the government to probe the internal documents and policies of pro-life pregnancy centers, even forcing them to turn over information about the individual women who seek their help. At the signing of the law, Governor Hochul made her views on abortion clear, calling pro-life supporters “Neanderthals.” The state government is clearly targeting the religious viewpoints of the Sisters of Life and violating the First Amendment protections granted to the Sisters. 

The law protects Sisters and the women they help from harassment:

The Sisters of Life are free to decide matters of their central religious mission and support public initiatives like pregnancy care without fear that they will be forced to disclose private information. Likewise, the women they serve should not have to fear government investigation just because they seek help during a crisis pregnancy. The Supreme Court made clear in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru that the Constitution protects religious institutions from secular influence on matters of internal government. Handing over such internal documents would impede the Sisters’ ability to conduct their important ministry to women who need it the most.  

A duty to protect women 

The Sisters of Life made the difficult decision, after much discernment, to protect the women they serve by suing the State of New York. Their hope was for a resolution that would allow them to focus on the women and children in their community that need them now more than ever. On November 8, 2023, the State of New York backed down and agreed to a court order that forbids them from demanding the Sisters’ information or punishing the Sisters for refusing to provide it.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Religious Communities: Religious orders have a right to serve those in need according to the dictates of their faith. Unfortunately, religious institutions are often targeted if not in alliance with societal standards.  

Free Speech: Religious people have a right to hold onto and profess their teachings without government interference.  

 

Photo Credit: Sisters of Life

YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University

A uniquely Jewish institution 

For more than 135 years, Yeshiva University has been a place where students can immerse themselves in Jewish culture to study the Torah, learn Hebrew, and receive an education steeped in the Modern Orthodox tradition. The school gets its name from the word “yeshiva,” referring to a Jewish religious school dedicated to study of the Talmud. True to its name, all undergraduate men spend two to six hours each day intensely studying Torah. Undergraduate women take at least two Jewish studies courses every semester. Shabbat (the Jewish sabbath) is observed campus wide, as are the laws of kashrut (kosher food).  

As at most yeshivas and Jewish seminaries, there are sex-segregated classes, dorms, and even campuses. Students are strongly encouraged to dress and conduct themselves consistent with Torah values. Yeshiva’s strong religious environment pervades its campuses, accommodating and supporting the schools’ reason for existing and the faith of its students.  

Putting a judicial thumb on the scale

Yeshiva lives out its religious commitment by striving to bring Torah values to the modern secular world. In this pursuit, Yeshiva has long sought both to uphold Torah moral teachings and to welcome and protect its LGBTQ students. It has strong anti-discrimination policies and has held many public events over the past decade to explore what it means to be LGBTQ and Jewish, and how the University can demonstrate greater respect and understanding for LGBTQ students.  

In 2020, a group of students asked Yeshiva to officially recognize a new student club called “YU Pride Alliance.” Following extensive discussion with the students, Yeshiva’s administrators and Roshei Yeshiva (“senior rabbis”) introduced several changes on campus to better support LGBTQ students. But Yeshiva concluded that a club called “Pride Alliance”—as described by the students and understand by the culture at large—would not be consistent with its Torah values. Nevertheless, Yeshiva remained committed to ongoing dialogue regarding forums or clubs that would be consistent with Torah values.  

Unhappy with Yeshiva’s religious decision, the students sued. They demanded that a court force Yeshiva to endorse the Pride Alliance, regardless of its 3,000-year-old religious values. 

Protected by law 

Both the U.S. Constitution—as recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe—and New York City’s Human Rights Law protect Yeshiva University’s ability, as a private religious institution, to carry out its religious mission in keeping with its religious teachings. 

After the New York County Supreme Court denied Yeshiva University’s arguments and concluded that the school was not a “religious corporation” under city law and not protected by the U.S. Constitution, the Court entered a permanent injunction ordering Yeshiva to “immediately” violate its Torah values and approve the club. On behalf of Yeshiva University, Becket moved quickly to request relief from both the New York Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court), but both requests were rejected on August 25, 2022. Four days later, on August 29, 2022, Becket filed an emergency request to the United States Supreme Court, requesting that the Court intervene to stay the violation of Yeshiva’s First Amendment rights pending appeal.  

On September 9, Justice Sotomayor entered an emergency stay, protecting Yeshiva pending a full Court decision. In a 5-4 decision, the full Court lifted that stay, while also stating that “[i]f Yeshiva seek[s] and receive[s] neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, [it] may return to this Court.” At the same time, four justices dissented, saying that Yeshiva should have been granted immediate relief. And if Yeshiva comes back, they added, “Yeshiva would likely win.” Failure by the New York courts to grant relief, they said, would be “a shocking development that calls out for [SCOTUS] review.” The following Monday, the New York Appellate Division agreed to rehear its denial of Yeshiva’s stay request. After these two court rulings, Pride Alliance agreed to voluntarily stay the injunction against Yeshiva pending all appeals, including back up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.  

After the agreed-to stay, Yeshiva and the students worked towards a resolution in the case. As a result, the plaintiffs agreed to a club created by the University that follows rabbinically-approved guidelines and is designed to help students live fully halachic lives.  

303 Creative v. Elenis

An Artist’s Mission 

As both a Christian and graphic designer, Lorie Smith believes that God has called her to use her talents in a way that comports with her religious beliefs. Smith started her own graphic design business in 2012, to follow that mission.  

Smith started to expand her business and wished to add wedding websites to her portfolio. Even though she was happy to work with anyone, she could not in good faith design websites that celebrated same-sex marriage.  

For Smith, it was about the message, not any potential client’s personal characteristics. But because of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), she was prohibited from creating wedding videos. Smith filed a lawsuit in 2016, hoping to keep true to both her job and her religious beliefs. 

A case designed for the Supreme Court 

After unfavorable rulings at the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith appealed her case to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear her case on February 22, 2022.  

On June 2, 2022, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Smith’s case. While the counsel’s briefs to the Supreme Court point out that she should win her case under textbook Free Speech rules such as compelled speech, content discrimination, and viewpoint discrimination, Becket argued that the Court could also take a simpler route to deciding the case. 

Looking back at Anglo-American legal tradition, religious speech has always been considered “core speech” and as such, deserves special protection. When the Founders were drafting the Constitution, their experiences, and the experiences of their forebears, with the suppression of religious speech were at top of mind. The Founders thus wrote the First Amendment to protect speech concerning religion and political matters. Indeed, the idea of freedom of speech originated as freedom of religious speech, and outspoken religious dissenters paved the way for freedom of speech for everyone.  

To the Founders, the only reasons to limit religious speech were threats to peace or safety or encouragements of “licentiousness.” Since Smith’s religious speech doesn’t threaten to do any such things, her speech is protected under the First Amendment and must be allowed to continue. Colorado cannot penalize her for engaging in sincere religious speech. The First Amendment’s robust protections for religious speech demand no less. 

On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot force religious people to choose between their faith or their business. In its 6-3 ruling, the Court picked up on Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief, saying that unlike “commercial advertising,” governments cannot compel speech “about a question of political and religious significance.” 

Oakwood Adventist Academy v. Alabama High School Athletic Association

A team of believers deeply rooted in faith

Oakwood Adventist Academy is a private Seventh-day Adventist school in Huntsville, Alabama. Founded as the Oakwood Industrial School in 1896, Oakwood is the oldest Black Seventh-day Adventist school in the U.S. Like many private religious schools, its students are passionate about their faith – and about their sports teams. In 2022, the hard work that the Oakwood Academy Mustangs had put into their basketball team paid off, and the team made it to the semi-finals, with a shot at the state title on the horizon. It was the best basketball season in the history of the school.  

But a problem emerged when the Mustangs learned of the schedule for the semi-finals: the Mustangs were slated to play at 4:30 on a Saturday, an hour before the end of the Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists consider the Sabbath – from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday – holy. That means no working, and no playing competitive sports, and it is an obligation that Oakwood students and staff alike take very seriously.  

A simple solution 

Fortunately for the Mustangs, there seemed to be a simple solution to the problem. Another game was slated for 7:30 on the same day, well after sundown and the end of the Sabbath. Oakwood Academy reached out to the other teams, who all agreed to the switch. However, the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), which is the state body charged with overseeing interscholastic sports in Alabama, denied Oakwood Academy’s request.  

Oakwood Academy asked AHSAA to adopt sensible religious accommodations to their scheduling policy. The First Amendment requires workable accommodations that allow teams like the Mustangs to participate on an equal basis in competitive sports, and the NCAA already accommodates Sabbath-observing schools like Oakwood Academy in national tournaments. These accommodations help ensure that unpopular or minority religious groups (such as Orthodox Jews or Seventh-day Adventists) are not excluded from the playing field or pressured to abandon their beliefs for a shot at the big game.

No American should ever be excluded from participating in sports on account of his or her faith. A simple schedule-shuffling accommodation is the least government bureaucrats can do to ensure that Americans are able to fully live out their faith, both on and off the court.  

On September 27, 2022, the Alabama High School Athletic Association adopted a new rule that will adjust game schedules to accommodate religious requests, ending the case and providing lasting protection for religious schools and their athletes.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public Square — America has always freely permitted all, whatever their religious persuasion, equal access to public spaces. Sports – especially when it is overseen by government bodies – is no exception. Making sure all Americans have an equal chance to bat a home-run, score a touchdown, or kick a goal helps keep America strong and united, but it also makes sure that the very best athletes have the chance to compete against each other at the top of their game. 

Smith v. Ward

RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek God 

The peaceful expression of religion is an important aspect of human culture, and can provide important and unique benefits for prisoners and society alike. Studies have shown that allowing prisoners to connect with their faith helps with rehabilitation, ensures that they can reintegrate into society when released, and reduces recidivism. For decades, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has protected the religious freedom of inmates. It has enabled Jewish inmates to obey kosher diets, Catholics to access to important sacraments, and practitioners of many faiths to possess religious texts.

In 2015, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed the importance of protecting prisoners’ religious exercise, holding in Holt v. Hobbs that Arkansas was required to accommodate a Muslim prisoner’s request for a half-inch beard. As the Supreme Court in Holt explained, RLUIPA is a crucial protection for religious prisoners, ensuring that religious exercise is not arbitrarily burdened by prison officials. Instead, prison officials must explain—with supporting evidence—why they cannot accommodate the sincere religious exercise of an inmate. This burden is especially demanding when most other prison systems safely provide the same accommodation. Unfortunately, some courts and prison systems did not get the Supreme Court’s message in Holt v. Hobbs.  

The Eleventh Circuit ignores Holt v. Hobbs 

In 2012, Lester Smith filed a lawsuit after his request to the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) to grow a full-length beard was denied, a request that most prison systems would allow. As a devout Muslim, Mr. Smith believes that an untrimmed beard is required by his faith. But the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mr. Smith, claiming that it was enough for GDOC to say that it is more risk-averse than 39 other prison systems, and that allowing beards creates some additional risk. In essence, GDOC can write its own permission slip to violate Mr. Smith’s rights. 

In reaching its decision, the Eleventh Circuit relied on its 2015 decision in Knight v. Thompson, where Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief. Knight was flatly inconsistent with both Holt v. Hobbs and the way that other courts around the country have interpreted RLUIPA. In Mr. Smith’s case, the Eleventh Circuit has doubled down on that wrong position. 

At the Supreme Court   

On April 28, 2022, Becket, along with Scott Ballenger and Sarah Shalf of the University of Virginia Appellate Litigation Clinic, filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Smith, asking the Court to protect this inmate’s religious expression under the rule of Holt v. Hobbs. The ruling in Holt taught us that a prison must offer enough proof that it cannot provide the same accommodation practices set by other institutions. If 39 other prison systems can allow untrimmed beards without incident, that is conclusive evidence that a longer beard is not detrimental to the safety and security of Georgia’s prisons. Courts also cannot blindly defer to prison officials’ preferences if religious accommodations are possible.  

The Supreme Court laid out a clear rule in Holt, saying that prisons should be inclined to withdraw existing accommodations if they are abused rather than denying them outright. But no such misbehavior is present here. Mr. Smith has the right to follow his sincere beliefs and grow his beard.  

On October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision below in this case. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: A fundamental part of human dignity is recognizing the human desire for religious faith.
  • RLUIPA: The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act – passed, like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), with strong bipartisan support – protects the human dignity of prisoners by ensuring that their religious liberty is protected and bans discriminatory land-use rules that are often used to prevent disfavored groups from building houses of worship.  

Billard v. Diocese of Charlotte

The Diocese’s Dedication 

As an essential part of its mission to pass on the Catholic faith, the Diocese of Charlotte operates 19 schools across western North Carolina, including nine in the fast-growing Charlotte area. The Diocese’s schools are sought after for a reason: they not only provide an academically rigorous education in a diverse environment; they are also committed to teaching students the Catholic faith. To accomplish its religious mission, the Diocese asks all employees to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

The Lawsuit  

Lonnie Billard taught English and Drama at Charlotte Catholic High School for 12 years before retiring and transferring to a substitute role. To teach at Charlotte Catholic, he signed a contract agreeing to uphold teachings of the Catholic Church. But in 2015, he entered a same-sex marriage in knowing violation of Catholic teaching and made public statements on social media advocating against Church teaching. When the school chose not to keep calling Billard as a substitute teacher, he partnered with the ACLU to sue the school and the Diocese for asking their teachers to support the school’s religious mission. 

Upholding a Religious Mission 

The Constitution and federal law protect the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children, and the right of religious institutions like the Diocese of Charlotte to select teachers who agree to uphold their religious mission. These rights have repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, which has emphasized that “educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school.” Religious organizations must be free to choose those who carry out their religious mission. This not only protects the fundamental freedoms of parents and religious schools to decide how to pass on their faith, but also protects the proper separation of church and state.  

On September 3, 2021, a federal district court in Charlotte, North Carolina, ruled against the Diocese of Charlotte. The Diocese appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which on May 8, 2024, reversed the district court and affirmed that faith-based schools like Charlotte Catholic enjoy broad freedom to employ teachers who agree to uphold their faith. The court explained that Billard was a minister because Charlotte Catholic required all its teachers to “model and promote Catholic faith and morals,” making Billard, as a teacher at the school, a ‘“messenger’ of its faith.” The Fourth Circuit reiterated that teachers at faith-based schools “are different,” because they are entrusted with “responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school.” Since the First Amendment states that civil courts are ‘“bound to stay out’ of employment disputes involving ministers,” the court held that Billard’s lawsuit could not proceed. Billard and the ACLU decided not to appeal this decision.  

The Diocese of Charlotte was represented by Becket and Troutman Pepper. 

Importance for Religious Liberty: 

  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and organize themselves in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.  

Singh v. Berger

A Firm Faith Tradition 

For centuries, Sikhs have lived according to the teachings of the gurus, which instruct them to shun evil and seek self-mastery, to regard God’s creation as sacred, and to always defend the weak and helpless. Many devout Sikhs live out their religious duty to defend the defenseless by serving with distinction in militaries around the world while maintaining their articles of faith, including unshorn hair. But Sikhs who seek to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps find themselves forced to choose between their religious obligations and their calling to do good. 

Uniformity with Exceptions  

Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Singh Chahal faced a horrible dilemma when they sought to join the Marine Corps: shave and abandon their religious beliefs or go home. Even though the recruits passed all the medical and physical tests required to join, the Marine Corps argues that they must shave their beards to begin basic training because having a “uniform appearance” is necessary during recruit training. But other Marines are allowed to grow out their beards for medical reasons, and the Army, Air Force, and United States Military Academy permit religious beards during initial training.  

 The Marine Corps has been relaxing its uniformity standard for years specifically to promote greater diversity, allowing more diverse hairstyles, updating its dress code to better accommodate women, and even loosening longstanding bans on tattoos. In addition, the Marine Corps has recently granted Marines—including those in bootcamp—more leeway to grow a beard to combat “razor bumps,” a painful medical condition that inflames the face and neck after a close shave. And the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force have long been able to accommodate Sikh servicemembers—beards and all—without compromising mission readiness or safety.  

A Longstanding Defense 

Fortunately, the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) ban the federal government from restricting religious freedom unnecessarily. This means that denying religious accommodations by asserting a need for uniformity while granting lots of other secular exceptions is not only unfair but unlawful as well. Sikhs shouldn’t have to choose between their faith’s teachings that encourage their military service, and their religious understanding of God’s requirements for their physical appearance. Their lawsuit simply asks the government to provide them with religious accommodations equal to those granted to Marines for secular reasons. 

In August 2022, a D.C. district court ruled in Toor v. Berger that the three Marine recruits should not be protected with religious accommodations while the case is ongoing. Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh and Milaap Singh Chahal appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, asking the court to allow them to enter basic training while keeping their articles of faith. On December 23, 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled to protect the three Sikh recruits’ faith while their case continues. Judge Millett wrote for the court, saying that the Marines Corps has never explained “why the Corps cannot apply the same or similar [religious] accommodations that the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and Coast Guard provide.” 

Captain Toor, Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh and Milaap Chahal are represented by Becket, Winston & Strawn, and the Sikh Coalition. Jaskirat Singh is also represented by Baker Hostetler. 

Importance for Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: For generations, people have sought out the United States as a place where they could freely live out their individual beliefs. That freedom does not end where military service begins: the Constitution, federal law, and the traditions of the armed forces all recognize that American servicemembers serve their country best when their own religious freedoms are protected.  

 

Photo Credit: Sikh Coalition

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

Fired for public prayer

For eight years, Coach Joseph Kennedy helped lead the football team at Bremerton High School, a public school in Washington. Win or lose, Kennedy would walk to the 50-yard-line after the game, kneel for a few seconds, and thank God in quiet prayer. Eventually, some players asked if they could join Coach Kennedy. He told them, “This is a free country,” and “You can do what you want.” The students soon noticed the tradition and would voluntarily join the coach on the field for an uplifting and unifying message, inviting players from opposing teams to listen in.

Despite receiving an outpouring of support for allowing Coach Kennedy to continue expressing his faith, the school district demanded Kennedy stop praying where anyone could see him because some onlookers might be offended and see it as an unacceptable school “endorsement” of religion. While the school district had no problem with Coach Kennedy inspiring his students, the school district soured on it altogether when it learned that Kennedy did so through prayer. Coach Kennedy refused the school’s censorship and was no longer welcome as part of the coaching staff.

Six years off the field and in court

Coach Kennedy filed a lawsuit against Bremerton School District in 2016 and asked to continue coaching while the case made its way through the court system. The request made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where it was ultimately denied and sent back down to the district court to further develop the case. In the decision, four Justices expressed serious concern about how the school district had interpreted the First Amendment.

After the lower courts again sided with the school district, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Becket submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on March 2, 2022.

Public prayer is not a boogie man

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Constitution’s Establishment Clause required the school to ban Coach Kennedy from praying because permitting it would amount to government “endorsement” of religion. The school district’s lawyers have gone even further, labeling Coach Kennedy’s quiet prayers as “coercion” that the government must censor, because an onlooker might not feel comfortable seeing prayer in public.

But that’s not how the Constitution works. The First Amendment lets individual people—not the government—decide whether and how to pray. Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court explains a basic truth about public religious expression – it’s a normal and natural part of our culture and shared history as a country and is no more coercive than any other form of protected expression in the public square. Excluding religion—and only religion—from acceptable forms of public expression and inspiration says that something is inherently wrong and offensive about religion itself. The First Amendment takes that conclusion off the table. A coach doesn’t have to check his religion at the schoolhouse gates for fear that someone in the stands might feel offended.

On June 27, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled to protect Coach Kennedy, writing that Kennedy was pursued by the government “for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.” In its decision, the Court also decided to eliminate the Lemon test, a vague legal standard used to decide Establishment Clause cases. The Court confirmed that Lemon has long been dead, and that the Establishment Clause is understood through America’s history and tradition of religious pluralism. The opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, pointed to his recent concurrence in Shurtleff v. Boston, where he adopted Becket’s proposal for Lemon’s replacement: a standard rooted in the history and tradition of the Establishment Clause. 

Coach Kennedy was represented by First Liberty Institute, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy (now of Clement & Murphy PLLC), Spencer Fane LLP, and The Helsdon Law Firm, PLLC.  

Photo credit: First Liberty Institute

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District

Creating a safe environment for students to learn and grow

Teachers and administrators are entrusted with safeguarding our youth and modeling appropriate behavior—a particularly important responsibility during high school, when students are preparing to become adults. But at San Jose Unified School District in California, instead of fostering an environment that’s inclusive of diverse viewpoints, teachers and administrators targeted religious students for their beliefs and forced them to go to court to fight for a place in their campus community.

Targeted for their faith

While they were students at the district’s Pioneer High School, Elizabeth Sinclair and Charlotte Klarke served as co-presidents of Pioneer’s Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) student club. FCA is a national organization which supports student-athletes committed to living out their faith on and off the playing field. The club held regular meetings open to all students, empowering them to share their faith, grow as athletes, serve their local community, and encourage one another through testimony, prayer, and Bible study.

FCA has had a presence in the San Jose Unified School District for over a decade. But in 2019, district officials derecognized FCA and forced the student group off campus after a Pioneer teacher attacked the group’s Christian beliefs in his classroom. The teacher targeted the club during class time, and then sent emails to the school principal describing FCA’s beliefs in vulgar language and advocating for FCA’s removal from campus. He even suggested that FCA’s beliefs and mere presence on campus should be treated as equivalent to sexual harassment. Why? All because FCA wanted to choose leaders who shared their Christian beliefs, which the teacher and the district said was illegal discrimination. Within two weeks, Pioneer FCA was kicked off campus by the district, and eventually all three FCA student clubs in the district were shut out. When students tried to get the FCA club reestablished on campus the next semester, their request was denied—while at the same time, the school recognized a Satanic Temple Club that formed for the purpose of protesting FCA.

Standing together in faith

FCA clubs welcome all students and believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. At Pioneer, school officials even acknowledged that the club “does great things on campus” and is led by “great students.” But none of this mattered when district officials determined that the club couldn’t choose leaders who shared its faith. Across the district, numerous student groups require both leaders and members to support the purpose of the group. Groups like the National Honor Society can exclude students who don’t have a high enough GPA, and sports clubs are allowed to exclude students based on their sex. FCA’s request is even more modest. All students are welcome to attend FCA meetings. The club asks only that those who seek to lead FCA’s ministry affirm the club’s religious beliefs. Even so, district officials targeted FCA and labeled the club “discriminatory,” even while allowing numerous other student groups to choose leaders who align with their missions.

After discussions with the district failed, FCA and its student leaders asked a federal court to order the district to allow it equal access to meet on campus—just like other student clubs. As FCA explained, its request is eminently reasonable: all FCA asks is that those students who lead its ministry—directing Bible studies, leading worship, and determining the direction of the club’s ministry—agree with the very beliefs that animate the club’s mission and ministry. On August 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that FCA students must be treated fairly and equally and that the District could not discriminate against their religious leadership standards under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Access Act. 

The District responded by shutting down all other student groups for Fall 2022 and asking the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decision protecting FCA. On January 18, 2023, the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case “en banc” (before a panel of eleven federal judges). Oral argument took place on March 23. On September 13, 2023, the en banc Ninth Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and upheld the ability of FCA student clubs to freely gather on campus. 

Shurtleff v. City of Boston

Permit application to raise a Christian flag denied  

Outside of Boston’s City Hall, three flagpoles stand. The city ordinarily flies the United States flag on one pole, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag on another, and the third flagpole’s flag often varies. In order to celebrate Boston’s diversity, the city allows outside, private groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies and display a flag of their choosing on the third pole. These flags can celebrate other countries, cultures and causes.

Between 2005 and 2017, the city approved all 284 flag requests it received. The first denial came in 2017 when Camp Constitution, a religious volunteer organization, asked to raise a flag featuring a red Latin cross to commemorate Constitution Day. Boston decided it would not allow a “religious” flag out of “concern for the so-called separation of church and state.” The message was clear—no religious speech allowed.

Boston’s decision was wrong, but it’s not alone. Government officials have used similar reasoning to exclude religious speech from public spaces and even to deny disaster relief funds to churches and synagogues damaged by hurricanes.

Courts ignore the Constitution

Harold Shurtleff, cofounder of Camp Constitution, sued the City of Boston for its discriminatory permit denial. Applying an outdated interpretation of the Establishment Clause called the Lemon test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that Boston was correct to censor religious speech. Shurtleff then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted review of the case and heard oral argument on January 18, 2022.

Understanding the Establishment Clause

On November 22, 2021, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, pointing out that this mistake happened because Boston’s city officials (and the lower courts) misunderstand the Establishment Clause. Government officials who have an outdated understanding of the Establishment Clause often ban religious elements from the public square simply because they are religious.

This error isn’t limited to Boston. For years, government officials (with approval from lower courts) have been censoring religious expression from the public square in fear of violating the Constitution. Many mistakenly think that exclusion of religion is the safest option. This mistake goes beyond a flagpole—similar reasoning has been used to prohibit religious groups from advertising on trains and buses, exclude religious schools from generally available funding programs, and even deny FEMA aid to churches and synagogues damaged by hurricanes.

The widespread misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause dates back to the 1970s, when courts started to rely on the Lemon test. This legal test is a vague standard that not only ignores history but also has created a mess of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Becket asked the Supreme Court to formally overrule Lemon so that the hostile censorship against religion in the public square is stopped, once and for all.

During oral argument on January 18, 2022, Justice Kavanaugh cited Becket’s brief and pointed out the failings of the Lemon test.  

On May 2, 2022, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled. Because the City of Boston had a “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of the flags or the crafting of their messages,” the flag raising was deemed “private, not government, speech.” 

While the Court refrained from disposing of the Lemon test during this decision, Justice Gorsuch said that Lemon came from a “bygone era” and “produced chaos” for the Establishment Clause. He also adopted Becket’s proposal for Lemon’s replacement– a standard rooted in the text, history, and traditions of the Establishment Clause. The next month, in the case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court formally announced the end of Lemon.  

 

Dr. A v. Hochul

Healthcare heroes on the frontlines

In March 2020, Americans gained new appreciation and admiration for doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers who heroically put their own health and safety on the line day in and day out to help and heal their neighbors.

But now that the worst moments of the COVID-19 pandemic are behind us, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers in New York are being punished for abstaining from vaccination on religious grounds. In accordance with a state mandate, healthcare institutions across New York have been forced to fire healthcare workers who refused the COVID-19 vaccine—even when they wanted to keep them on the job, and even when firing them has forced them to close emergency rooms and reduce services.

Lose your job or violate your conscience

On August 18, 2021, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a vaccine mandate for the state’s heroic healthcare workers that allowed for religious exemptions along the lines of medical exemptions. But on August 26, 2021, Governor Kathy Hochul suddenly changed course and removed the religious exemption while maintaining the medical exemption.

The mandate went as far as to demand healthcare workers either get vaccinated or lose their jobs. And if they decided to follow their conscience, they would also lose their unemployment benefits as well.

As New York faces a severe shortage of medical professionals, Governor Hochul has made it clear that it was no mistake to omit a religious exemption from the state’s mandate. At the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, Hochul mocked religious Americans with objections to the vaccine, saying “you know there’s people out there who aren’t listening to God and what God wants. You know who they are.”

Seeking emergency relief

Shortly after the governor issued the mandate, Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against Governor Hochul on behalf of 17 healthcare workers who have religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine but are willing to undergo frequent testing and use protective clothing at all times onsite. Several of the healthcare workers have natural immunity from already contracting COVID due to their heroic work on the front lines of the pandemic.

In November of 2021, Becket joined Thomas More Society in filing an emergency application to the Supreme Court to end New York’s harmful vaccine mandate. Three Justices would have granted the application, which was ultimately denied. In February 2022, Becket and Thomas More asked the Supreme Court to hear the full case on the merits.

Becket’s and Thomas More’s brief points out that 47 other states, as well as the federal government, protect religious objectors by either not mandating vaccines or by allowing religious exemptions for those with objections to the COVID-19 vaccines.

The Supreme Court denied review on June 30, 2022, sending the case back down to the lower courts. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented, indicating that they would have granted certiorari now.

Gutierrez v. Saenz

On June 16, 2020, a Texas death-row inmate was hours away from his execution when the United States Supreme Court halted the procedure. Ruben Gutierrez had asked Texas to provide access to a Christian chaplain in his last moments before death but had been refused by the prison administration. Gutierrez filed an emergency order before the Court, arguing that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment should guarantee the free exercise of religion, even for those in prison and especially for those about to meet their Maker.  

Spiritual Comfort– for some or for none 

Texas has a long tradition of allowing chaplains in the death chamber. It all changed when Texas refused the request of spiritual comfort to Buddhist prisoner Patrick Henry Murphy, a right that had been afforded to other prisoners through state-employed chaplains. On March 28, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay in Mr. Murphy’s execution, noting that Texas’ actions were a “governmental discrimination against religion” and violated the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, instead of allowing different kinds of spiritual advisors in the death chamber, Texas responded to its Supreme Court loss in the Murphy case by eliminating all use of chaplains in the last moments of death. This went against years of tradition, where spiritual guidance had been safely given to the condemned for decades. Now, no Texas prisoner could receive that pastoral care before death. 

Need of Clergy for the Condemned 

However, federal law supports the idea that all people of all faiths should be able to practice their faith freely, a right that should not be refused once someone enters the prison cell. Mr. Gutierrez only requested the services of state-employed chaplains, the chaplains that have ministered to Texas state prisoners for decades. Texas denied the request due to what it said were safety concerns, but in the previous year, Texas told the Supreme Court that their chaplains could be trusted in the most difficult circumstances in the death chamber. 

After staying the execution in June 2020, the United States Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Texas district court and asked the lower court to figure out “whether serious security problems would result if a prisoner facing execution is permitted to choose the spiritual adviser the prisoner wishes to have in his immediate presence during the execution.” The lower court concluded that Texas had no compelling interest in preventing access to the clergy and on January 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision that Texas could deny Mr. Gutierrez a chaplain. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:   

  • Individual Freedom: Religion is an innate human desire, and all individuals regardless of their legal status deserve protection of their constitutional right to practice and adhere to their faith. 
  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons. 

 

Ramirez v. Collier

View: A HISTORY OF CLERGY PRESENCE IN THE EXECUTION CHAMBER

The right of the condemned to prayer before an execution long predates the formation of the United States, which inherited the tradition from England. Since before the colonial era, it was common for ministers to accompany the condemned to the gallows, where they would pray with, minister to, and touch those who are about to die. General George Washington honored such requests by deserters executed during the Revolution, and the United States also honored such requests by Nazi war criminals after the Nuremberg Trials. 

Today, condemned prisoners of all faiths often request such prayers in the death chamber from their clergy as a way to “get right with God” and safeguard their eternal destiny. And some religious traditions require such ministrations to those marked for death. The federal government and state governments have routinely allowed clergy to minister to the condemned in the death chamber—both by praying aloud and holding their hand. 

In 2019, the state of Alabama denied a Muslim prisoner the presence and prayer of an imam before his execution. When the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) attempted to do the same thing to a Buddhist prisoner just a few weeks later, the Supreme Court stepped in, ruling in Murphy v. Collier that Texas had to permit the prisoner’s Buddhist spiritual advisor to accompany him to the death chamber. Since then, the Supreme Court has similarly protected Christian prisoners in both Texas and Alabama. Despite these clear rulings and centuries of history, including its own traditional practices, TDCJ recently imposed two rules – one preventing clergy from praying aloud and one preventing clergy from touching the inmate – contrary to centuries of tradition. TDCJ said these long-accepted prayers would “disrupt the execution” despite any evidence that they had or would.  

Death row inmate John Henry Ramirez appealed to the Supreme Court seeking prayer and touch from his Southern Baptist pastor during his final moments. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief with prominent constitutional scholar and Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell and the Harvard Law School Religious Freedom Clinic. Becket’s brief describes the long history of audible clergy prayer and clergy touch and explains why that means Ramirez ought to prevail under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  

On November 1, 2021, the case was argued before the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 vote, on March 24, 2022, the Court ruled in favor of allowing clergy to audibly and physically pray with Ramirez. The Court cited Becket’s amicus brief on the long history of clerical prayer present at executions and agreed that prohibiting such practices substantially burdened the prisoner’s religious exercise and that Texas could not satisfy strict scrutiny.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: A fundamental part of human dignity is recognizing the human desire for religious faith.
  • RLUIPA: The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act – passed, like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), with strong bipartisan support – protects the human dignity of prisoners by ensuring that their religious liberty is protected and bans discriminatory land-use rules that are often used to prevent disfavored groups from building houses of worship.  

Carson v. Makin

Giving Religious Education the Cold Shoulder

For students living in rural Maine communities—in one of the least densely populated parts of the United States—local public high schools are hard to come by. The State of Maine offers tuition assistance to families who send their children to private schools—any private schools except religious schools. In fact, students have used Maine student aid to attend elite New England prep schools such as Avon Old Farms, the Taft School, and Miss Porter’s. They are even entitled to use Maine student aid to attend private schools outside the country—as long as they aren’t religious. These otherwise qualified religious schools are left out and the children attending these schools receive no tuition assistance throughout their entire primary education, all because the schools have a religious mission.

Religious schools nationwide provide high-standard education with a spiritual foundation. These educational opportunities are sought after by parents who choose to send their children to religious schools so that their children receive both a first-rate education and they are able to pass the faith to the next generation.

The Supreme Court Steps In, and In Again

Unfortunately our country has a long history of excluding religious institutions from public programs, stemming from anti-Catholic laws in the nineteenth century. These laws, called Blaine Amendments, were adopted by several states and burdened religious ministries simply because of their faith-driven beliefs. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that Montana could not exclude religious schools from a scholarship program based on Montana’s Blaine Amendment. The Court explained that the exclusion was “born of bigotry,” and Justice Alito elaborated on the dark history of Blaine Amendments. The decision also strengthened precedent set in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that said a religious school could not be blocked from participating in a state recycling program.

Unfortunately, the State of Maine thinks that it can still exclude religious schools from its tuition assistance program. On February 4, 2021, families from Maine asked the United States Supreme Court to hear their case and end Maine’s discriminatory actions. The Court granted review and on September 10, 2021, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief that emphasized the importance of the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion, saying that Maine could not justify singling out children who wanted to attend religious schools.

On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the state of Maine’s tuition assistance program was in violation of the Free Exercise clause, coming as a major victory for religious schools in Maine and throughout the country.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Education:  Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.

 

 

Belya v. Metropolitan Hilarion

ROCOR: A History of dealing with Big Government  

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) began in the 1920s after a contingent of Russian Orthodox priests and bishops were forced out of Russia by the Bolshevik government. 

Over the past century, ROCOR has grown across the world, especially in the United States. Today, of 400 parishes worldwide, over 230 are within the U.S. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate agreed to an act of communion in May 2007, reestablishing their canonical ties.   

An Internal Dispute  

Father Alexander Belya was a ROCOR priest for several years. In the midst of an internal ecclesiastical uproar about whether he met the qualifications necessary to be elected bishop, Father Alexander’s diocesan leaders wrote a letter to the Synod—the executive organ of the church’s highest ecclesiastical body—describing complaints about Father Alexander’s conduct and explaining that he had not been elected pursuant to church requirements. The letter also noted several irregularities under church law in the documents that claimed he had been elected, and called on Metropolitan Hilarion to suspend Father Alexander from priestly duties and to open a Church investigation into the alleged election. Metropolitan Hilarion then suspended Father Alexander. Rather than submit toinvestigation, Father Alexander left ROCOR and sued the Church, Metropolitan Hilarion, and other Church leaders for defamation. He claimed damages for the loss of income from members leaving his congregation, and for “severely impaired reputation and standing” within the ROCOR community.   

Defending Church Autonomy:  

Religious freedom has allowed ROCOR to thrive in the United States. This freedom includes protections from government interference in churches’ internal religious affairs—especially in their decisions related to the selection, discipline, or removal of clergy. But this right means little if a church can be sued for communicating these decisions to its members.  

After the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss Father Alexander’s suit, Becket stepped in and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 17, 2022, the Second Circuit ruled against the church, declining to protect ROCOR’s First Amendment rights. After the Second Circuit denied rehearing and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, the case continued in federal district court.  

The district court ruled in favor of ROCOR and dismissed Father Alexander’s case, saying that “a trial in the case would drag the Court and jury into matters of faith, spiritual doctrine, and internal church governance—precisely what the church-autonomy doctrine is designed to prevent.” In August 2025, Father Alexander appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and oral argument took place on February 24, 2026.  

The Church is also represented by Feerick Nugent MacCartney, PLLC.

Importance for Religious Liberty: 

  • Freedom of religious groups to choose their own leaders: Churches and other religious groups have the right to select, discipline, and, if necessary, remove their leaders without government interference. Only the church—not a court—gets to say who the bishop is. This right is protected by a First Amendment principle called the “ministerial exception.”
  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.  

Hedican v. Walmart

Sabbath day observance, a pillar of faith 

Sabbath day observance is a crucial part of many faiths—a day ordained by God when one abstains from the distractions of daily life in order to devote time to family, community, and worshiping God. As their name indicates, this practice is particularly sacred to Seventh-day Adventists, who observe the Sabbath from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. Many employers voluntarily make allowances for Sabbath day observance, recognizing its essential role in the wellbeing of their religious employees. 

In April of 2016, Ed Hedican was offered a position as an assistant manager at Walmart. When he accepted the position, he requested a religious accommodation so that he would not have to work on the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath. Though he asked not to be scheduled from on his Sabbath, he was willing to work any other time of the week, including Saturday after sundown.  

A corporation’s disregard for religious rights 

In response to Mr. Hedican’s request, Walmart refused to provide religious accommodation for the Sabbath and rescinded his job offer. Although Mr. Hedican was qualified for the position, and eager to work with Walmart to achieve a compromise (volunteering to work any other day of the week, including nights, and 12-hour shifts), Walmart refused, suggesting he apply to an hourly position of lower pay and lower rank. Though it is the largest non-governmental employer in the United States, Walmart claimed that any accommodation made for Mr. Hedican’s Sabbath observance would burden impose “undue hardship” on the company. 

The average salary of a Walmart assistant manager is just over $50,000. In contrast, Walmart—the largest private employer in the United States—amassed over half a trillion dollars in revenue in 2020 alone, making any cost or inconvenience of religious accommodation in this instance negligible. Yet Walmart even declined to investigate whether costless accommodations were available, such as allowing assistant managers (there were eight at this particular store) to arrange voluntary shift swaps amongst themselves.  

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination due to factors such as religion, race, and gender. Mr. Hedican submitted a charge of discrimination to the EEOC, explaining that Walmart was not reasonably accommodating his religious exercise, as is required by law.  

Correcting a harmful precedent 

In the EEOC’s subsequent suit against Walmart, the federal trial and appellate courts ruled for Walmart, relying heavily on an old Supreme Court precedent from 1977. In Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Court ruled that companies may refuse to provide religious accommodation for their employees if providing such an accommodation presents the company with even a minor inconvenience.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit interpreted that precedent to mean that even a chance that shift-swaps would burden Walmart’s rotation system, without concrete evidence, was enough to rule for Walmart. This rule enables corporations like Walmart, the largest employer in the U.S., to discriminate against religious employees if accommodating them would cause a burden as trivial as rearranging work shifts.  

On behalf of Mr. Hedican, Becket asked the Court to revisit the Trans World Airlines decision and its interpretation in the lower courts, and defend the constitutional right of every American, including shift workers like Mr. Hedican, to work according to their conscience and their faith.  

This case is important for all Americans who are faced with similar conflicts in the workplace, put to the choice between their faith and providing for their family even where reasonable accommodation is possible. People are more than punches in a timecard, and the law should assure that every American has the right to live and work according to their religious convictions.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:

Individual Freedom—Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing the signs of one’s faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.  

United States of America v. State of Texas

The Humanitarian Respite Center in McAllen, Texas, ministers to over 1,000 recent migrants each day. The Center was created in 2014 by Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, a ministry of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville. The Center has served more than 100,000 migrants to date and is the first stop for many migrant families after they cross the border and are released by law enforcement. At the Center, families dropped off by Border Patrol receive COVID tests and transportation to quarantine locations, if needed. Those without COVID enter the Center to receive basic necessities: medical attention, food, water, temporary shelter from the elements. Catholic Charities then transports them to hospitals, shelters, or on their way to reunite with family.   

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, incoming migrants are tested for COVID-19 before entering the Center. Migrants who test positive are safely quarantined at nearby hotels. However, on July 28, 2021, Texas issued an Order forbidding non-governmental entities from transporting migrants anywhere in Texas. While supposedly intended to prevent COVID-19 transmission, the Order in practice would prevent the Humanitarian Respite Center from taking migrants from the Center to local bus stations, airports, hospitals, and more permanent shelters. And it would prevent the Center from safely transporting COVID positive migrants to quarantine locations. Instead, with the Center unable to take in any more migrants, Border Patrol would leave migrants—without ever testing them for COVID—at local McAllen bus stations, increasing the likelihood of COVID transmission in the community and leaving young women and children with no means of contacting transportation or procuring food and water.   

Concerned about the negative impact this order would have on the federal government’s operations, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 30, seeking to block enforcement of the order. On August 3, a federal judge in El Paso granted temporary relief, set to expire on August 13. On August 11, 2021, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, pointing out that the order impeded the religious rights of Catholic Charities contrary to federal and state law.

As Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief explains, both state and federal law protect the free exercise of religion – including the exercise of religious ministries like the Humanitarian Respite Center. Not only did the order potentially increase the spread of COVID-19, but it also – in violation of state laws protecting religious exercise – threatened the Center if it carried out its religious mission of serving the vulnerable. 

After a court hearing on August 13, the district court issued an injunction that protects Catholic Charities Rio Grande Valley from Governor Abbott’s order while the case continues in court. The court recognized the vital role of religious ministries, finding “sufficient evidence” that federal officials must rely on the transportation efforts of “NGO-partners” like Catholic Charities “in order to operate the immigration system successfully.”

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

A Decade-Long War 

In 2013, the Little Sisters of the Poor rose to national recognition when they won their first victory over the contraceptive mandate at the Supreme Court. But their fight to serve the elderly poor without compromising their religious convictions didn’t start or end there. States like California and New York, as well as the federal government, have been relentless, insisting for over a decade that nuns (and other religious nonprofits) must pay for abortifacient drugs in their health plans or pay tens of millions of dollars in crippling fines.  

Among the most ludicrous aspects of the Little Sisters’ fight is that in over a decade, their aggressors have not been able to identify a single woman who will lose contraceptive coverage if the Little Sisters don’t pay for it. These fights are not really fights over nuns and their healthcare plan but rather over expanding and solidifying abortion rights.  

A Consequential Decision 

When the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade in 1973, it reached beyond the Constitution to establish a right to abortion. That decision has haunted many areas of the law, including the First Amendment where many cases arise because of abortion advocates seeking to expose and punish religious Americans with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive drugs. These proxy wars have been fought on at least four battlefields with direct implications for religious liberty: contraceptive and abortion mandates, pharmacist regulations, pregnancy center regulations, and restrictions on sidewalk counselors. 

That’s how the Little Sisters of the Poor, and numerous other Becket clients, including Eleanor McCullen, a sidewalk counselor who went to the Supreme Court to fight for her right to speak to share her message of hope with women going into the abortion clinic; family pharmacies operated by people of faith like the Stormans family in Washington state and Luke Vander Bleek and Glenn Kosirog in Illinois that were forced to choose between selling the morning-after and week-after pills at their family-run pharmacies or lose their licenses; and Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, which wanted to help vulnerable women without being forced to undermine its mission by displaying a sign that read “do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services.” 

These are just a few examples of unnecessary and often painful battles waged in both the courtroom and in the court of public opinion from California to New York, in the hospice rooms of nuns caring for the elderly poor and on the campuses of Christian colleges that teach their students all human beings bear the image and likeness of God – the landscape of the fight has engulfed almost every sector of our society. 

It doesn’t have to be that way—other countries like France, England, and Germany—have experienced much less of this kind of abortion v. religious liberty conflict. But in the U.S., with abortion rights dictated by the Supreme Court, the conflicts have raged.

A Chance to end the unnecessary fights 

Next term, the Court can correct the damage done to religious liberty in a case with a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  

In March of 2018, Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act which restricts abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. In response, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed a lawsuit against the State of Mississippi arguing that the law violated its rights under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. After the State of Mississippi lost the case at both the district court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case in May 2021.  

On July 27, 2021, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Dobbs, arguing that the Court should replace the Roe framework, thereby relieving the heavy burden imposed on religious liberty by abortion proxy wars, and opening the door to more productive solutions to religious liberty conflicts related to abortion.  

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the state of Mississippi, overturning Roe v. Wade. The decision puts the abortion debate back into the hands of the voters, lessens the battles between religious freedom and abortion, and better ensures Americans the right to live in accordance with their faith. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

The legal framework of Roe has haunted religious Americans ever since it was issued by the Supreme Court in 1973.  Fewer national proxy wars over religious liberty and abortion will result from returning the abortion debate back to the states. 

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta

Does a California tax law violate the freedom of assembly? 

If you want to be a nonprofit organization in California, you must disclose your donors to the Attorney General. This disclosure ostensibly makes future law enforcement more “efficient.” But California’s requirement is a national outlier and invites harassment. Indeed, in the past, the California Attorney General’s Office has leaked sensitive information like a sieve, resulting in donor harassment.  Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) did not submit to the disclosure requirement and, as a result, in 2013, California threatened to revoke AFP’s nonprofit status.  

There and back again: a journey through the courts 

AFP sued California in December 2014. It claimed that California’s mandatory donor disclosure requirement violates the right to “freedom of association”—a right protected by the U.S. Constitution, but with unclear basis in the Constitution’s text, history, or tradition. This confusion led the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse AFP’s trial court victory. It claimed that, since nothing is “distinguishable” between associating for political campaigns (where disclosure ensures democratic accountability) and associating for any other charitable purpose, the law permitted California to demand disclosure of every nonprofits’ donors.   

AFP appealed the Ninth Circuit ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted AFP’s petition on January 8, 2021. Oral argument was held on April 26, 2021.  

An opportunity to set straight the meaning of “freedom of assembly” 

On March 1, 2021, Becket filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court, and our argument about the freedom of assembly was mentioned during oral arguments by three of the Justices and extensively discussed by advocates for both AFP and California. Our brief urged the Court to use this case as an opportunity to correct the courts’ decades-long faulty interpretation of the Assembly Clause, which focuses primarily on protecting expression. This error at the core of the Ninth Circuit’s decision has led to decades of bad rulings against religious and other assemblies, and it restricts the Constitution’s protection for civil society. As our brief explains, assemblies should not be protected based on how “expressive” they are. Rather, the text, history, and tradition of the First Amendment’s Assembly Clause confirms that assemblies primarily exist for formative purposes—shaping people in beliefs and customs, regardless of their political expression or popularity.   

Our brief argued that the freedom of assembly is grounded in, and was historically understood to come from, the freedom to assemble for the purpose of worship. By looking to our long national tradition of how and why we protect religious assembly, the law can better protect the right to assemble generally, and the right to not give the government the tools to squelch private assemblies out of existence (or into submission). Properly applying that tradition dooms California’s donor disclosure requirement and shores up legal protections for civil society.  

On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects collective action for “preserving political and cultural diversity” and that “[m]ere administrative convenience” is not enough to restrict First Amendment freedoms. Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion cited Becket’s amicus brief, noting that “[t]he text and history of the Assembly Clause” include “the right to associate anonymously.” 

Importance to Religious Liberty 

  • Freedom of assembly: The First Amendment includes “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Contrary to popular interpretations, which link freedom of assembly most closely to freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly is grounded in the freedom to assemble for formative purposes. Self-government depends upon shaping individuals to govern themselves, and that is what safeguarding space for civil society permits.  

Fernández Martínez v. Spain

Should Church or State Determine Who Teaches Religion?

In Spain, religious communities’ leadership determines who is allowed to teach children at religious schools about their faith. Mr. Fernández Martínez, a former (“laicized”) Catholic priest, was approved by the local bishop to teach Church beliefs for almost six years – but in 1997, the bishop declined to renew Fernández Martínez’s contract because he had publicly voiced his opposition to the Church’s position regarding priestly celibacy.

Fernández Martínez initiated a lawsuit, claiming his right to personal autonomy trumped the Church’s right to select teachers of the faith. The Constitutional Court of Spain rejected this argument. On appeal to the ECHR, the European Court’s Grand Chamber followed Becket’s amicus brief and recognized that churches must be free to decide who teaches their faith to the next generation without interference from the state. This decision was in line with decisions in earlier Becket cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Sindicatul “Pastorul cel Bun” v. Romania, demonstrating that religious autonomy is a truly global principle.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities: Religious communities have the right to choose their own leaders, and to decide who teaches their faith without interference from the state. Issues of doctrine like priestly celibacy or church leadership and teaching are matters for the church to decide – not government agents.

Pavez vs. Chile

Read in English

Libertad para elegir profesores calificados

Incluso en países sin separación constitucional entre iglesia y Estado, las organizaciones religiosas tienen derecho a elegir a sus maestros. Al ser un país predominantemente católico, Chile ofrece clases de religión sobre la fe católica en muchas de sus escuelas gubernamentales, sin embargo, al ser materia de libertad religiosa y autonomía, el obispo católico local debe tener la capacidad de certificar quién está calificado para impartir esas clases.

Rompimiento con la Iglesia

Sandra Pavez fue profesora de religión durante mucho tiempo en una escuela gubernamental en San Bernardo, Chile. En 2007, la Sra. Pavez le informó a la Diócesis de San Bernardo que estaba en una relación con una persona del mismo sexo. Debido a que este hecho viola el derecho canónico católico, que es el cuerpo legislativo que rige a la Iglesia Católica, la Diócesis revocó la certificación de la Sra. Pavez para enseñar la fe católica en su escuela. Sin embargo, la escuela retuvo a la Sra. Pavez como maestra e inmediatamente la promovió a Inspectora General, que es un cargo de mayor prestigio.

A pesar de esta promoción, la Sra. Pavez demandó a la Diócesis ante los tribunales chilenos, que reconocieron correctamente que la Diócesis tenía autoridad para determinar quién estaba capacitado para enseñar su fe, y que la Sra. Pavez había sido promovida en lugar de perjudicada por esa decisión. El 28 de octubre de 2008, la Sra. Pavez presentó una queja ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, alegando que Chile había violado su derecho a la “no injerencia arbitraria en la vida privada”, constatada en la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. La Comisión falló a favor de la Sra. Pavez el 7 de diciembre de 2018, y Chile apeló ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, que aceptó el caso el 11 de setiembre del 2019, y fijó el caso para audiencia pública el 12 de mayo de 2021 en San José, Costa Rica.

Autonomía religiosa en el país y en el extranjero

Becket está presentando un escrito amicus curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, argumentando que los grupos religiosos deben ser libres de tomar decisiones sobre quién puede enseñar su fe a la siguiente generación de creyentes. El escrito de Becket cita el artículo 12 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el artículo 18 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y otros tratados líderes en materia de derechos humanos, todos los cuales incluyen un lenguaje robusto que protege la libertad religiosa de las personas y las comunidades. El escrito de Becket, con un enfoque comparativo, muestra cuántos países latinoamericanos y europeos, así como los Estados Unidos y Canadá, han reconocido el principio de autonomía religiosa y han protegido el derecho de las organizaciones religiosas a elegir a sus líderes y a sus maestros. Y Becket también señala que los países que violan la autonomía religiosa tienden igualmente a violar otros derechos humanos, especialmente los derechos de las personas LGBTQ+.

La acción de Becket en este caso forma parte de una serie de casos similares en los que Becket ha participado en todo el mundo, incluso en tribunales internacionales tales como el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y en los tribunales de los Estados Unidos. En el caso de Fernández Martínez vs. España, Becket presentó un escrito amicus curiae argumentando que el principio de autonomía religiosa protegía el derecho de la Iglesia Católica a no renovar el contrato del profesor de religión que se había unido a una campaña pública oponiéndose a sus creencias. En 2014, el Tribunal Europeo adoptó este enfoque, defendiendo la libertad de la Iglesia de elegir quién está calificado para enseñar la fe. Y en el caso de Sindicatul “Pastorul cel bun” vs. Rumania, Becket presentó un escrito similar argumentando que las iglesias, sinagogas y otras organizaciones religiosas tienen derecho a ordenar sus asuntos internos sin interferencia del gobierno. En 2013, el Tribunal Europeo confirmó el derecho de autonomía religiosa de la Iglesia Ortodoxa Rumana sobre el derecho de los sacerdotes disidentes a crear un sindicato o unión gremial.

En 2012 y 2020, Becket ganó casos similares en la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en la Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC y en Our Lady of Guadalupe vs. Morrissey-Berru, en los que la Corte dictaminó que las escuelas religiosas tienen derecho a seleccionar a los maestros que enseñan sus creencias.

Tanto en la Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos como en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Becket ha abogado por que la misma norma se aplique internacionalmente, de modo que ningún grupo religioso pierda su capacidad de elegir a sus líderes y maestros, un derecho ampliamente reconocido en el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos.

Relevancia para la libertad religiosa:

  • Comunidades Religiosas — Los grupos religiosos deben estar plenamente facultados para seleccionar a sus sacerdotes, rabinos, ministros y otros maestros religiosos libres de interferencia gubernamental. La Corte Suprema ha reconocido este derecho en los Estados Unidos, pero es fundamental brindar esas mismas protecciones sólidas a la libertad religiosa a nivel internacional.

Pavez v. Chile

Leer En Español

Freedom to choose qualified teachers  

Even in countries without constitutional separation between church and state, religious organizations have the right to choose their teachers. As a predominantly Catholic country, Chile offers religion classes on the Catholic faith in many of its government schools, but as a matter of religious freedom and autonomy, the local Catholic bishop must be able to certify who is qualified to teach those classes.

Disunion with the Church

Sandra Pavez was a long-time religion teacher at a government school in San Bernardo, Chile. In 2007, Ms. Pavez told the Diocese of San Bernardo that she was in a same-sex relationship. Because this violated Catholic canon law, the governing body of laws of the Catholic Church, the Diocese revoked Ms. Pavez’s certification to teach the Catholic faith in her school. However, the school retained Ms. Pavez as a teacher and immediately promoted her to the more prestigious position of Inspector General.

Despite this promotion, Ms. Pavez sued the Diocese in the Chilean courts, which correctly recognized that the Diocese had authority to determine who was qualified to teach its faith, and that Ms. Pavez had been promoted rather than harmed by that decision. On October 28, 2008, Ms. Pavez filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that Chile had violated her right to “no arbitrary interference in private life,” found in the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission ruled in favor of Ms. Pavez on December 7, 2018, and Chile appealed to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which accepted the case on September 11, 2019, and set the case for public hearing on May 12, 2021 in San José, Costa Rica.

Religious autonomy at home and abroad

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, arguing that religious groups must be free to make decisions about who may teach their faith to the next generation of believers. Becket’s brief cites Article 12 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other leading human rights treaties, which all include robust language protecting religious freedom for individuals and communities. Becket’s brief takes a comparative approach, demonstrating how many Latin American and European countries, as well as the United States and Canada, have recognized the principle of religious autonomy and protected the right of religious organizations to choose their leaders and teachers. And Becket also points out that countries that violate religious autonomy tend to violate other human rights as well, especially the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

On April 13, 2022, the Inter-American Court released its decision in favor of Ms. Pavez. The decision failed to grapple with the importance of religious autonomy, and it ignored the consensus of the international human rights community that religious groups have a right to decide who is qualified to teach their faith to the next generation without fear of government interference.

Becket’s action in this case is part of a series of similar cases Becket has participated in worldwide, including in international tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights and in the United States courts. In the case of Fernández Martínez v. Spain, Becket filed an amicus brief arguing that the principle of religious autonomy protected the Catholic Church’s right to not renew the contract of religion teacher who had joined a public campaign opposing their beliefs. In 2014, the European Court adopted this approach, upholding the Church’s freedom to choose who is qualified to teach the faith. And in the case of Sindicatul “Pastorul cel bun” v. Romania, Becket filed a similar brief arguing that churches, synagogues, and other religious organizations have a right to order their internal affairs without government interference. In 2013, the European Court upheld the Romanian Orthodox Church’s right of religious autonomy over the right of dissident priests to create a trade union.

In 2012 and 2020, Becket won similar cases at the United States Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, in which the Court ruled that religious schools have the right to select teachers of their faiths.

At both the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Becket has advocated for the same standard to apply internationally, so that no religious group will lose their ability to choose their leaders and teachers, a right which is broadly recognized in international human rights law.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities— Religious groups should be fully empowered to select their priests, rabbis, ministers and other religious teachers free from government interference. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this right in the United States, but the same robust protections are fundamental to religious freedom internationally.

 

Diocese of Albany v. Harris

Pushing the envelope beyond the contraceptive mandate 

In 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services ordered employers to cover controversial contraceptives and abortifacients in their health care plans or face crippling fines. Immediately challenges were mounted by religious universities, Christian businesses and, most famously, by the Little Sisters of the Poor—an order of Catholic nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the elderly poor. Three times the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, saying that if the government wanted to provide contraceptives and abortifacients, it could not force the nuns to help.  

But in 2017, when the Little Sisters of the Poor were already two Supreme Court victories into their decade-long legal battle over the contraceptive mandate, the State of New York went a step further and required employers statewide to cover not just abortifacients, but even surgical abortions in their health plans.  

New York initially planned to respect conscience rights by exempting employers with religious objections. But facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to protect only religious entities that primarily employ and serve people of their own faith. This discriminatory rule punished the many religious groups and ministries that provide critical community services and employ or serve people regardless of their faith.

Standing up for the right to stand aside  

A coalition of religious groups from a variety of denominations—including Roman Catholic dioceses, an order of goat-herding Anglican nuns, Baptist and Lutheran churches, and Catholic ministries—sued New York, arguing that the law forced them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs about the sanctity of life.  

Among the religious groups that challenged New York’s abortion mandate were a group of the Carmelite Sisters who run the Teresian Nursing Home for the elderly and dying; the First Bible Baptist Church, which serves the community through its youth ministry and a deaf ministry; the Sisterhood of St. Mary, an Anglican/Episcopal order of religious sisters who live a contemplative, monastic life; and subdivisions of Catholic Charities, which provide adoption and maternity services. 

Each group challenged New York’s abortion mandate because it believes that life begins at the moment of conception, and that to intentionally end the life of an unborn child is a grave moral sin. However, unless they received protection in court, these orders, ministries, and churches would either have to violate their deepest religious convictions and provide abortions, or eliminate their employees’ health insurance altogether, which would subject them to crippling fines totaling millions of dollars per year. 

Seeking relief from the High Court 

Represented by Becket and Jones Day, the coalition of religious organizations asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the bad rulings from the New York state courts, and told the state courts to reconsider the case in light of Becket’s other landmark victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The New York Court of Appeals reconsidered the case, but failed to protect the religious groups and again upheld the abortion mandate. On September 17, 2024, the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. 

On June 16, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religious organizations fighting New York’s abortion mandate. The ruling ordered New York courts to reconsider the case in light of the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In that opinion, the Court made clear that that governments could not favor one religion over another based on religious beliefs or how they worship, proselytize, and perform charitable works. After the second Supreme Court loss, the state of New York settled the case.  

Months later, the state of New York agreed to settle the case and drop its nearly decade-long effort to force religious groups to cover abortion procedures.  

 Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without government discrimination.
  • Individual freedom:Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace and not just in houses of worship. 

Di Liscia v. Austin

Beards: a naval tradition and a religious obligation 

For most of the nearly 250-year-old history of the U.S. Navy, sailors were known for their beards – indeed, the Secretary of the Navy during the Civil War, Gideon Welles, sported a full, bushy beard. In the 1970s, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, then Chief of Naval Operations, forbade discrimination or any violation of the “rights and privileges” of sailors who chose to wear beards – which helped sailors suffering from “razor bumps” (Pseudofolliculitis barbae), a painful infection aggravated by shaving.  

This policy also accommodated the needs of religious minorities such as Muslims, Sikhs, and Orthodox Jews, who often wear beards in accordance with the traditions and obligations of their faith. But in 1985, the Navy did an about-face and broadly banned beards, while granting limited exemptions for religious, morale, and medical purposes. In recent years, the Navy has begun to further narrow those exemptions, rejecting religious exemption requests and pressuring sailors to give up medical exemptions, instead of allowing them to keep their beards.  

An unnecessary conflict 

This has made America’s Navy a much less welcoming place for sailors like Edmund Di Liscia. Di Liscia, a devout Orthodox Jew, joined the U.S. Navy in 2018 and is currently at sea, serving on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Di Liscia’s Jewish faith requires him to wear a beard as a sign of spiritual maturity, and an expression of obedience and fidelity to God. So in September 2020, he formally requested a religious exemption from the Navy’s shaving policy, but the Navy refused to accommodate his religious convictions. Fortunately, Di Liscia has been able to maintain his beard thanks to a temporary no-shave “chit”—a religious accommodation granted by a commanding officer that allowed him to keep his beard. 

The chits aren’t just granted for religious reasons. For example, while at sea, Di Liscia’s commanding officer granted a ship-wide no-shave chit to boost morale. However, temporary chits aren’t sufficient to protect the religious liberty of sailors like Di Liscia. Case in point, on April 14, 2021, the Navy decided—for no apparent reason—that Di Liscia’s chit was no longer valid, and he was told that he must shave his beard within 24 hours or face punishment. 

But the Navy’s unfair policy is an outlier. The Army and Air Force have both taken steps to allow religious minorities to serve with their beards intact. Other nations, like the United Kingdom and Israel, also allow their sailors to maintain beards, proving that religious minorities don’t have to be faced with the choice of serving their country or their Creator.  

Under federal law, the military is prohibited from suppressing an individual’s religious exercise without a compelling government interest. On April 15, 2021, Becket asked the District Court for the District of Columbia to stop the Navy from forcing Di Liscia to shave, and sued to protect three other Muslim sailors, Leo Katsareas, Dominque Braggs, and Mohammed Shoyeb, as well. They will show once and for all that the Navy only stands to gain by letting them exercise their religious faith.   

Just a few hours after Becket’s filing, the Court set an emergency hearing and issued an order temporarily protecting Di Liscia from being forced to shave. Soon after, the Navy confirmed that it would not force Di Liscia to shave in the short term, and Becket will continue pursuing a lasting accommodation so that Di Liscia, and other sailors like him, can freely live out their religious beliefs while serving their country. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom: The government cannot burden the sincere religious beliefs of individuals by preventing them from exercising their faith. Because all individuals have a right to sincerely follow their faith, the government cannot discriminate against them by impeding their religious conduct or forbidding their obligatory religious practices. Instead, the government should find ways to respect their religious exercise.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

In 2017, a high school freshman named Brandi Levy learned that she did not make the public school’s varsity cheerleading team—and that she had not gotten the position she wanted on the school’s softball team, either. Frustrated, she posted an angry private message on a Saturday via the social media app Snapchat, which was intended to be seen only by her friends before the message automatically deleted the next day.  

However, one of the cheerleading coaches at her public school was shown a screenshot of the message. As a result, Levy was suspended from the junior varsity cheerleading team for her entire sophomore year. School officials claimed that her message, which contained profanity, violated the school’s good conduct rules for cheerleaders.    

After the school refused to reconsider its position, Levy’s parents sued on her behalf. Even though school officials admitted that the social media message was unlikely to cause any actual disruption on campus, they argued that public schools should be able to police student speech they deem disruptive (or even socially inappropriate) whenever and wherever it takes place. This includes speech—like Brandi Levy’s—made off campus, on the weekend, and sent privately to friends. 

The school’s proposed rule would not only discourage students from speaking for fear of punishment, it would also give a “heckler’s veto” to public school administrators or fellow students who want to suppress speech with which they disagree—even if the student’s speech is expressing deeply-held religious beliefs. After both the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Levy’s favor, the public school sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to give public school administrators an unprecedented level of supervision and control over students’ speech.  

“Allowing a public school to silence any speech it deems ‘divisive,’ ‘offensive’ or ‘disruptive’ is an extremely dangerous proposition,” said Nick Reaves, counsel at Becket. “It would permit schools to punish students for expressing their deeply-held religious beliefs—even if expressed in the privacy of their home or at a religious service or ceremony. Students are not creatures of the state, and their rights, and those of their parents, do not evaporate simply because their parents send them to public schools.” 

As Becket’s friend-of-the court brief explains, public school administrators have an unfortunate track record of discrimination against religious speech. Some have lumped religious speech together with obscenity and libel, while others have sought to punish students for, among other things, inviting their peers to a church play. Giving public schools even greater authority to police student speech will only increase the opportunities for such discrimination. It would also disproportionately harm minority students, as schools are less familiar with (and often less tolerant of) unusual or unpopular religious beliefs. 

On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court affirmed that important constitutional protections, like the freedom of speech, do not evaporate when students attend public schools. As “nurseries of democracy,” public schools must respect the constitutional rights of their students, especially when students are speaking off-campus, on the weekend, to their friends. In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito further emphasized that religious speech, which lies “at the heart of the First Amendment,” enjoys significant constitutional protection and “is almost always beyond the regulatory authority of a public school.” 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Free speech: The freedom to speak is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Government authorities do not have the ability to punish speech just because it is unpopular, controversial, or even unwise.  
  • Education: The Supreme Court has confirmed that Brandi Levy and students like her still have constitutional rights—even as minors attending high school. Parents, not public-school teachers, are responsible for the religious upbringing of their children. Giving government officials the ability to “veto” speech is detrimental to the healthy exchange of ideas and especially damaging to minorities with unpopular or unusual religious beliefs. 

Gateway City Church v. Newsom

U.S. Supreme Court ended California’s draconian worship ban

On February 5, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated California’s complete ban on indoor worship. Previously, California had the most severe restrictions in the nation when it came to in-person worship, banning indoor worship altogether while allowing secular businesses like Hollywood film studios and big-box retailers to open. In South Bay II, the Supreme Court recognized that California’s total ban on worship violated freedom of religion.

In response to the Supreme Court decision, the very next day California lifted its ban on indoor worship, allowing churches to open with indoor worship at 25% of capacity.

Santa Clara County goes against U.S. Supreme Court

Churches across the state have opened for indoor worship, allowing churchgoers to gather together with proven safety precautions. But Santa Clara County refuses to comply with the Supreme Court’s decisions in South Bay II and Diocese of Brooklyn. Instead, the County has ordered all churches to remain closed through Lent and Easter, preventing people from gathering to worship together as their faiths demand.

Diocese of San José, with Becket’s help, files to support houses of worship

On February 24, 2021, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Diocese of San José at the United States Supreme Court. Banning indoor worship is unconstitutional—and the Supreme Court has said so several times, but they repeated the message again on February 27, 2021, forcing Santa Clara County to drop its ban on worship and allowing the Diocese of San José to reopen churches for Lent and Easter worship.

Importance to Religious Liberty:  

Religious communities: Meeting together to worship is an important part of almost all religious or spiritual traditions worldwide. The government cannot discriminate against religious believers by violating their rights to gather together or by subjecting them to unfair restrictions that privilege other activities over the unalienable right to worship.  

 

Apache Stronghold v. United States

Video: Apache sacred land threatened by mining in Arizona

A sacred site since time immemorial  

Since before recorded history, Western Apaches have lived, worshipped on, and cared for Oak Flat and surrounding lands. Apaches believe that the Creator gives life to all things, including air, water, and the earth itself. Their religious and cultural identity is inextricably tied to the land, and Oak Flat has paramount significance for prayer and sacred ceremonies. Many of their most important religious practices must take place there, such as the coming-of-age Sunrise Ceremony for Apache women; sweat lodge ceremonies; gathering of sacred medicine plants, animals, and minerals; and the use of sacred waters. It is considered the direct corridor to Apache religion—recognized in the National Register of Historic Places and sometimes compared to Mount Sinai for Jews.

Broken promises  

Unfortunately, the U.S. government has a tragic history of destroying Apaches’ lives and land for the sake of mining interests. In the 1870s, the federal government forced the Apache people onto the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and authorized miners to take Apache land. And although Oak Flat has been expressly protected from mining since the Eisenhower administration, mining companies still covet Oak Flat for a large copper deposit 7,000 feet below the surface.  

Mining companies have long lobbied Congress to give them control of the land. One sponsor of a land-transfer bill was even convicted of soliciting a bribe from a mining company in exchange for his support. For many years, Congress refused, protecting the site from exploitation the same way it would preserve a historic, centuries-old church, mosque or synagogue. But in 2014, a last-minute rider was attached to a must-pass defense bill, ordering the land to be transferred to the company, Resolution Copper. Resolution Copper plans to turn the site into a two-mile-wide, 1,100-foot-deep crater, ending Apaches’ religious practices forever. The majority owner of Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto, sparked international outrage when it deliberately destroyed 46,000-year-old Indigenous rock shelters at one of Australia’s most significant cultural sites. Rio Tinto’s largest shareholder is Chinalco, which is owned and controlled by the Chinese government.

Seeking Justice 

Apache Stronghold—a coalition of Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies dedicated to preserving Oak Flat—sued the government in federal court. They argued that the destruction of their sacred site violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and an 1852 treaty promising that the United States would protect their land and “secure the permanent prosperity and happiness” of the Apaches. After the trial court declined to halt the land transfer, Becket filed an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just six hours before the government’s response was due, the government announced that it would withdraw the environmental impact statement that triggered the land transfer, delaying the transfer for several months.  

On June 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to protect Oak Flat, saying that the land transfer to Resolution Copper did not substantially burden the Apaches’ religious exercise. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Marsha Berzon called the ruling “absurd,” “illogical,” “disingenuous,” and “incoheren[t].” 

In November 2022, the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case “en banc”––meaning in front of a larger panel of eleven judges.  On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit again refused to stop the federal government from transferring the sacred site to Resolution Copper. Five judges dissented from the ruling, writing that the majority “tragically err[ed]” in allowing the government to “obliterat[e] Oak Flat” and prevent the “Western Apaches from ever again” engaging in their religious exercise.

Apache Stronghold appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court on September 11, 2024. In May 2025, the Supreme Court refused to take Apache Stronghold’s case. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the Court’s denial, writing that the Court’s “decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake—one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations.”

On June 23, 2025, Apache Stronghold filed a motion for rehearing at the Supreme Court, asking the Justices to reconsider. The Justices declined to rehear the case in October 2025. Because the Ninth Circuit addressed only some of the issues in the case, the rest of the case is now continuing in federal district court in Arizona.

In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy PLLC, Professor Stephanie Barclay of Georgetown Law School, and attorneys Michael V. Nixon and Clifford Levenson. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: The government cannot take actions that prevent or burden the expression or pursuit of religious beliefs. Because each human has an individual right to follow the unique dictates of his conscience, religious freedom cannot be confined to the four walls of a church building. Individuals should be free to pursue their faith at all times without fear of government discrimination or penalty.
  • Religious liberty for Native Americans: Whether they are directly targeted or indirectly affected by government actions, minority religious groups are particularly vulnerable to government violations of their religious liberty. Actively defending religious liberty for Native Americans strengthens religious liberty for people of all faiths.
  • Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Passed by a bipartisan coalition in 1993, this legislation protects religious groups by requiring the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible when its actions would pose a substantial burden on religious exercise.

Dunn v. Smith

Leveling down to avoid religious accommodations

Until recently, Alabama required that a clergy member be present at the execution of a prisoner. But in 2019, the Alabama Department of Corrections abruptly changed its policy to instead ban all clergy members from the execution chamber in response to a Supreme Court ruling in a Texas prisoner’s case, Murphy v. Collier.

In the Texas case, Patrick Murphy was awaiting death by lethal injection, and his final request was for his Buddhist minister to pray with him at his execution. The state of Texas denied his request, arguing that his Buddhist minister was a security risk, even though the state allowed Christian ministers and Muslim imams into the chamber and the minister was a frequent chaplain to Texas prisoners. On March 28, 2019—two and a half hours after Murphy was scheduled to die—the Supreme Court stepped in and said that Texas could not go forward with the execution unless it granted Murphy access to his Buddhist spiritual advisor.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, Texas and Alabama made an ugly move to avoid accommodating minority religions. Both states changed their policies to ban all clergy members from the execution chamber.

Defending the comfort of clergy in the death chamber

Fast forward to 2021. Alabama prisoner, Willie B. Smith was scheduled to be executed for his crimes on February 11, 2021. Smith’s minister, Pastor Robert Paul Wiley, Jr., attested that during his time in prison, Smith repented of his sins and developed a strong personal faith. Pastor Wiley has spent years ministering to Smith in prison. Smith asked that Pastor Wiley be allowed to accompany him in the execution chamber but, in accordance with Alabama’s new discriminatory policy, his request was denied.

Smith sued the state of Alabama for his right to be accompanied by his pastor at the moment of death. The district court ruled against Smith, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in his favor. Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court on February 11, 2021, the morning of Smith’s scheduled execution.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Smith, arguing that 13 out of 20 prisoners executed in the United States over the past year were allowed to have a clergy member of their choice present in the execution chamber. If the federal government and other states have been able to offer this religious accommodation, so too should Alabama. The brief also argued that the Constitution requires more than equal, bad treatment for all faiths. It requires that all Americans, including prisoners, be accommodated in their religious exercise whenever possible.

Late on the night of February 11, 2021 the Supreme Court declined to disturb the court of appeals ruling that Alabama must allow Smith to be accompanied by his pastor in the execution chamber. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Barrett, agreed with the Court’s decision, writing that “past practice, in Alabama and elsewhere, shows that a prison may ensure security without barring all clergy members from the execution chamber.”

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: Religion is an innate human desire, and all individuals regardless of their legal status deserve protection of their constitutional right to practice and adhere to their faith.
  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons.

Young Israel of Tampa v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART)

A cherished community celebration  

Young Israel of Tampa is an Orthodox Jewish synagogue serving the growing Jewish population of Tampa, Florida. For decades, Young Israel has hosted many events to share the Jewish faith with the community—such as Chanukah celebrations, Passover Seders, and more.  

For the last fourteen years, Young Israel has hosted a community celebration called “Chanukah on Ice.” This family-friendly event features ice-skating, food, music, a raffle, and the lighting of an ice-sculpted menorah—one of the central symbols of Chanukah.  

Censoring religious speech 

In 2020, Rabbi Rivkin, vice president of Young Israel, sought to advertise Chanukah on Ice on a nearby bus route operated by the Hillsboro Area Regional Transit Authority (HART). The proposed advertisement included an image of a menorah and invited community members to enjoy “ice skating to Jewish music around the flaming menorah.”  

HART, however, refused to run the ad, stating that it “does not allow religious affiliation advertising, as well as banning adult, alcohol, tobacco, and political ads.” When Rabbi Rivkin appealed to HART’s CEO, he was told that Young Israel should strike central religious image from the ad and delete all reference to the lighting of the menorah—deeply offensive changes that were not possible for Young Israel to make.   

Discriminating against religion—because it’s religion—is illegal.  

HART’s ad policy was unconstitutional because it expressly discriminated against religion and banned religious speech on government property. It was also bad policy. It told religious organizations that they are unwelcome in the public square, and it reinforced that message by grouping religious ads with ads promoting alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, obscenity, nudity, profanity, politics, pornography, discrimination, and violence. The First Amendment gives special protection to religion; Tampa tells religion it is unfit for public consumption.  

But this wasn’t just about transit advertisements. It was about whether religious messages belong in the public square at all. If religious speech can be banned from public transit, no principle stops bureaucrats from banning religious speech in public parks. Indeed, one of HART’s officials indicated that not even Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. would be allowed to advertise his messages of hope and equality with HART.   

On February 5, 2021, Young Israel filed a lawsuit against HART in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Young Israel, finding that HART’s ban on religious advertisements was both discriminatory and standardless. The court also ordered that HART should no longer be allowed to ban ads that primarily promote religious faith or religious organizations. HART appealed the district court’s decision and on January 10, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Young Israel, agreeing that HART’s religious ad ban is unreasonable and unconstitutional.  

On October 7, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in favor of Young Israel stands. HART can no longer enforce its religiously discriminatory policy and Supreme Court precedent continues to require HART to allow religious advertisements on the same terms as all others. 

Young Israel was represented by Becket, along with the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and Holtzman Vogel, PLLC.   

 Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Free speech:  The freedom to speak about religious truth is not only an inherent human right, but also a fundamental building block of our society. The First Amendment protects the right of religious organizations to participate in the public square—without fear that they must surrender their religious identity as a condition of speaking.  
  • Public square: Religious organizations are crucial to maintaining a free society. Government policies that presume religion does not belong in public life misunderstand our  best traditions and bedrock principles.  

South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom; Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom

The most extreme restrictions in the nation

Since March 4, 2020, houses of worship in California have been subject to a series of draconian restrictions that, with a few brief respites over the summer, have banned all indoor worship for months at a time. During this period, California permitted secular businesses—from Hollywood film studios to liquor stores and big-box retailers to nail salons—to remain open, some with percentage-of-occupancy caps and others with only distancing and masking requirements.

For months, non-essential retail, big-box, and department stores could open their doors to hundreds of mingling shoppers seeking retail therapy, but houses of worship couldn’t admit a single worshiper, even while following social distancing and masking requirements.

Fighting for the right to worship

In response to this disparate treatment, South Bay United Pentecostal Church sued Governor Gavin Newsom in May 2020, challenging this total ban on in-person worship. South Bay’s case went all the to the Supreme Court in an emergency posture, but initially resulted in a loss for the church with four Justices noting that they would have enjoined California’s restrictions.

Meanwhile, across the country, numerous states had been working cooperatively with religious organizations to find ways to conduct indoor religious worship services while still combating the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, by late November of 2020, California stood alone in its absolute prohibition on indoor religious worship. Every other state permitted some form of indoor worship, with most states imposing no restrictions at all.

In November 2020, both Harvest Rock and South Bay brought renewed challenges to Governor Newsom’s restrictive orders, this time with a new arrow in their quiver: the Supreme Court had recently ruled, in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, that New York could not simultaneously allow “non-essential” retail stores to operate with percentage-of-occupancy caps (potentially opening their doors to hundreds of shoppers) while imposing 10- or 25-person hard caps on religious worship, regardless of the size of the religious worship space. Citing this recent decision, the Supreme Court sent Harvest Rock’s case back to the lower courts, telling the courts to reconsider their decisions upholding California’s complete ban on indoor worship.

When Harvest Rock went back before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining why the Supreme Court’s decision in Diocese of Brooklyn should control the outcome in this case. The right to worship, protected by the First Amendment, should not be treated less favorably than secular conduct like shopping at retail stores. Becket’s brief also explained that almost all states had moved from fixed, numerical caps on religious worship to percentage-of-occupancy caps that account for the size of the worship space. But the Ninth Circuit declined the Supreme Court’s invitation to reconsider its decision and again upheld California’s worst-in-the-nation treatment of religious worship. The churches therefore again sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Throwing open the doors of churches

On January 29, 2020, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of South Bay and Harvest Rock at the Supreme Court. On February 5, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that California could not enforce its discriminatory indoor worship ban against South Bay Pentecostal Church, Harvest Rock Church, and other houses of worship. As a result, California changed its unconstitutional worship restrictions the very next day.

 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Meeting together to worship is an important part of almost all religious or spiritual traditions worldwide. The government cannot discriminate against religious believers by violating their rights to assemble together or by subjecting them to unfair restrictions that privilege other activities over the unalienable right to worship.

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser

A beacon of hope in dark times 

The Catholics of the D.C. area have served others since 1794. Just as it had during past crises, the Archdiocese of Washington rose to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March, it voluntarily suspended worship services, but its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, worked ceaselessly, providing over 1 million meals as the crisis increased need, with a Catholic Charities in Columbia Heights now serving 650 people a week, up from the 40-person pre-pandemic weekly average. 

When the Archdiocese reopened churches in the summer, it instituted a series of stringent preventative measures to ensure its worship services were not virus spreading events. The Archdiocese’s plan – which was devised from the gold-standard recommendations of doctors at top universities and hospitals – was extremely effective, and although thousands of Masses have been celebrated since Catholic churches in the diocese have reopened their doors, they have not resulted in a single known COVID outbreak.  

No room for worshipers in the church?  

During the week of Thanksgiving, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an executive order that lowered in-person attendance at church services to a hard cap of 50 people. When the new order went into effect on the day before Thanksgiving, it did not hamper the operations of restaurants, retail chains, public libraries, or many other establishments. However, it impacted the Archdiocese severely. Half of the Archdiocese’s churches in Washington, D.C., can accommodate 500 people, and the largest Catholic church in the United States, the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, is located in the District. These churches have more than enough room to hold hundreds of worshippers safely while following the social-distancing and disinfection protocols that have proven to be effective. And if the Basilica were a gym instead of a church, the executive order would allow it to bring in 600 people – but because it was a church, it is subjected to the same fifty-person cap that much smaller buildings were.  

However, when the Archdiocese repeatedly reached out to the Mayor to request a more reasonable regulation, it was rebuffed. With Christmas just around the corner, the Archdiocese brought the case to a federal court, in hopes of finding a more equitable treatment for the Archdiocese’s 655,000 parishioners in time for Christmas. In response to the litigation, the Mayor agreed to raise the cap for houses of worship to 250 people, and a federal judge later struck the arbitrary caps down, finding that they did not have “adequate consideration for constitutional rights.”

The Archdiocese of Washington is represented by Becket and Jones Day LLP.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual freedom: individuals have the right to act in accordance to their religious convictions – and this includes the right to gather together and celebrate holy days and engage in communal worship and prayer without being singled out for unfair treatment or subjected to coercion by the government.  

Danville Christian Academy v. Beshear

Preserving public health while pursuing academic excellence  

Danville Christian Academy, located in Danville, Kentucky, is a Christian educational institution serving students from preschool through grade 12. The mission of Danville Christian is “to mold Christ-like scholars, leaders, and servants who will advance the Kingdom of God.” In order to do so, Danville Christian believes that “its students should be educated with a Christian worldview in a communal, in-person environment.” 

In response to COVID-19, Danville Christian Academy has gone to great lengths to ensure the health and safety of students and families, as well as the broader community, by following the recommendations of local and national health officials. Over the summer, the school spent over $20,000 implementing safety procedures and equipping its facilities for safe, in-person instruction. As a result of Danville Christian’s rigorous efforts, since reopening in August, only a handful of students and staff have tested positive for COVID-19, thus confirming that the school’s strict health and safety precautions have been working. 

Denying educational opportunities  

On November 18, 2020, eight months after the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued two executive orders. The first required all elementary, middle, and high schools to cease in-person instruction and transition to virtual learning. In stark contrast, the second issued guidance permitting most other in-person activities and indoor gatherings to continue, with certain capacity restrictions. Those businesses permitted to remain open included daycares, preschools, colleges and universities, and even gyms, bowling allies, theaters, and gambling venues such as racetracks.  

As a result of this unequal treatment, retailers saw large Black Friday crowds and the University of Louisville has played football games in front of crowds numbering in the thousands. Meanwhile school-aged students, who are at a reduced risk of contracting and transmitting the COVID-19 virus, are kept from vital in-person instruction—despite the fact that all classes at Danville Christian would satisfy the same 25-person capacity restrictions imposed on certain other businesses. 

The result of the Governor’s unequal treatment of schools is even more troubling for private religious schools. The Governor’s actions deny religious communities the right to effectively pass down their faith to the next generation of believers. At Danville Christian, for instance, students are missing out on in-person chapel services, religious instruction, and other communal events that cannot be translated into an on-line format.  In July 2020, the Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right of religious communities to pass on the faith to the next generation through religious education in its decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru. The Court’s opinion specifically highlighted “the close connection that religious institutions draw between their central purpose and educating the young in the faith,” the very interest raised here. 

Vindicating the right to religious education  

On November 20, 2020, Danville Christian Academy filed a lawsuit against Governor Beshear, challenging his restrictions on religious education. The federal district court ruled in favor of Danville Christian, but Governor Beshear appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which permitted enforcement of the Governor’s order.  

On November 30, 2020, Danville Christian Academy filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to protect it from the Governor’s arbitrary closure of only primary and secondary schools, while permitting other larger group gatherings. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Danville Christian arguing that the Governor’s order must be subject to stringent judicial review because it interferes with the fundamental right of parents to direct the religious education of their children.

On December 17, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Danville Christian’s request for emergency relief, citing the “timing and impending expiration” of Kentucky’s school closing order. The Court’s opinion nevertheless noted the important First Amendment interests at stake, and highlighted the constitutionally protected parental rights raised in Becket’s brief.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Religious groups have the right to form their own institutions and to pass their teachings down to the next generation. Schools like Danville Christian Academy, which exist to transmit the Christian faith to the next generation, are constitutionally protected from government restrictions that deny them their fundamental right to provide religious education.  

Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo

Can Governor Cuomo target New York City’s Jewish communities?

Governor Cuomo openly singled out Jewish synagogues like Agudath Israel’s for disfavored treatment,  claiming  that “because of their [Orthodox Jews’] religious practices, etc., we’re seeing a spread [of COVID-19]” and threatened to “close the [Orthodox Jewish religious] institutions down.” Although Governor Cuomo openly admitted the supposedly elevated rates of COVID-19 would not be considered serious in many other states, he drew restrictive “Red” lockdown zones around predominately Orthodox Jewish parts of New York City. These zones heavily restricted worship, closed schools, and prevented Jewish families from celebrating holidays while mere blocks away, schools were open and restaurants were serving customers. Far from being scientifically justifiable, Cuomo himself has admitted that his drastic actions were taken out of a concern for public opinion, not public health, saying the lockdown zones were “a fear driven response” and admitting “this is not a policy being written by a scalpel, this is a policy being cut by a hatchet.” As a result, a Brooklyn federal judge found that “the Governor of New York made remarkably clear that this Order was intended to target [Orthodox Jewish] institutions.”

Standing up for equal treatment

In response to this unfair treatment, Agudath Israel filed a lawsuit in federal court on October 8, arguing that the discriminatory nature of Cuomo’s “cluster action initiative” rendered it unconstitutional. After the district court denied an immediate injunction, Agudath appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for an emergency ruling protecting them while the case was being argued in the lower court. On November 9, 2020, the Second Circuit declined, in a 2-1 decision, to stop the restrictions before the case was argued, with Judge Park dissenting. However, recognizing the importance of the case, the Court fast-tracked that briefing and argument in the case. 

On November 16, 2020, Becket, along with co-counsel Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction halting Governor Cuomo’s discriminatory regulations until the case was decided. Pointing to Cuomo’s own admissions of targeting Orthodox Jews, the fact that the governor’s lockdown zones restricted Orthodox Jewish communities more harshly than other communities with equivalent or higher rates of COVID-19 infection, and the Supreme Court’s robust precedent protecting religious groups from hostile discrimination, Becket asked the Supreme Court to lift the governor’s restrictive “religious gerrymander” until the case was decided in court. On November 25, the Supreme Court granted the injunction, finding that Governor Cuomo’s “rules can be viewed as targeting the ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community,’” that there was no evidence that the houses of worship who brought the case had contributed to the spread of disease, and that the regulations violated the First Amendment by privileging secular activities over religious exercise.

The Court’s opinion made clear that “…even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

On December 28, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled 3-0 in favor of Agudath Israel, halting Governor Cuomo’s 10- and 25-person caps on religious worship while the case is pending.

Lebovits v. Cuomo

A long-standing Jewish tradition 

Opened in 2012, Bais Yaakov Ateres Miriam is an Orthodox Jewish girls’ school in Far Rockaway, New York City, that stands in a long tradition of Jewish schools founded to teach young women about their faith. The first Bais Yaakov school was founded in 1917 in Poland, to provide an alternative to secular education that did not support and educate young Jewish women on the history and traditions of their faith. Today, BYAM celebrates Jewish holidays, holds communal prayers, and engages in group projects and exegetical debates—activities that are central to the traditions of Orthodox Judaism.  

Yitzchok and Chana Lebovits moved to their current home precisely because they wanted to give their girls a great Jewish education at BYAM. But without the opportunity to embrace their unique cultural, linguistic and religious heritage—teaching and learning that can only properly be done in-person—the Lebovits girls and other young Jewish girls are deprived of an irreplaceable opportunity to learn and live out their faith. Yitzchok and Chana are being hindered in passing on their Jewish beliefs and practices on to their daughters.  

In March, BYAM voluntarily transitioned to remote learning to protect their neighbors and in compliance with the law. In the months that followed the school spent thousands of dollars equipping the entire school with Wi-Fi, purchasing additional laptops and tablets for teachers to use while offering remote instruction, and to pay for transportation for teachers who would normally use buses to get to school. Nevertheless, remote learning proved to be a poor substitute for in-person instruction. As the state began to reopen over the summer, BYAM looked forward to opening safely, responsibly and cooperatively.  

And it did just that. In the first month of school, BYAM handed out hundreds of masks and implemented many safety and hygiene protocols to ensure the safety of students and community members, including social distancing and daily temperature checks. The happy result of those comprehensive efforts has been zero cases of COVID-19 in the school. BYAM has thus become a safe haven for girls to gather and learn about their religious heritage.   

Cuomo and de Blasio crack down on Jews 

Unfortunately, the Orthodox Jewish community in New York City has been singled out by the government as the scapegoats for COVID-19 spread since the beginning of the pandemic. In April of 2020, Mayor de Blasio dispersed a Jewish funeral and then threatened them with law enforcement. During the subsequent summer – while Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio praised nearby mass protests, Jewish families were ousted from Brooklyn parks by the New York Police Department acting at the behest of the Mayor.   

But, despite doing everything right, BYAM has been caught in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s crusade against Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn. After months of scapegoating Jews for coronavirus infections in New York City, in late September/early October 2020 Cuomo and de Blasio announced a plan to target “microclusters” of COVID-infections in New York City by locking down Jewish neighborhoods and schools. On October 6 – just before three important Jewish holy days – Governor Cuomo issued an executive order that shut impending Jewish celebrations down, claiming that mildly elevated rates of positive coronavirus tests justified extraordinary emergency powers, while at the same time admitting that those elevated rates “would be a safe zone” in many other states.  

Remarkably, by Cuomo’s own admission, schools are not significant spreaders of COVID-19, and the new policy was not driven by science but was made from “fear.” 

Protecting the fundamental right of religious education

Remote learning has taken a serious toll on the educational opportunities for the Lebovits girls and other BYAM students. Teachers have reported alarming regression in reading skills, had to reteach prayers, and are requesting last year’s math textbooks. In many cases, students have tested a full year below grade level in both Hebrew and English reading.  

The government’s attempt to close BYAM is a direct threat to the future of the Jewish faith tradition that Bais Yaakov schools have been teaching for over a hundred years. By putting Jewish religious education on hold indefinitely, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio weren’t just halting educational growth, they were stifling the religious exercise of Jewish families, and depriving the Lebovits girls of part of their childhood. 

Becket and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty represented the Lebovits family and BYAM in the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, where the school asked the court to protect BYAM from future bigotry and to hold Cuomo and de Blasio accountable for violating their First Amendment rights. Shortly after Becket filed the lawsuit, Cuomo reversed his policy and allowed Bais Yaakov Ateres Miriam and other schools in its Far Rockaway neighborhood to open. The case was settled out of court.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Religious Communities: Religious groups have the right to form their own institutions and to pass their teachings down to the next generation. Schools like BYAM, which help preserve the Jewish faith and instill Jewish values in the next generation, are constitutionally protected from government restrictions that single them out for unfair treatment.  

Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser

Protecting the health and safety of our communities

Since March 2020, Americans have made great sacrifices to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the most significant sacrifices has been the suspension of in-person worship. Across the country, churches like Capitol Hill Baptist Church voluntarily took necessary steps to protect the health and safety of their congregations and communities.

Since March, Americans have learned much about the virus and how to prevent its spread. In response, 42 states across the country have correctly loosened restrictions on in-person worship, allowing churches to responsibly resume their free exercise of faith, and imposing no capacity limit on outdoor services as long as worshipers wear masks and practice proper social distancing.

Religious worship held to a double standard

In March, Washington D.C., like so many other cities, imposed restrictions on public worship for the sake of public health. But, six months later, D.C. stands as an outlier amongst states and localities across the country because it continues to restrict in-person worship to no more than 100 people even if services are held outside and masking and proper social distancing are employed.

Meanwhile, the District has been a hotbed for protest, including gatherings of thousands (and even tens of thousands) of citizens to protest the death of George Floyd and advocate for racial justice. Mayor Muriel Bowser has not only encouraged, but participated in these protests, all the while keeping in place restrictions on in-person worship.

Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s religious convictions put weekly in-person gatherings of the entire congregation for worship front-and-center. For this faith community, virtual worship is not an option. Capitol Hill Baptist Church takes no issue with the demonstrators or their right to freely protest—in fact many congregation members have participated in peaceful, religious demonstrations—it simply asks that its First Amendment rights be similarly respected.

Even-handed application of the Constitution

In June 2020, Capitol Hill Baptist Church applied for a waiver from the City’s restrictive policy against large gatherings, with the intention of holding outdoor services with appropriate safety precautions. In September, the church reapplied for the waiver. In September 2020 the City denied the church’s application.

On September 22, 2020 Capitol Hill Baptist Church filed a lawsuit against Mayor Bowser asking that its constitutional right to freely exercise its faith be respected in same way as the protestors’ right to freedom of speech. On October 6, 2020 Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, arguing that the City must provide a compelling reason to maintain its 100-person limit on outdoor, masked, and socially distanced religious gatherings even though it’s a national outlier, and even though the restrictions are not being applied evenly. A federal district court ruled in the church’s favor on October 9, 2020, allowing the church to gather for worship in a safe, socially-distanced outdoor setting.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities—The First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause protects religious Americans from undue burdens on their religious exercise. When churches are given a special disability not felt by non-religious entities, the government is violating the Free Exercise Clause by burdening religious practice.

Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish

Walking with the Church

St. Andrew the Apostle Parish has been serving a Polish immigrant neighborhood in the city of Chicago for over 120 years. As part of the Archdiocese of Chicago, St. Andrew Parish is dedicated to ministering to all Catholics, including LGBTQ Catholics seeking to walk with the Church.

For over 25 years, the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (AGLO) has been a community of accompaniment that seeks to meet LGBTQ people where they are. During the AIDS epidemic, AGLO worked closely with the Catholic Charities HIV/AIDS ministries and generously contributed its time, money, and prayer to help the afflicted and offer them hope in the face of a terrible disease. Today, AGLO offers weekly Mass and Sacraments, retreats and days of reflection, and prayer and discussion groups to help LGBTQ Catholics find a place of pastoral outreach in the Church.

Violating Church Teachings

Sandor Demkovich was hired by St. Andrew Parish in 2012. During his time with St. Andrew, Mr. Demkovich served as music director, choir director and organist. These positions are important roles within the religious life of the parish. As music director, Mr. Demkovich shared the Catholic faith with members of the parish through music—he helped select scripturally appropriate music for Masses and other important sacraments, played the organ during services, and helped lead the congregation in singing hymns.

As a minister of the faith and a representative of the parish, Mr. Demkovich was responsible for upholding the teachings of the faith in word and action. But in 2014, after working at the parish for two years, the parish was required to end Mr. Demkovich’s participation in its ministry because he entered into a same-sex marriage in violation of his agreement to bear witness to and promote the Church’s 2,000-year-old teachings, including those on marriage.

Ignoring the ministerial exception

In December 2016, Mr. Demkovich sued St. Andrew Parish and the Archdiocese of Chicago, claiming that he had been discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and subjected to a hostile work environment.

The district court allowed some of Mr. Demkovich’s claims against the Archdiocese to proceed, even though Mr. Demkovich admitted that the religious importance of his position at the parish made him a minister. In August 2020, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against the Archdiocese. The ruling conflicted with previous Seventh Circuit decisions, rulings of other federal circuits, and the Supreme Court’s just-issued decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, in which the Supreme Court affirmed the right of churches to select and supervise their leaders and ministers free from government interference. 

The Archdiocese of Chicago, represented by Becket, asked the entire 11-judge Seventh Circuit to reconsider the panel’s decision.  The court agreed, with one judge recused, and heard arguments on February 9, 2021.  

On July 9, 2021, the Seventh Circuit ruled 7-3 to reverse its previous decision and declare that the “ministerial exception” protects the entire ministerial relationship and not just the beginning or end.  

Plaintiff chose not to seek Supreme Court review, ending the case in favor of St. Andrew the Apostle Parish.

The Archdiocese of Chicago is also represented by its general counsel, Jim Geoly, who presented oral argument before the panel and the en banc court, and by Alex Marks at Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

Sharing his faith in Jesus

Chike Uzuegbunam, the son of Nigerian immigrant parents and a man of faith, was a student at Georgia Gwinnett College. As a junior in 2016, Chike began sharing a message about Jesus’ love in a plaza outside of the school’s library. “All I wanted to do was share with other students the faith that changed my life,” Chike said.

Threatened with arrest for sharing his faith

Although he wasn’t disturbing anyone, Chike was stopped by campus officials, who told him that he could only distribute literature in a designated “speech zone,” – two tiny areas making up less than 0.0015% of the campus. Chike complied with the policy and reserved a speech zone, but when he tried to speak again, he was silenced by campus police, who threatened to arrest him for “disturbing the peace” if he continued publicly sharing his faith.

Not only was Georgia Gwinnett’s policy – confining free expression to two tiny zones – ridiculous, it was also enforced in a discriminatory fashion. Chike was threatened with arrest for quietly talking with other students who were interested in his message, but university officials allowed other students to talk and play loud music in public areas without silencing them.

Threatened for sharing his faith and speaking his mind, Chike was determined that others—including his friend Joseph Bradford, who had planned to follow Chike’s example until Chike was silenced—should not have to go through the same experience. Chike filed a lawsuit against Georgia Gwinnett.

Holding the government accountable

As a public university, Georgia Gwinnett should have followed the Constitution and allowed Chike to speak. But Georgia Gwinnett’s lawyers still fought to defend their unconstitutional policy in court. Then, Georgia Gwinnett unexpectedly dropped its policy and argued that Chike’s case should be dismissed as “moot” because he had graduated—and that the court should never decide whether the college had violated the law.

Since large government bureaucracies like universities and prisons often use this tactic to avoid facing judgment, Chike was prepared. He had included a request for a small amount of money – “nominal damages”—so that the court could still give justice to Chike even if his case took years to resolve. But the district court still dismissed Chike’s case. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, breaking with every other U.S. Court of Appeals to hold that, if he wanted justice, Chike should have asked for more money, in the form of “compensatory damages.”

On September 29, 2020, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that governments should not be allowed to evade accountability by changing their unconstitutional policies after the fact and then using technical loopholes (like whether the plaintiffs have asked for nominal vs. compensatory damages) to avoid facing justice for their past actions. Becket, which frequently represents people seeking to practice their faith in prison, pointed out that in many cases, federal law forbids inmates from bringing the kind of compensatory damages claims that the Eleventh Circuit requires.

On March 8, 2021, the Court ruled that Uzuegbunam deserved remedy for his constitutional injury when school officials silenced his religious speech.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Free speech: Free speech is an important human right – and an important constitutional right as well. Unaccountable bureaucrats should not be able to stifle free speech, even – and especially – if the views expressed are unpopular, controversial, or simply disfavored by the government.
  • Public square: Religious exercise is an important part of being human, and as such it has a valuable place in the public square. Religious speech should be protected and cherished, the same as any other form of expression.
  • Education: Students like Chike Uzuegbunam don’t give up their rights when they attend a public college. Establishments of higher education are meant to be places of free and open inquiry, not government inquisition.

Woodring v. Jackson County

A multi-denominational coalition that serves its community and brings people together

The Brownstown Area Ministerial Association is a coalition of diverse Christian ministers in Jackson County, Indiana, that serves its community through prayer, fellowship, outreach, and direct aid. Twice each year, the Ministerial Association holds services to encourage Christian fellowship and raise funds for its direct aid program, which includes a community food pantry and direct aid for those who need temporary assistance with rent, mortgage, and utility bills.

In 2003, the Ministerial Association purchased, with broad community support, a nativity scene to display in front of the Jackson County Courthouse during the Christmas season. In addition to commemorating the Christmas season, over the years the nativity scene has become a staple in the local “Hometown Christmas celebration.” And the area around the display—replete with a Christmas tree, presents, and numerous other holiday fixtures—serves as a gathering place for the community, encouraging people to socialize and support nearby local businesses (the Chamber of Commerce is even a sponsor).

A longstanding tradition at risk

For almost two decades, the Brownstown nativity scene has been displayed without incident. But in 2018, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the county asking for the nativity to be removed because of its religious symbolism. Not long after, the ACLU of Indiana sued the county on behalf of an out-of-town individual who passed by the display and felt offended by it.

On April 29, 2020, the district court ruled against Jackson County, holding that the display violated the Establishment Clause. The County appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Recognizing the role of religion in our nation’s traditions—past and present

 On August 5, 2020, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Ministerial Association, owners of the nativity scene. The brief explains why the First Amendment permits the government to include religious symbols and practices in its annual holiday traditions—because they are a part of our nation’s rich religious history that has long been celebrated in Jackson County. Requiring governments to strip the religious elements from Christmas and to only celebrating the secular would not only deny the religious roots of the holiday, it would sanction government hostility to religion by favoring the non-religious over the religious.

In striking down the display, the district court applied the much criticized and now specifically rejected  Lemon test. But, as Becket’s brief explains, the Supreme Court held in American Legion v. American Humanist Association (June 20, 2019) that the Lemon test no longer applies to religious displays. Instead, the Establishment Clause must be interpreted to allow governments to celebrate our history and traditions—not to scrub the public square of religious imagery.

On February 2, 2021, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the nativity scene at the Jackson County courthouse could stay, saying that the County’s display “fits within a long national tradition of using the nativity scene in broader holiday displays to ‘depict the historical origins’ of Christmas– a ‘traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday.'”

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and has a natural place in the public square. The government is not required to strip the public square of important symbols just because they are religious. Instead, the government can and should recognize the important role of religion in our history and culture.

Katsareas v. United States Navy

How does an Australian living in Qatar decide to enlist in the United States military?  

When Leo Katsareas was a teenager in Australia, he found himself drawn to Islam as a path to Providence and a vehicle for protecting the inalienable rights of others and opposing all forms of oppression. At age sixteen, he converted and began living as a practicing Muslim. Later, as a young adult living abroad, Leo studied the American founding era, reading the texts of the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution. He fell in love with America’s history, its principles, and particularly its commitment to freedom. He vowed to one day come to the United States and serve in the military.

Since then, Leo has done just that. After immigrating to the United States, he spent time working for the government, defending the American people and the freedom he loves by helping uncover and prevent significant terrorist threats both domestically and abroad. In 2016, he joined the United States military as he had promised, enlisting in the Navy. In his years of service, Leo has served on ships domestically and internationally becoming a Mass Communication Specialist in 2019. He works tirelessly for his adopted country while living out his Islamic faith.

 
A call to serve God and a call to serve Country  

A convert to Islam, Leo Katsareas believes that his faith requires him to wear a four-inch beard. This belief has led him to consistently seek accommodations from the Navy’s strict grooming policies. While on a ship in the Red Sea, MC3 Katsareas received a temporary “chit” — a note of permission — that allowed him to keep a beard. And at his last duty station, his commanding officers granted him a partial, quarter-inch accommodation, consistent with the exemptions given to those with medical needs. However, he was told that even this limited permission was not permanent, and he would need to reapply at any future stations of duty.

Grooming policies of the United States Military are designed to prevent safety threats and ensure that uniforms aren’t compromised. In the case of a fire on a ship, for example, Navy personnel might need to quickly don effective masks. MC3 Katsareas agrees that in a life or death situation, he may have to shave his beard and is willing to do so in the interests of his own safety and that of his fellow Sailors. However, he has been able to wear a mask with no issue, including during combat actions in 2016, where he was assigned to his ship’s firefighting party when it came under guided missile fire by Houthi insurgents in Yemen, as well as in other firefighting training situations. Additionally, in recent years the Army and Air Force have both updated their grooming policies in recent years to accommodate religious minorities. The Navy has failed to keep up.

Despite the absence of significant safety concerns that can’t be worked around, and despite broad religious accommodations granted by the other branches of the United States military, the Navy initially denied MC3 Katsareas’s recent request for a full accommodation that would allow him to grow a substantial beard in accordance with his Islamic faith. With Becket’s help, MC3 Katsareas launched an internal appeal of the Navy’s denial, seeking to defend the American freedom he fell in love with: the right to practice one’s religion in the public square, including while serving one’s country.

Protecting religious minorities from unjust exclusion 

In April 2020, the Navy denied Leo’s seventh request for an accommodation for a fist-length beard. In May 2020, Leo appealed the denial, represented by Becket. On July 15, 2020, the Navy reconsidered and granted Leo a temporary, revocable accommodation, informing him that he can maintain his full religiously motivated beard and remain in good standing with the United States Navy while in his current duty assignment. In doing so, the Navy acted in accordance with the accommodation policies of other branches of the military and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 with the support of an extensive coalition of religious and civil rights leaders, RFRA prohibits the military from suppressing an individual’s sincere religious exercise without a compelling government reason.

Becket has successfully defended members of the U.S. military seeking religious accommodations a number of times. In 2015, Becket filed suit alongside the Sikh Coalition and the law firm McDermott Will & Emery on behalf of Captain Simratpal “Simmer” Singh, a committed Sikh and long-time captain in the U.S. Army, in Singh v. Carter, securing him temporary protections for his religious beard and turban. Becket filed a similar suit in 2016 in Singh v. McConville, representing three Sikh servicemen in the Army also seeking to serve without abandoning the marks of their faith. In response to the court ruling in Singh v. Carter and the suit in Singh v. McConville, the Army issued new regulations in 2017 stating that Sikh soldiers would not be forced to abandon articles of their faith throughout their military careers, thus making the victory for religious minorities serving their country a permanent one. Despite the Army’s new regulations, West Point did not automatically accommodate the religious beliefs of its cadets. In August 2017, Becket filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Sikh cadets slated to attend West Point. In court, West Point admitted that it did not have a compelling reason to deny Sikhs the ability to serve, and issued new guidelines that would allow Sikh cadets to maintain their articles of faith while serving at the Academy.

The Navy ought to follow the example of the Army and Air Force and America’s founding principles in recognizing and accommodating the religious belief of its service members and protecting the place of religion in the public square for all Americans. Service to country need not prevent service to God.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Individual freedom: An individual’s religious exercise encompasses more than just belief or worship — it involves visibly practicing the signs of one’s faith. Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times — including while defending the freedom of all Americans by serving in the armed forces.  

Public Square: Religion is natural to human beings and to human culture. Because of this, religious expression cannot be limited to the private sphere, but can, and should, have a place in the public square.  

RFRA: The government — and, consequently, the military — cannot burden religious exercise of individuals or groups to violate their deeply held beliefs without compelling interest or when there are reasonable alternatives. 

Dalberiste v. GLE Associates

A commitment to the Sabbath

Abstaining from work on a “Sabbath” ordained by God is a religious practice that is important to people of many faiths—but particularly to Seventh-day Adventists, as indicated by their name. For Mitche Dalberiste, an environmental technician, this means retreating from the distractions of everyday life to spend time with family, serve his community, and worship God.

In June 2016, Mr. Dalberiste was hired by GLE Associates for a job as an industrial hygiene technician. During the onboarding process when he called to discuss training and his work schedule, he disclosed to his supervisor that, as a practicing Seventh-day Adventist, his religious beliefs barred him from working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Mr. Dalberiste requested a religious accommodation only from work on his Sabbath, and was willing to work during all other times of the week, including late nights and Sunday.

Denied employment for religious reasons

The next day, Mr. Dalberiste’s job offer was rescinded in response to his request for a religious accommodation, without any inquiry into whether an accommodation was practical or what weekend times Mr. Dalberiste could work. This loss was all the more abrupt because GLE Associates had never in the hiring process specified that its role was unavailable to someone only available for part of the weekend.

To someone reading federal law for the first time, GLE Associates’ decision seems unusual. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers of significant size—like GLE Associates—from discriminating on a number of bases, such as race, sex, and religious practice. The law specifies that these employers are required to “reasonably accommodate” religious practice, unless it would cause serious disruption (“undue hardship”) to the business. Yet GLE Associates did not even try to find an accommodation. Why?

A poor judgment

The answer is found in a 1977 Supreme Court decision. In Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Court concluded that employers may deny employees religious accommodation if the accommodation imposes so much as a minor strain on the employer. Under this standard, employers like GLE Associates are given the option to reject a religious accommodation over something as trivial as having to change work shifts.

This standard poses a serious burden to the free exercise of American workers, and mainly those Americans who practice minority faiths or hold different or unpopular beliefs. And the Department of Justice recently called for the Court to revisit this standard, stating that Hardison’s rule is both “incorrect” and “irreconcilable” with the Court’s more recent decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, where Becket became involved to defend a Muslim woman denied a job due to her religious practice of wearing a headscarf.

The chance to right a wrong

In 2016, Mr. Dalberiste sued GLE Associates in Florida federal district court, seeking to defend his right to earn an honest livelihood while following his deeply held religious convictions. However, because of Hardison, the district court and appeals court were compelled to side with GLE Associates.

Along with its partners—the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Gene Schaerr of Schaerr | Jaffe—Becket asked the Supreme Court of the United States to correct its mistaken view in Hardison and restore religious liberty to its proper place in employment law. No American should have to choose between providing for his family and practicing a central tenet of its faith. The Supreme Court was asked to clarify that employers must reasonably accommodate sincere religious practice, just as they do other protected characteristics like disability. The Court denied review of Mr. Dalberiste’s case on April 5, 2021.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.

Wisconsin Churches Reopen

Houses of Worship are Essential

The Catholic Diocese of Madison has been committed to preserving the health and safety of its community members throughout the coronavirus pandemic, voluntarily suspending public masses before it was mandated by the state and generally cooperating with the directives of the local and state health officials from the beginning. They have not neglected their Christian duty either, heroically springing into action to provide remote schooling, care for the sick and dying in Catholic hospitals, and continue serving the hungry, uninsured and incarcerated.

On May 18, 2020, Madison/Dane County officials put out an order listing houses of worship as “essential services” and thus allowing them to resume holding in-person services at 25 percent capacity. The Diocese of Madison got straight to work to put together a plan for safely reopening with appropriate social distancing and hygiene protocol.

Dashed expectations

But just when members of the Catholic community thought that they would finally receive the spiritual solace and healing they’d been craving, Madison/Dane County pulled the rug out from under the Diocese. After the Diocese published its safe reopening plan, on May 22, 2020, Madison/Dane County put out a new order capping in-person worship services at 50 people. This new order meant that some Catholic churches in Madison would be limited to less than five percent capacity, while shopping malls, bars, restaurants, spas, gyms, salons, museums, movie theaters, community centers, bowling alleys, skating rinks, trampoline parks and more were free to open at 25 percent capacity.

Following the May 22 order, the Madison/Dane County Health Department contacted Diocesan officials and parishes to inform them that overseers would be sent to churches and fines of up to $1000 would be imposed for every instance in which more than 50 people were gathered for Mass.

Constitutional consequences

On June 3, 2020, Becket, Sidley Austin LLP, and Troutman Sanders LLP sent a letter to County Executive Parisi and Mayor Rhodes-Conway explaining that the 50-person cap is unconstitutional and illegal. On June 5, 2020 Mayor Rhodes-Conway and County Executive Parisi released a new “Forward Dane” executive order returning houses of worship to equal footing with secular services at 25 percent capacity for in-person worship services.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious communities—The First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause protects religious Americans from undue burdens on their religious exercise. When churches are given a special disability not felt by secular entities, the government is violating the Free Exercise Clause by burdening religious practice.

Minnesota Churches’ Challenge to COVID-19 Executive Order


Leaders in protecting public health  

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the Minnesota Catholic Conference and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in Minnesota have been leaders in protecting public health. They voluntarily suspended in-person services to prevent the spread of COVID-19 well before statewide stay-at-home orders came into effect. Since then, these faith communities have been ministering to their communities any way they can—serving meals to the homeless, donating medical supplies, accompanying the elderly, and raising money for those in need.

Aware of the deep spiritual, mental, and emotional loss that comes from being deprived of in-person worship, on May 7 the churches presented Governor Walz with proposed protocols for resuming in-person worship services in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organization and United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On May 13, Governor Walz issued an executive order allowing retailers to open their doors to fifty percent capacity, businesses—from pet-grooming services to medical cannabis operations—to resume in-person work, and even announced a phased plan for reopening bars and restaurants. In-person worship, however, remained banned beyond ten people. No guidance or plans for reopening were announced.

This meant that while the Mall of America could open its doors to those seeking retail therapy, houses of worship were barred from providing spiritual healing to their congregations.

Retail therapy, but no spiritual healing

The Minnesota Catholic Conference and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in Minnesota remain committed to mitigating the risk of spreading coronavirus in their congregations and communities by instituting rigorous social distancing and hygiene protocols to prevent the spread of coronavirus. But, if the state deems the risk low enough to reopen non-essential businesses, why should religious communities be forced to comply with a ten-person limit?

Acting in defense of religious liberty

After weeks of negotiation between the churches and the governor to try to achieve equal treatment for churches and houses of worship, on May 20, Becket sent a letter to Governor Walz on behalf of the Minnesota Catholic Conference and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in Minnesota explaining that continuing this discriminatory treatment of in-person worship violates federal and state law.

The letter announced that on May 26, 2020, in advance of Pentecost Sunday (May 31), the faith communities would resume holding in-person worship services and ministering to their congregations at one-third capacity whether or not Governor Walz amended his executive order. Governor Walz returned to the negotiating table after the Churches acted in defense of their free exercise, announcing on May 23 that he would clear the way for houses of worship of all faith traditions to open to larger groups starting May 27, 2020. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious communities—The First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause protects religious Americans from undue burdens on their religious exercise. When Churches are given a special disability not felt by secular entities, the government is violating the Free Exercise Clause by substantially burdening religious practice.

Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui

A sanctuary for spiritual growth

A Hindu organization called Spirit of Aloha Temple purchased land in Maui County, Hawaii, in 2007 for religious use. Years later, the Temple decided to expand its ministry by holding weddings on its property. Because the land was zoned for agricultural use, to construct the facilities it needed to host celebrations, the Temple had to apply for a special use permit from the county (a permit which secular entities are routinely granted).

Stifled by bureaucrats

Unfortunately, the Temple was denied the permit application by a commission of unelected government bureaucrats, who cited concerns such as increased traffic to the area around wedding celebrations. The Spirit of Aloha Temple sued, arguing that the permit denial restricted the practice of its faith and violated the RLUIPA. Passed by Congress in 2000, RLUIPA protects people of all faiths from zoning and land use laws being manipulated to squelch religious practices on a religious organization’s own land.

Protecting religious exercise on religious land

Here, a federal court undermined the independent check that RLUIPA provides against local bureaucrats. Rather than independently review the denial of the Temple’s land-use permit, the lower court deferred to the local bureaucrats when reviewing whether their decision was fair. Given that unwarranted deference, it is no surprise that the Temple’s RLUIPA claims were dismissed.

In March 2020, Becket filed a brief in support of the Temple at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Representing Becket on the brief was the Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic, including faculty members Prof. Jim Sonne and Zeba Huq, and students Claire Greenberg and Nathaniel Bernstein. Comprehensively laying out RLUIPA’s text, history, and structure, Becket’s brief confirms that the government bureaucrats cannot both decide whether the Spirit of Aloha Temple can use their land to hold wedding services and then have their findings blindly followed when facing judicial review. Concluding otherwise would undermine the careful balance that Congress sought to ensure for people of all faiths by passing RLUIPA.

On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Temple’s permit was allowed under RLUIPA.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Property rights—Practicing one’s faith almost always requires land use, but, unfortunately, this aspect of religious exercise is too often denied to groups who can’t afford to fight local zoning commissions or hostility. Becket fights to ensure the rights of minority faith groups to build houses of worship under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Sossamon v. Texas

Getting right with God

Harvey Sossamon was an inmate in a Texas. He wanted to cultivate his faith even while in prison, but he was denied access to the prison chapel for religious services even though other inmates were allowed access to the same space for secular uses such as marriage training sessions and sex education. Instead, the prison officials allowed worship services to be held only in multi-purpose spaces where there were no religious symbols to aid in worship.

This meant that, while he was able to practice his faith in multi-purpose spaces, he was unable to engage in essential aspects of Christian worship such as kneeling at the altar or praying at the foot of a cross.

Pursuing equal access

Sossamon sued the prison officials in their individual capacities, arguing that denying him access to the chapel unfairly burdened his religious exercise and is prohibited under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), an important civil rights law that protects the religious liberty of prisoners and patients.

Denied just recourse

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled against Sossamon, finding that he could not sue the officials in their individual capacity under RLUIPA. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Sossamon lost again. Sossamon appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the United States. At the Supreme Court, Becket filed an amicus brief that explained why it is so important for religious individuals to be able to sue government officials under the federal civil rights laws. The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision on technical grounds, holding that Congress had not been specific enough in the wording of RLUIPA to override the State of Texas’s sovereign immunity. Justice Sotomayor dissented, discussing at length Becket’s kosher diet case Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Importance to Religious Liberty:
• Individual Freedom—In order for individuals to have the freedom to exercise their beliefs without government interference, individual government actors who take adverse action against religious liberty must be able to be held personally responsible.

Tanzin v. Tanvir

Targeted for their faith

Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah and Naveed Shinwari are three American Muslim men who were allegedly approached by FBI agents, who asked the men to serve as informants against fellow Muslims. However, their religious beliefs prevented the men from assisting the FBI in this way.

Abuse of power

After the three men declined to serve as informants for the FBI they were allegedly placed on the No Fly List—a record of individuals deemed to be terrorist threats to the United States and therefore not permitted to fly. According to their court filings, they were on this list for several years.

The three men sued the FBI agents, arguing that they had coercively abused the use of the No Fly List and, in doing so, had violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by burdening their religious exercise.

Just four days before the men got their day in court, the FBI said the men were free to fly, then asked the court to dismiss the case and leave the men without any legal recourse.

Just recourse for religious discrimination

The district court ruled that the men had no standing to sue because their names had been removed from the No Fly List. They appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which rightly ruled in favor of the Muslim men, finding that they had the ability to vindicate their rights in court.

The FBI agents appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that cannot be held liable for placing the men on the No Fly List.

Frequently, the government changes laws or reverses its behavior to avoid legal trouble. This is a dangerous precedent that allows the government to get away with egregious actions, then deny victims just recourse for the harms they’ve faced. Becket is arguing that to hold the government accountable for unjust actions, individual government actors must be able to be held liable for violating religious freedom under RFRA.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir on November 22, 2019. On February 12, 2020, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of broad protections under RFRA and allowing those whose rights are violated to seek money damages for RFRA claims. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on October 6, 2020 and ruled on December 10, 2020 that the men are entitled to sue for financial relief, saying that it is sometimes the only form of relief that can remedy government violations of religious freedom.

Importance to Religious Liberty:
• Individual Freedom— The government shouldn’t be able to get out of legal trouble by changing laws and policies when it knows it’s about to lose in court. In order for individuals to have the freedom to exercise their beliefs without government interference, individual government actors who take adverse action against religious liberty must be able to be held responsible.

Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary

Training ministers of the gospel

As one of the world’s leading Christian seminaries, Fuller Theological Seminary offers a vibrant multidenominational, multiethnic, and international Christian community where Christian students prepare to fulfill their vocations in a variety of ministry settings. For over 70 years, Fuller Theological Seminary has equipped Christian ministers and faith leaders through rigorous academic programs rooted deeply in Christian teaching, to answer God’s call to lead their own communities in the way of Jesus.

When students apply to Fuller Theological Seminary, they agree to adhere to a wide swath of biblically-based Christian ethics by giving written consent to abide by the seminary’s community standards as a continuing condition of enrollment. This collective agreement shapes the worldwide ethos of Fuller and includes upholding the belief that God created marriage to be the permanent covenant between only one man and one woman, and that sexual union must be reserved for that relationship. The seminary’s community standards are clear that students are to abstain from sexual conduct outside of this sacred marriage covenant.

The right to define ministry training

Joanna Maxon and Nathan Brittsan applied to Fuller Theological Seminary and agreed to Fuller’s community standards. Both individuals later admitted knowingly violating the standards by entering into same-sex marriages.

As with all students at Fuller, Ms. Maxon and Mr. Brittsan provided written consent to abide by the seminary’s community standards when they applied to the seminary, agreeing that they would follow them as a condition of participating in Fuller’s theological training with the rest of the student community. Their same-sex marriages were a direct and knowing violation of the standards to which they had agreed. Thus, after confirming the standards violations, Fuller regretfully dismissed them from the theology program and refunded their tuition for all classes that were left incomplete at the time of dismissal.

As a religious organization, Fuller Theological Seminary has the First Amendment right, and the religious duty, to uphold specific standards of ethics and morality for the members of its Christian community. This is a right that has been widely accepted and protected by courts for decades. Nevertheless, in November 2019, Ms. Maxon sued Fuller Theological Seminary in federal district court. Mr. Brittsan, who applied to Fuller but never matriculated, joined the lawsuit in January 2020.

Defending a healthy separation of church and state

Churches, seminaries, and other religious groups must be able to decide how to train their own religious leaders according to their own sincere determinations of their religious mission and the teachings of their faith. The government cannot entangle itself in these religious decisions by second-guessing or undermining how religious schools and organizations have decided to train their ministers and leaders. Permitting the government to force itself into the process of setting standards for scholars and ministers of faith is a clear violation of religious autonomy—a threat to the healthy separation of church and state.

The government cannot pressure religious groups into abandoning their beliefs. If Sikhs decide to abandon the turban and kirpan, Orthodox Jews choose to stop keeping Kosher, or Muslims want to reject wearing the hijab, then those must be decisions made freely by members of the faith—not under compulsion from lawsuits and courts. So too with Christian beliefs on the sacrament of marriage. Fuller filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case in February 2020, and a hearing took place on August 4, 2020. On October 7, 2020, the federal district court dismissed the claims against Fuller, protecting the rights of religious educational institutions to uphold community standards. On November 3, 2020, Maxon and Brittsan appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On December 13, 2021, the Ninth Circuit unanimously protected the right of Fuller Theological Seminary to freely direct its own religious community, a significant win for the rights of religious education institutions of all faiths.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

• Religious Communities—Religious groups must be able to select the members of their ministries according to their religious mission and sincere faith, free from government interference.
• Freedom of groups to train their own leaders—The Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor unanimously protected a church’s right to choose and maintain standards for its own leaders. That principle applies to the training of religious leaders as well. Both church and state are best served when the state isn’t controlling the internal leadership decisions of a religious institution.

St. Vincent Catholic Charities v. Ingham County Board of Commissioners

Whatever you do for the least of my brothers

St. Vincent Catholic Charities is driven by faith to minister to the community of Lansing, Michigan. As a Christian organization, St. Vincent believes in the biblical commandment that it must care for the orphan, widow, and refugee.

Accordingly, for more than 40 years, St. Vincent has been providing crucial services to all refugees who have resettled in Lansing. Volunteers and staff do everything they can to make refugees feel safe and welcome in their new, unfamiliar home—from picking refugees up at the airport and locating safe, affordable housing to providing cultural orientation, computer training, and job search services.

St. Vincent is the only government-designated agency that provides these services to refugees in Lansing, and is a federally recognized priority resettlement site for LGBTQ refugees—often serving those who fled their homeland due to persecution for their sexual orientation.

Caring for the stranger in our midst

No other agency in Lansing has the capacity, experience, and community access to provide the vital refugee resettlement services available through St. Vincent. Without St. Vincent, around one hundred refugees will arrive in Lansing each year without the tools necessary to thrive in the United States.

But in 2019, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners decided to exclude St. Vincent (and only St. Vincent) from a program that helps provide social services to refugees in Lansing, despite the fact that the Board has said repeatedly that St. Vincent provides excellent services. Further, the Board threatened to end its partnership with St. Vincent, thus putting crucial refugee health services at risk. The Board had done all this in explicit retaliation for St. Vincent’s ongoing lawsuit against the State of Michigan. In that case, St. Vincent challenged Michigan’s discriminatory policies regarding the provision of foster care and adoption services (Buck v. Gordon).

Discriminatory retaliation

The Ingham County Board of Commissioners’ actions violated the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution prohibits both religious discrimination and retaliation by government officials against those who have the courage to defend their First Amendment rights in court. Ingham County Commissioners have even called St. Vincent “morally bankrupt” and made numerous false allegations about the agency at public meetings. The government cannot discriminate against an organization simply because it dislikes the agency’s sincere religious beliefs. The Board admitted that St. Vincent’s refugee services are excellent and that the only reason it wanted to break ties with St. Vincent is because it disagreed with the Catholic agency’s sincere religious beliefs at issue in a separate lawsuit. St. Vincent’s religious beliefs, and its refugee services, should not be threatened for the sake of scoring cheap political points.

On March 7, 2022, a Michigan district court ruled for St. Vincent, saying, “the Board has singled out St. Vincent, not for its compelling interest in advancing certain community programs, but to punish St. Vincent for its religious beliefs.”

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public Square – The government cannot target or discriminate against organizations or individuals because of their sincere religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are expressed publicly or protected through litigation.
  • Religious Communities – Religious institutions have the right to serve those in need according to the dictates of their faith. Unfortunately, the rights of many religious institutions are under attack, sometimes simply because they stand out from the rest of society.
  • Free Speech – Religious people are protected by the First Amendment from being punished for petitioning the government to redress their grievances, including being punished for filing lawsuits to protect their religious ministry.

 

Starkey v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Commitment to Catholic education

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been committed to learning, teaching, and sharing the Catholic faith in central and southern Indiana for over 175 years. In addition to providing tens of millions of dollars in vital social services, the Archdiocese operates a number of schools that provide a safe, high-quality education to thousands of low-income Indiana students. The results speak for themselves, with over 90% of all graduates going on to college, far outstripping public schools.

While Catholic schools provide a top-notch education, their central purpose is to transmit the Catholic faith to the next generation. Thus, it is crucial that educators in Catholic schools—especially administrators, teachers, and guidance counselors—respect and promote the Church’s teachings. For this reason, all educators at Roncalli sign an agreement to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church in both their professional and private lives—serving as examples of the faith to both the students and the community alike.

A conflict of commitment

As Co-Director of Guidance at Roncalli High School, Lynn Starkey was responsible for communicating the Catholic faith to students and families, and advising students both practically and spiritually as they discerned their vocational path at and after Roncalli. In August of 2018, Starkey told Roncalli leadership that she was in, and intended to remain in, a same-sex marriage in violation of her contract and of Catholic teaching. When the time came to renew her contract, her fellow school leaders explained that they could not do so while she was living in opposition to Catholic teaching. Ms. Starkey sued both the school and the Archdiocese arguing that they had discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

Educating hearts and minds

Catholic education is designed to holistically form the student in heart, mind, and body. Accordingly, Catholic educators and guidance professionals are expected to go beyond simply teaching algebra, or helping students fill out college applications. They are charged with modeling a Christ-centered life and promoting the teachings of the Catholic Church in word and deed—in short, they are ministers of the faith to their students. If an educator chooses to live in a manner which demonstrates disagreement with Church teaching, that educator cannot properly communicate the faith to his or her students.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants church schools like Roncalli the right to choose who teaches the faith to the next generation, free from government interference. The U.S. Supreme Court most recently articulated this doctrine, called the ministerial exception, in the unanimous 2012 decision Hosanna-Tabor, which protected a Lutheran church school’s right to choose its teachers. Becket is defending the school’s First Amendment right to choose faithful teachers under the ministerial exception.

Next Steps

After the lawsuit was filed, a federal district court ruled in favor of Roncalli and the Archdiocese, saying that when an employee is “tasked with guiding students as they mature and grow into adulthood,” “[o]ne may reasonably presume that a religious school would expect faith to play a role in that work.” Starkey appealed the lower court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 16, 2022. 

On July 28, 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling in favor of Roncalli and the Archdiocese. The court said Starkey “was entrusted with communicating the Catholic faith to the school’s students and guiding the school’s religious mission.” Thus, the Constitution protected the school’s right to choose who would carry out that role.

Roncalli High School and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis are also represented by Wooton Hoy LLC.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.

Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Commitment to Catholic education

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been committed to learning, teaching, and sharing the Catholic faith in central and southern Indiana for over 175 years. In addition to providing tens of millions of dollars in vital social services, the Archdiocese operates a number of schools that provide a safe, high-quality education to thousands of low-income Indiana students. The results speak for themselves, with over 90% of all graduates going on to college, far outstripping public schools.

While Catholic schools provide a top-notch education, their central purpose is to transmit the Catholic faith to the next generation. Thus, it is crucial that educators in Catholic schools—especially administrators, teachers, and guidance counselors—respect and promote the Church’s teachings. For this reason, all educators at Roncalli sign an agreement to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church in both their professional and private lives—serving as examples of the faith to both the students and the community alike.

A conflict of commitment

As Co-Director of Guidance at Roncalli High School, Shelly Fitzgerald was responsible for communicating the Catholic faith to students and families, and advising students both practically and spiritually as they discerned their vocational path at and after Roncalli. In August of 2018, Fitzgerald told Roncalli leadership that she was in, and intended to remain in, a same-sex marriage in violation of her contract and of Catholic teaching. When the time came to renew her contract, her fellow school leaders explained that they could not do so while she was living in opposition to Catholic teaching. Ms. Fitzgerald sued both the school and the Archdiocese, arguing that they had discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

Educating hearts and minds

Catholic education is designed to holistically form the student in heart, mind, and body. Accordingly, Catholic educators and guidance professionals are expected to go beyond simply teaching algebra, or helping students fill out college applications. They are charged with modeling a Christ-centered life and promoting the teachings of the Catholic Church in word and deed—in short, they are ministers of the faith to their students. If an educator chooses to live in a manner which demonstrates disagreement with Church teaching, that educator cannot properly communicate the faith to his or her students.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants church schools like Roncalli the right to choose who teaches the faith to the next generation, free from government interference, under a doctrine called the ministerial exception. The U.S. Supreme Court most recently articulated this doctrine in the unanimous 2012 decision Hosanna-Tabor, which protected a Lutheran church school’s right to choose its teachers. Becket is defending the church’s First Amendment right to choose faithful teachers under the ministerial exception.

On July 13, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in the case, protecting the school’s First Amendment right to make employment decisions that align with their religious mission. 

Roncalli High School and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis are also represented by Jay Mercer of Wooton Hoy, LLC. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities— Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.

 

United States of America v. Scott Warren

The good Samaritans of the border

Every year thousands of migrants travel across the Sonoran Desert—one of the most extreme environments in North America—to the United States border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The journey is treacherous, and thousands of migrants die on the way from exposure, dehydration, and hyperthermia. In Arizona alone, thousands of human remains have been found over the past two decades.

In the border counties of Arizona, humanitarian groups have formed to respond to the deaths and try to prevent them by leaving food, water, and supplies in areas that migrants are known to pass through, by conducting search and rescue missions, and by recovering the remains of migrants who have passed away on the journey—giving them a dignified burial.

Dr. Scott Warren is a resident of Ajo, Arizona. Driven by his religious belief that “all life is sacred, and places are sacred as well,” Dr. Warren is an active volunteer with the humanitarian aid group No More Deaths—one such group that works to ensure the safety of migrants as they pass through the desert. With No More Deaths, Dr. Warren regularly conducts “missions” on which he places food, water, and other supplies at specific “water drop” sites which are well documented and maintained by No More Deaths.

No good deed goes unpunished

On June 1, 2017, Dr. Warren and his companions loaded up their vehicles with food, water, and supplies and set out into the desert early in the morning. After departing from the public road in order to reach his drop site, he was spotted by an officer, arrested, and charged with “Abandonment of Property” for leaving the supplies for migrants.

Dr. Warren and his companions always log the location and amount of supplies they leave and return to collect containers that are empty or unused. They are not discarding, or abandoning, the supplies left at drop sites; rather, they are giving them to those in need in hopes that they will save lives that may otherwise be lost. Further, the government allows ATVs, camping, and hunting in the same area where it forbids this humanitarian work.

Free to act on faith

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, embodies a simple principle: that government may not burden or punish religious exercise out of policy convenience or whim, but only in the rare case that it is truly necessary to serve an interest of overriding importance. Since it was passed in 1993, RFRA has been especially important to protecting the rights of religious minorities. (See RFRA Info Central for more information.)

In leaving supplies for migrants, Dr. Warren was acting on his sincerely held belief that every human life is sacred and no person should be left to die in the wilderness for lack of food, water, or medical supplies. The government, in prosecuting Dr. Warren, was burdening his religious practice and discouraging others from engaging in the same humanitarian work according to their own religious beliefs.

On November 21, 2019, a federal court acquitted Dr. Warren of the charge of abandonment of property based on his RFRA defense, ruling that the government did not need to burden Dr. Warren’s religious exercise in order to “protect[] the pristine state of the wildlife refuge” or “secur[e] the border.” He was found guilty of a vehicle permit violation, which may be appealed. Dr. Scott Warren is represented by Kuykendall & Associates of Tucson, Arizona.

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • Individual Freedom: Americans have the right to believe, express beliefs, and act in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Faith cannot and should not be confined to what we do within the four walls of our homes and churches; we must be free to act on those beliefs in our interactions with the broader world.

Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston v. HHS

Caring for the poor, the widow, and the immigrant

Following Catholic teaching, the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston cares for the poor, the widowed, and the immigrant, providing critical, life-saving services through its ministries to hundreds of thousands of people in need every year. The Archdiocese and its vital ministries are driven by their Roman Catholic faith to care for those in need. The people they serve are of all creeds and backgrounds, including many living in poverty. In 2018, its ministries gave over 25,000 meals to seniors, provided over $10 million in disaster-recovery aid, and filed nearly 4,000 immigration petitions on behalf of refugees and immigrants.

A regulation standing in the way of helping children in need

Despite the Archdiocese’s many efforts to serve the underserved in its community, there is still a glaring crisis in the State of Texas. Thousands of vulnerable children wait to be placed in loving homes, but there are too few families to take all of them in. The Archdiocese would like to do more to help address the great need for foster families in its community. But a 2016 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation is preventing the Archdiocese from helping Texas foster kids, harming children who are still waiting for a home and family. The regulation requires religious foster care agencies to place children with same-sex couples even if doing so would go against their religious beliefs. This also contradicts a Texas law allowing agencies to refer couples to other agencies if they are unable to partner with them for religious reasons.

Many prospective foster families choose to work with faith-based organizations because of their shared beliefs and values. But some state and local governments are using this 2016 HHS regulation as justification for targeting religious agencies. Amid a nationwide foster care crisis, this regulation limits the number of agencies that can care for foster children in need, forcing organizations—like the Archdiocese—with the skills, resources, and desire to help to remain on the sidelines. The Archdiocese is seeking to grow, not limit, the number of foster families available to the orphans of Southeast Texas. Ending the regulation will strike a balance ensuring that all couples (including same-sex couples) can adopt, and all agencies (including Catholic agencies) can help broker foster and adoption placements. This is in the best interest of Texas’ foster children.

Payne-Elliott v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Commitment to Catholic education

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been committed to teaching the Catholic faith and serving central and southern Indiana for over 175 years. In addition to providing tens of millions of dollars in vital social services, the Archdiocese operates a number of schools that provide a safe, high-quality education to thousands of low-income Indiana students.

The purpose of these schools is not only to provide a top-notch education, but to transmit the Catholic faith to the next generation. Thus, it is of particular importance that educators in Catholic schools respect and promote the Church’s teachings. This is why, when they are hired, all educators in the Archdiocese sign an agreement to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church in both their professional and private lives—serving as examples of the faith to both the students and the community alike.

A broken agreement

In 2017, Joshua Payne-Elliott, a teacher at Cathedral Catholic High School, entered a same-sex civil union in violation of his employment agreement and centuries of Catholic teaching. For almost two years, the Archdiocese engaged in discussion with Cathedral High School about the best course of action based on Catholic teaching. In the end, the Archdiocese informed Cathedral that if it wanted to remain affiliated with the Catholic Church, it could not continue employing teachers who lived in defiance of Church teaching.

Wishing to remain a Catholic school, Cathedral separated from Mr. Payne-Elliott. Mr. Payne-Elliott then sued the Archdiocese in state court, arguing that it unfairly interfered in his agreement with the school.

Defending church autonomy

The Supreme Court has long recognized that secular courts have no business interfering in matters of church discipline or internal church governance. As the Indiana Supreme Court put it a century ago, “No power save that of the church can rightfully declare who is a Catholic.” Accordingly, Becket is defending the Archdiocese, arguing that the government cannot punish the Archdiocese for telling a Catholic school what rules it needed to follow in order to remain a Catholic school.

On May 7, 2021, the Marion Superior Court of Indiana agreed and dismissed the case, ruling in favor of the Archdiocese. The Indiana Court of Appeals, however, reversed, permitting the lawsuit to proceed. Becket then asked the Indiana Supreme Court to step in.

On August 31, 2022, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously protected the Archdiocese, explaining that the “Constitution encompasses the right of religious institutions to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government.” The decision protects the Archdiocese’s freedom to ensure students and families receive an authentic Catholic education.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious Communities—Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to self-definition and free association.

Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero

Promoting healing and protecting the vulnerable

This case was based on the January 2019 decision of Texas Catholic bishops to compile and release lists of clergy that, based on Catholic Church law and in accordance with internal church investigations, were credibly accused of sexually abusing “minors” as defined by Catholic law. The lists were part of an ongoing effort throughout the Church to speak with Catholics in a transparent manner about past sexual abuse, promote healing within the Catholic Church, and protect the vulnerable.

Punished for transparency

Among the names published by the Diocese of Lubbock was that of Deacon Jesus Guerrero, who was suspended in 2003 and permanently suspended from the diaconate in 2007 due to alleged sexual misconduct with a woman who has a history of mental and emotional issues.

Deacon Guerrero threatened to sue the Diocese of Lubbock for including him on the list. He claimed that his inclusion was defamatory, because the person he is accused of abusing was not under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged misconduct. The diocese explained that under Canon Law—the centuries-old body of law of the Catholic Church, which clergy are bound to follow—any person over the age of 18 who lacks the mental faculties of an adult (non sui compos) is considered a minor. Nevertheless, on March 22, 2019, Guerrero brought a million-dollar defamation lawsuit against the diocese.

Churches must be able to self-govern free from government interference

Guerrero’s suit asked that a civil court adjudicate whether the Catholic Church’s religious understanding of “minor” was reasonable, and, as applied to his conduct, true. At the Texas Court of Appeals, Becket filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops—all 22 bishops in the State of Texas—arguing that the government cannot tell churches how to resolve church controversies and cannot evaluate church standards of morality. Allowing courts to decide religious questions would open a Pandora’s box of lawsuits over internal church affairs, obliterating the healthy separation of church and state.

On December 6, 2019, Texas’s Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Diocese of Lubbock’s appeal. Becket, representing the Diocese, appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Texas. Its appeal received the support of 34 members of the Texas Legislature, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, prominent legal scholars, and diverse religious organizations. On June 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas dismissed the case, ruling in favor of the Diocese of Lubbock by a vote of 8-1.  The  Court recognized the full scope of the First Amendment’s freedom for religious institutions to shape their own faith and missions. Religious institutions, the Court said, are not only free to make “internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission.” They are also free to make any “publications that relate to a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission.”

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Religious communities—Churches and religious organizations have a right to live, teach, and govern in accordance with the tenets of their faith. When the government unjustly interferes in internal church affairs, the separation of church and state is threatened. The First Amendment ensures a church’s right to autonomy and self-governance.

Chung v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association

Meet the Chungs: Star athletes, faithful to their Sabbath

Joelle and Joseph Chung are siblings, avid tennis players, and active members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in their hometown, Chehalis, Washington. As faithful Adventists, Joelle and Joseph observe the Sabbath, a biblically-ordained practice of devoting time to rest, prayer and collective worship, every week from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. The Chung family take their faith very seriously. Joelle even missed her own high school graduation because it fell on a Saturday. Joelle and Joseph became tennis players because they knew that the sport was primarily played on the weekdays, so it would not interfere with their religious observance.

Joelle was a top athlete on her high school’s girls’ tennis team for four years before graduating in 2019. Joseph is a current high school student and is already a star player on the boys’ tennis team as a sophomore. The Chungs are talented and dedicated tennis players, but a discriminatory rule has kept them from playing the sport they love because of their beliefs.

Kept off the court for their faith

Every year the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), the organization authorized under Washington law to regulate high-school sports in Washington, holds a state-wide postseason tennis tournament. To advance to the State Championships, players must compete in two qualifying tournaments. Throughout Joelle’s high school tennis career, the WIAA required participants to certify that they would be able to participate in each level of the tournament to qualify for the championships, with exceptions for injuries, illness, and “unforeseen events.”

In her junior year, Joelle won the first qualifying tournament leading up to the State Championships but had to forfeit her spot to an alternate because the next round conflicted with the Sabbath. In 2019, her senior season, Joelle was undefeated and expected to win in the qualifying tournaments and advance to the State Championships. Yet the State Championships were scheduled on a Friday and Saturday. According to WIAA rules, she was disqualified from playing the entire postseason.

Hoping to reach a compromise, the Chung family contacted the WIAA months in advance, asking for a religious accommodation. The Chungs asked the WIAA to move the State Championships to a weekday or simply allow Joelle to participate in the qualifying tournaments and use an alternate for the championships, just like athletes with injuries or illness can. Of course, it was entirely hypothetical that a replacement would be needed, depending on whether Joelle advanced to the championships. The WIAA flatly denied their requests, forcing Joelle to give up her chances in the tournament.

Defending the right to play while keeping the faith

No student-athlete should be barred from experiencing the excitement of competition and the opportunity to advance to the top of their field because of discriminatory standards. With Becket’s help, the Chung family sued the WIAA, asking that the rule be changed so that all students, including students of faith, can fully participate. The boys’ state tennis postseason begins in October so, Becket asked the WIAA to change its discriminatory rule before then so that Joseph and other students whose faith compels them to keep the Sabbath on Saturday can participate on equal terms with other students.

On August 27, 2019 the WIAA added religious observance to the list of exceptions allowing a player to withdraw from competition without being penalized. But this rule change is only a partial victory because the WIAA continues to insist that it cannot adjust the schedule of the tournament to accommodate religious observance, even if one of the remaining contenders has a Sabbath conflict.

The Chungs moved for summary judgment in September 2020, but the court decided to send the case to trial. Because WIAA had already changed the rule excluding them from postseason play, our clients agreed to settle as long as WIAA would agree to keep in place its amended rule allowing Saturday Sabbath observers to play in the postseason up until they run into an actual Sabbath conflict. A settlement agreement was reached and approved by the court on September 3, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the court granted the parties’ motion to dismiss, formally ending the case.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom—In a pluralistic society, organizations have an obligation to make reasonable accommodations to ensure Americans of all faiths can participate fully in society. No American should unnecessarily be forced to choose between participating in public life and living out their sincere religious beliefs. Organizations especially cannot make secular exceptions to their rules and regulations and then claim that religious exceptions cannot be allowed.

Belen Gonzales v. Mathis Independent School District

Brothers bound by a sacred promise 

When Pedro and Belen Gonzales’ eldest son, Cesar, was an infant, he contracted a very serious illness. Longing for his recovery, Pedro and Belen made a religious promise that if their son’s health improved, they would keep a strand of hair on the back of his head uncut as an expression of faith and gratitude. After Cesar recovered and their second son, Diego, was born, the family continued the practice as a deeply important and personal part of their religious faith. As they grew older, both boys continued to keep a small strand of their hair uncut, committed to living out their family’s sacred practice.  

From kindergarten through sixth grade, the local school district allowed the boys to keep their long hair—despite a dress code requiring boys to have short hair—because the school recognized that the religious promise was an important part of their identity. The boys were active in many afterschool activities, such as football, the robotics team, and student government.  

Forced to sever a core part of their identity 

In August 2017, as they were entering the seventh grade at Mathis Middle School, the Gonzales brothers were suddenly told that they would no longer be allowed to keep a strand of their hair uncut. The Gonzales family appealed the decision but were eventually denied by the school board. The boys were banned from all University Interscholastic League (UIL) interschool competition in sports and clubs, which meant they couldn’t play on the football team or travel with the robotics team. Cesar’s grades even began to suffer when he was excluded from band performances—a core part of the academic band grade.  

The Texas Association of School Boards instructs school districts that they “must accommodate requests for exceptions [from grooming codes] based on a student or parent’s sincerely held religious belief.” But the boys’ school district has refused to follow this recommendation. The school’s coaching staff even told Cesar, “All it takes is a quick snip of the scissors for you to get your football equipment.”  

Defending students’ freedom to express their faith 

On May 30, 2018, the Gonzales family sued the Mathis Independent School District on behalf of their sons, arguing that the school’s stubborn adherence to their grooming code imposed a burden on the family’s religious practice. 

On July 15, 2019, Becket sent a letter to Mathis Independent School District, urging the District to reach a settlement with the Gonzales family and allow the Gonzales boys to learn and play alongside their classmates.  

When the District refused, the federal court on September 5, 2019, granted the family’s request for a religious accommodation allowing participation in extracurriculars while the case proceeds. Finally, on May 25, 2021, the Mathis Independent School District entered a settlement agreement resolving the case. The District paid $20,000 to cover the family’s attorneys’ fees and promised to respect the Gonzales brothers’ religious practices for the duration of their enrollment. The Gonzales children can now fully participate in the life of the school while keeping their religious promise.  

The Gonzales family was represented by Texas attorney Frank Gonzales and Jamie Aycock, Kenneth Young, and Kelsee Foote of the international law firm Kirkland & Ellis. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Education: No American should have to give up their faith when they go to school. The Constitution protects the free expression of sincerely held religious beliefs from arbitrary restrictions.  
  • Individual Freedom: Every individual has the right to live and act according to their conscience, both privately and publicly, free from government coercion. 

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Our Lady of Guadalupe fights for excellence 

Our Lady of Guadalupe School is a Transitional Kinder-8th grade Catholic school located in Hermosa Beach. A ministry of Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, the school is committed to providing a faith-based education rooted in the Catholic tradition.  

In 2012, the school was struggling financially and on the verge of closing, with only one student in the graduating eighth grade class. In a bold turnaround effort, the school sought to improve by implementing a new reading and writing program to be taught by all teachers, a healthy diet program, and programs tailored for children with special needs.  

As a teacher at Our Lady of Guadalupe, Ms. Morrissey-Berru was responsible for providing a Catholic education, while implementing the school’s new programs, which were a top priority. However, Ms. Morrissey-Berru soon proved unwilling to follow the guidelines of any of the programs, and her students’ academic performance suffered as a result. Her recurring poor performance prompted complaints from fellow colleagues and parents.  Principal April Beuder decided to move Ms. Morrissey-Berru to a part-time teaching position, and in 2015 chose not to renew her contract. 

Catholic schools must be free to choose who teaches the faith 

As a Catholic school teacher, Ms. Morrissey-Berru held a crucial role of teaching the beliefs and mission of the Roman Catholic Church. She taught religion, led students in daily prayer, and prepared them for mass and other important liturgical activities such as feast days, Lenten services, and an annual performance of the Passion of the Christ. Every subject she taught was infused with Catholic values. The school also paid to have her trained as a certified Catechist. 

Under the ministerial exception, church schools like Our Lady of Guadalupe have the First Amendment right to choose who teaches the faith to the next generation, free from any government interference.

Morrissey-Berru sues Our Lady of Guadalupe 

After her contract term ended, Ms. Morrissey-Berru sued Our Lady of Guadalupe School for age discrimination. A federal judge sided with the school, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 unanimous Hosanna-Tabor decision protecting the First Amendment right of a Lutheran church school to choose its teachers. Ms. Morrissey-Berru then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

In a two-page order, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed and sided with Ms. Morrissey-Berru. The panel recognized she had “significant religious responsibilities,” and was “committed to incorporate Catholic values and teachings into her curriculum,” yet, still ruled that Morrissey-Berru’s duties were not religious enough to invoke First Amendment protections. 

Nine other judges on the Ninth Circuit criticized the Morrissey-Berru panel’s decision in a dissenting opinion authored by Judge Ryan Nelson in a parallel case also handled by Becket, St. James School v. Biel. The dissenting judges called the alarm, stating that “Now thousands of Catholic schools in the West have less religious freedom than their Lutheran counterparts nationally.”  

Becket defended Our Lady of Guadalupe School, arguing that religious groups can only operate freely if they are given full autonomy in choosing the individuals who teach their beliefs and embody their faith. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on August 28, 2019. On December 18, 2019 the Supreme Court agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe, and consolidated the case with another Becket case, St. James School v. Biel. The Court heard oral argument on May 11, 2020. Also representing Our Lady of Guadalupe were Linda Miller Savitt, John Manier, Stephanie Kantor of Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP, and Margaret Graf of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. 

On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. James Catholic schools, finding that the government cannot control a church school’s decision about who teaches its religion classes.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Religious groups should be fully empowered to select their priests, rabbis, ministers and other religious teachers free from government interference. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this right under the ministerial exception and all courts should respect that decision. Both church and state benefit when the state is not evaluating the internal decisions of a religious ministry. 

New York v. HHS

A doctor’s mission: hope and healing for everyone

Dr. Regina Frost has practiced medicine for 15 years, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. She helps lead a network of female healthcare professionals called Women Physicians in Christ, a ministry of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) that is committed to supporting women physicians and dentists by integrating their personal, spiritual, and professional lives.  

CMDA is an organization of over 19,000 healthcare professionals, including Dr. Frost, who are committed to living out their faith in their practice of medicine. CMDA members serve everyone and seek to treat all of their patients like Christ would, providing all with compassionate care, healing, and hope. CMDA medical professionals take an oath to do no harm and would never deny routine or life-saving care to anyone. 

Their mission to heal takes CMDA doctors and nurses all over the globe. Within the U.S., CMDA members serve vulnerable populations including the homeless, prisoners living with HIV, and victims of opioid addiction, sex trafficking, and gang violence. Abroad, CMDA members serve in war zones, refugee clinics, and remote areas without quality healthcare. Several even contracted Ebola while providing treatment to patients during the deadly outbreak in Liberia. 

Religious healthcare professionals face an impossible choice  

Dr. Frost and other religious healthcare professionals are called to serve everyone with compassion. They only ask not to be forced to perform certain medical procedures that they believe would be inconsistent with their faith.  

In May 2019 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Conscience Rule, reinforcing an existing law which allows religious doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals to serve their patients without being forced to violate their conscience. Several states, including the State of New York, immediately sued to overturn that rule and are willing to drive religious healthcare professionals like Dr. Frost out of the medical field.  

No doctor should have to choose between giving up their faith and abandoning a vital medical mission. Indeed, recent polling from CMDA and USCCB confirms the importance of these conscience protections, both for religious healthcare professionals seeking to care for those most in need and for the clients they serve. But New York’s lawsuit needlessly threatens the health, safety, and lives of at-risk, underserved populations who voluntarily seek care from CMDA members across the nation and around the world. 

Becket defends religious healthcare professionals and the people they serve 

On June 25, 2019, Becket intervened to defend Dr. Frost and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations from New York’s lawsuit, arguing that healthcare professionals should not be forced to perform medical procedures that would require them to violate their beliefs. The Conscience Rule reaffirms what the First Amendment and dozens of federal statutes already guarantee: religious Americans—including doctors—do not have to compromise their faith to serve those in need. 

On November 6, 2019, a federal court ruled against the Conscience Rule, threatening the ability of religious doctors to serve communities without being forced to perform procedures against their beliefs. CMDA, Dr. Frost, and HHS appealed to the Second Circuit, and filed their opening briefs on April 27, 2020.

Dr. Frost’s participation in the case is solely in her personal capacity and not on behalf of her employer. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom—Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to live out their faith in all facets of their lives—including in their professions. This lawsuit threatens the ability of religious healthcare professionals to provide quality, compassionate healthcare, forcing them to choose between their conscience and their practice.  

Patterson v. Walgreens

“In a sense attacking my faith and my ability to worship and putting my family’s livelihood at stake was a deeper attack than any that I’ve ever experienced. It was deeper than my race or color, it goes to the very core, my very soul of who I am.”—Darrell Patterson 

Work six days, rest the seventh  

Growing up as a black man in the pre-civil rights south made Darrell Patterson no stranger to discrimination and hostility. But nothing compares to the pain he experienced when he was forced to choose between his job and his Seventh-day Adventist faith.   

Since childhood, Mr. Patterson has felt called to a strong devotion to God. As an adult, Mr. Patterson demonstrated his faithfulness by abstaining from work on the Sabbath day, a practice that is important to people of many faiths—but particularly for Seventh-day Adventists, as indicated by their name. For Mr. Patterson this means retreating from the distractions of everyday life to spend time with family, serve his community and worship God. Whether he is at home singing hymns or ministering to at-risk youth or the homeless, Mr. Patterson is faithful every Sabbath day.   

In 2005, during his interview for a position at an Orlando Walgreens call center, Mr. Patterson made it clear that he wouldn’t be able to work from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, and he was hired without a problem. For several years, Mr. Patterson loved his job and enjoyed interacting with new hires. He saw his work as an extension of his ministry and treated his colleagues with compassion. He was always available to work all other days of the week, including Sundays, and his colleagues were always more than happy to switch shifts with him on the rare occasion he was scheduled to work on a Saturday.   

Employees shouldn’t be punished for their company’s mistakes  

In 2011, Mr. Patterson’s supervisors scheduled him to work on a Saturday for an extra training session after Walgreens executives made an error that broke Alabama’s pharmacy laws. The training was only two hours long and could have been done Friday, Sunday, or Monday, but Walgreens scheduled Mr. Patterson to do it on Saturday. Unable to work on a Saturday, Mr. Patterson followed protocol and attempted to switch schedules with a colleague, but because it was last minute, he was unsuccessful. Mr. Patterson conducted the training on Monday, ahead of the deadline. But Walgreens swiftly fired Mr. Patterson anyway.  

This attack on both his ability to worship and his family’s livelihood was unlike any other discrimination he had faced before. In 2014, Mr. Patterson sued Walgreens in Florida federal district court, which ruled in favor of Walgreens. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also sided with the company. Both courts claimed that Walgreens had done enough to accommodate Mr. Patterson’s religious beliefs. In 2018, Mr. Patterson brought his case to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend his right to earn an honest livelihood while following his deeply held religious convictions.   

All Americans must be free to practice their faith in the workplace 

Keeping holy days like Christmas, Yom Kippur, or a Sabbath like Mr. Patterson’s is a core religious practice for Americans of many different faith backgrounds. But because of a mistake made by Walgreens executives, Mr. Patterson was forced to choose between providing for his family and practicing a central tenet of his faith—a decision no American should have to make. The Supreme Court should step in to protect Mr. Patterson’s rights and clarify that employers must reasonably accommodate sincere religious practice, just as they do other protected characteristics like disability.  

Along with its partners the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Gene Schaerr of Schaerr | Jaffe, Becket is defending Mr. Patterson and the right of Americans of all faiths to live and work according to their religious beliefs, including the fundamental practice of observing the Sabbath. The Supreme Court denied review in Patterson v. Walgreens on February 24, 2020.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom: Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing the signs of one’s faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.

Buck v. Gordon

Faith-Based Foster Care Fact Sheet

A national foster care crisis

Our nation is facing a national foster care crisis. Thousands of vulnerable children are waiting for their forever family, but there are not enough families willing to foster and adopt.

There are over 13,000 foster children in Michigan alone. Each year, over 600 Michigan children “age out” of the foster system, meaning that at the age of 18 they are on their own, never having found a family to provide stability, love and support or a permanent place to call home. No one addresses this issue more effectively than faith-based agencies. That’s why the State of Michigan depends on private agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities to recruit and support foster and adoptive families.

The ACLU and the Attorney General of Michigan try to end ties with faith-based agencies

St. Vincent is particularly good at finding homes for sibling groups, older children, and children with special needs. In 2017, St. Vincent recruited more new adoptive families than nearly 90 percent of the other agencies in its service area. St. Vincent also helped Melissa and Chad Buck adopt five children with special needs and continues to provide them with loving support and resources.

Yet in March 2019, the Attorney General of Michigan announced a new policy to try to end the state’s vital partnership with faith-based agencies like St. Vincent. The state claims this action is necessary to protect same-sex couples, but no same-sex couple has ever been unable to foster or adopt because of St. Vincent’s religious beliefs, and St. Vincent refers any couples it cannot serve to other agencies who can. The state’s actions will only lead to fewer agencies to help all parents and harm to thousands of children who are in desperate need of loving homes.

Becket defends foster children, families, and St. Vincent Catholic Charities

On April 15, 2019, Becket filed a lawsuit representing a former foster child, the parents of five adopted children with special needs, and St. Vincent Catholic Charities, asking the court to allow faith-based agencies to continue what they do best: uniting children with loving families. Oral argument was heard on August 22, 2019. On September 26, 2019, the district court ordered the State of Michigan to continue working with St. Vincent while this case continues, ruling that “the State’s real goal is not to promote non-discriminatory child placements, but to stamp out St. Vincent’s religious belief and replace it with the State’s own.”

On January 26, 2022, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Fulton, the State of Michigan entered a settlement agreement allowing St. Vincent Catholic Charities to continue its vital ministry.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: The government discriminates against religious groups if it prevents them from providing services simply based on their religious beliefs.
  • Public square: Faith-based organizations have the same right as secular organizations to operate in the public square. Religion in the public square is not a threat, but rather a natural expression of a natural human impulse.
  • Free Speech: The government can’t coerce religious organizations to speak a government-approved message. It cannot force them to choose between closing their doors and engaging in speech and actions contrary to their religious teaching.

Patrick Henry Murphy v. Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

On the evening of March 28, Patrick Murphy was awaiting death by lethal injection. His final request for his Buddhist minister to pray with him at his execution, and help lead him into the afterlife in which he believes, had been denied. Yet at 9:20 pm—two and a half hours after Murphy was scheduled to die—the Supreme Court of the United States stepped in. The Court said that Texas could not go forward with the execution unless and until it granted Murphy the right to a reverend of his own faith at his side.

It was a shock—especially given that just weeks before, the Supreme Court refused to stop the execution of Muslim prisoner Domineque Ray when he was denied an imam at his own moment of death.

The story of what changed—and how Becket helped win the rights of the condemned to the comfort of clergy—comes down to the power of arguments based on principle.

Texas denies religious rights at death 

For the past six years, Patrick Murphy has practiced his Buddhist faith in prison with the help of spiritual advisor Rev. Hui-Yong Shih. Mr. Murphy believes that the presence of his spiritual advisor in the moments before his execution is necessary to assist him to maintain the focus required to be reborn in the Pure Land after death.

Despite Texas permitting Rev. Shih to visit Mr. Murphy in prison for over six years, and despite official prison approval of Rev. Shih as a prison spiritual advisor, the State of Texas refused Mr. Murphy’s request to have Rev. Shih present with him in the execution chamber. Texas made the surprising argument that a Buddhist minister was a security risk to the prison. And this was despite the fact that Texas already permitted Christian ministers and Muslim imams to be present in the execution chamber.

An eleventh-hour voice of reason 

Death penalty appeals are harried, and provoke strong feelings and emotions from all sides. In order to help prevent this from clouding the key religious liberty issues at stake, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court. This brief pointed the way toward a clear path that could protect the religious liberty of Mr. Murphy, while cutting through the competing arguments and ideological differences that are usually involved in a death penalty appeal.

Becket’s brief made the point that principles of religious liberty—and the very tangible religious liberty interest of Mr. Murphy—should not be ignored simply because the Court might not approve of the delay tactics that often accompany a Supreme Court death penalty appeal. Instead, the Court could protect religious liberty and find other ways to make their dislike of last-minute stay applications known.

More specifically, Becket marshaled key legal and historical sources to explain why a prisoner facing imminent execution has the constitutional right to turn to his minister for crucial support:

“The guidance of the soul at the moment of execution—the moment at which the knife falls—has for centuries been well recognized as a crucial moment of religious exercise calling for a minister’s guidance. This Court should recognize that our Constitution and civil rights laws support a right to that guidance.”

Becket asked that the Court order the State of Texas to grant Murphy access to his Buddhist minister in the execution chamber, which is exactly what the Supreme Court did.

The Supreme Court took action 

Almost two and a half hours after the scheduled start of Murphy’s execution by the State of Texas, the United States Supreme Court issued an order halting Murphy’s execution. The Court ruled that Texas could not proceed with the execution “unless the State permits Murphy’s Buddhist spiritual advisor… to accompany Murphy in the execution chamber,” exactly following Becket’s recommendation.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately, reinforcing the fact that “governmental discrimination against religion—in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech—violates the Constitution.”

What changed?  

But what about the Muslim prisoner who was denied the same source of comfort at the moment of his death just a month earlier? One factor is clear: Becket’s involvement in the case brought new legal arguments to the table—arguments that were not made in the prior appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, without the benefit of these arguments, was not presented with the full picture. Becket relied on cases that support the Free Exercise of religion, and prevent discrimination against people with different religious beliefs as a result. But the arguments previously made in support of the Muslim prisoner were more limited, and focused instead on different legal protections. This change was crucial to the protection of religious liberty in principle and in practice.

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • Individual Freedom: Religion is an innate human desire, and all individuals regardless of their legal status deserve protection of their constitutional right to practice and adhere to their faith.
  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons.

Department of Commerce v. New York

People of faith should have a chance to defend their rights 

When religious individuals sue a state or local government for discrimination, they can collect evidence in and outside of the courtroom to prove their case. They can question officials under oath, request government documents, and use every resource available to defend their religious liberty. This legal process known as “discovery” is vital for religious individuals who need to prove wrongdoing by government officials.

Yet when religious individuals sue a federal agency, under a federal statute called the Administrative Procedure Act, they may be limited to using the agency’s own internally compiled evidence to prove that the agency engaged in discrimination. Without the normal process of discovery, and confined to the agency’s own records, the court is left to take the federal agency’s word that it did not violate anyone’s religious liberty. Although Department of Commerce v. New York does not involve religious claims, it presents this same issue—whether individuals suing a federal agency for discrimination are allowed to present evidence other than the agency’s own records. And this issue has the potential to affect people of all faiths, since federal agencies are often indifferent, even hostile, toward religious freedom.

Proving religious discrimination by government agencies 

Becket has defended many religious groups from government actions and policies that were proven during discovery to have been based on intentional religious targeting. For example, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,a Philadelphia policy barred a Catholic foster agency the city had partnered with for decades from placing any more children with families. In discovery, the city demonstrated its actions were motivated by religious hostility toward the agency’s Catholic beliefs, by saying it’s “not 100 years ago” and that “times have changed.” In another case, BLinC v. University of Iowa, a public university applied a policy claiming to protect students from discrimination, but in discovery it was revealed that school officials used the policy to illegally target and deregister religious student groups that required their leaders to sign their statement of faith.

All Americans must be able to defend their rights, through legal processes that give them a fair chance to prove a federal agency’s wrongdoing. On March 6, 2019, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the implications its ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York would have on religious liberty.

In June 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to limit the evidence the Court could consider in deciding the challengers’ claims against the federal agency. Additionally, Justice Thomas, in a separate dissent, agreed with Becket’s brief that “claim[s] of religious discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause” should be analyzed differently from ordinary challenges to federal agency action.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Individual Freedom: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and other federal laws guarantee the right to freely practice one’s faith, and to defend that right fully in court. This includes access to legal processes to prove wrongdoing by the government, and especially federal agencies, which are historically less attentive to religious liberty than other government branches. 

Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors

One man’s religious convictions 

George Ricks is a 59-year-old father of four who has worked in construction his entire career. A long-time student of the Bible, George believes it is wrong to provide his Social Security number as a condition of obtaining work. 

In 2014, he tried to become an independent contractor. But in Idaho, where George lives, it is a misdemeanor to work as a contractor without first registering with the state, and registering requires providing a social security number. George was willing to provide any other form of identification, including his birth certificate, but he has a sincere religious objection to using his Social Security number to secure employment. The Idaho Board of Contractors—which makes exceptions for others, and which could obtain Ricks’s Social Security number in other ways if it really needed to—refused to accommodate his religious beliefs and denied his registration. 

No social security number, no job 

The Board’s denial was motivated by money. A federal law dictates that the Board of Contractors will receive extra funding if it collects contractors’ Social Security numbers. The law’s intent is to help the government track down delinquent fathers—something no one could ever accuse George of being, as he has spent his entire adult life providing for his four children. 

Yet the Board’s refusal to register George cost him the ability to find full-time work and provide fully for his family. Government regulations shouldn’t force someone unnecessarily to choose between being employed and practicing their religion. But in Ricks’s case, that is exactly what’s happening. Idaho’s forced choice between faith and work is entirely avoidable: the other licensing laws already grant accommodations to foreign residents who don’t have Social Security numbers; and if Idaho really needs Ricks’s government-issued number, it can consult its own records or ask the federal government to provide it. 

Becket defends free exercise 

Needless bureaucracy should never take precedence over the free exercise of religious beliefs. The Board of Contractors should stop forcing George to choose between his religious beliefs and his ability to provide for his family. In January 2019, Becket stepped up to represent George in his lawsuit against the Idaho Board of Contractors. After the Idaho Supreme Court refused to hear his case, Becket filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States on July 10, 2019, asking the Court to hold that the Free Exercise Clause requires Idaho to accommodate George’s religious beliefs. On June 28, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari for the case.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Free exercise: Individuals should be free to hold and act on their deeply held convictions, not just in their homes or places of worship, but in their places of employment and the public square.
  • Religious beliefs and employment: When a government regulation bars someone from pursuing employment because of their religious beliefs, the government must prove that there is no other way for it to achieve its goals without banning a private person’s freedom of religion.

Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago

A diverse Catholic community, singing since 1893

St. Stanislaus Bishop and Martyr Parish was founded over a century ago in Chicago by Polish families who desired a church community to call home. Today the modest church is dedicated to conveying its Catholic message to a diverse congregation by celebrating Mass in three different languages—English, Spanish, and Polish. One way it does that is through music.

In 1992, the church hired Stanislaw Sterlinski as its musical director. His responsibilities included performing music and leading the choir and congregation in singing during Mass and other liturgical celebrations such as weddings and funerals. The Catholic Church has always placed great importance in the role of music in religious worship, as whoever stands before the congregation in song expresses the Catholic message—both visually and audibly. Nor is that at all unusual: from Catholic Gregorian chant, to the Psalms of David sung in the synagogue, to the Vedic hymns sung by priests at Hindu weddings, music has held religious significance for millennia.

After the church ended Mr. Sterlinski’s employment, he sued the church in federal district court in Illinois. Although Mr. Sterlinski agrees that the government cannot dictate who a church selects to represent its faith, he argues that the church was wrong to say he did anything “religiously meaningful” because he viewed himself as only “robotically play[ing] notes.”

Churches—not the courts—gets to choose ministers

In a previous Becket case, EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously protected the right of a Lutheran school to select its religion teacher, free from government interference. The 2012 ruling set an important precedent confirming the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception,” which ensures that the church—not the state—gets to choose its leaders.

But Mr. Sterlinski’s lawsuit demands courts to become entangled in church affairs by second-guessing the church’s sincere determination that helping lead worship is religiously significant. In July 2018, the federal district court followed Supreme Court precedent and protected the church. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit’s second chance at bolstering Supreme Court precedent

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a similar case in the Seventh Circuit, which in 2018 protected a Jewish day school’s right to select its Hebrew teacher without government interference. Becket also previously won unanimous victories in the Second and Third Circuit courts protecting the right of a Catholic school to choose its principal and of a Baptist church to choose its pastor, respectively. Becket is currently defending a Catholic school’s right to choose its religion teacher in a similar case before the Ninth Circuit.

On February 21, 2019, Becket and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Seventh Circuit, arguing that St. Stanislaus Church has the undisputed right to choose who its ministers are, free from governmental second-guessing. On August 8, 2019 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with Becket, unanimously ruling in favor of St. Stanislaus Church. The Court also expressly rejected a bad recent Ninth Circuit decision, Biel v. St. James School, agreeing with Becket’s arguments about that case.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Religious groups should be fully empowered to select the ministers who lead their congregations. The Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged that right in its 2012 Hosanna-Tabor decision concerning the “ministerial exception” and all courts should follow that precedent. Both church and state benefit when the state is not evaluating the internal decisions of a religious ministry.

St. James School v. Biel

A Catholic parish school since 1918

St. James Catholic School is a K-8 school in Torrance, California, dedicated to educating students while developing their life in the Roman Catholic faith. It is the parish school for St. James Roman Catholic Church. Since its founding in 1918, the school has lived out the parish’s motto “to continue the praise of God.” Parents choose St. James because they know their children will receive a quality academic education rooted in the Catholic faith and infused with Catholic teaching and practice.

As the only fifth-grade teacher at St. James Catholic School, Ms. Biel was the person charged with promoting, teaching, and fostering Catholic identity in the fifth graders at St. James. She carried out this mission by teaching a religion class on the Catholic faith each week; leading students in prayer daily, including the Our Father and Hail Mary prayers; taking them to and supervising them during Mass; and infusing the entire curriculum with the Catholic faith and values. After the school found Ms. Biel’s classroom performance to be below the school’s standards, they worked with her for months to improve. When she did not show signs of improvement, the school decided not to renew her one-year contract.

Ninth Circuit defies U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous Hosanna-Tabor decision

In 2015, Ms. Biel sued St. James School in federal district court. In January 2017, the district court ruled for St. James based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor case. In Hosanna-Tabor, the U.S. Supreme Court protected the First Amendment right of a Lutheran school to choose who teaches the faith to the next generation, free from government interference. The Supreme Court decision recognized that religious groups can only operate freely if they are given full autonomy in choosing the individuals who teach their beliefs and embody their faith.

Ms. Biel appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 17, 2018, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedent, claiming that though Ms. Biel had the same important religious role as the Lutheran teacher in Hosanna Tabor, St. James Catholic School did not have the same right as a Lutheran school to choose who teaches their faith.  

On January 22, 2019, Becket filed its en banc petition for the full Ninth Circuit Court to hear the case on behalf of St. James. On June 25, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied en banc review. Nine judges joined a dissenting opinion authored by Judge Nelson. In the opinion, the dissenting judges stated that the Ninth Circuit is exhibiting “the very hostility toward religion our Founders prohibited and the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed us to avoid.”

On September 16, 2019, Becket asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision and defend the right of St. James School to choose the teachers best able to pass on its faith teachings to the next generation. On December 18, 2019 the Supreme Court agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in St. James School, and consolidated the case with a similar Becket case, Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru. The Court heard oral argument on May 11, 2020. Also representing St. James Catholic School were Jack Sholkoff of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. and Margaret Graf of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. James Catholic schools, finding that the government cannot control a church school’s decision about who teaches its religion classes.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Religious institutions should be fully empowered to select their priests, rabbis, ministers and other religious teachers. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that right and all courts should respect that decision. Both church and state benefit when the state is not evaluating the internal decisions of a religious ministry.

Speaker v. Fields

Centuries-old tradition under attack in Pennsylvania

For centuries, state and federal legislatures have started their sessions with prayer. The prayers are sometimes led by legislative chaplains, other times by legislative members or guests who represent faith groups from across the state.

In 2016, a group of secular atheists, many of whom publicly mock prayer and religion, requested to serve as chaplains and deliver non-religious “invocations” in the Pennsylvania State House. The Pennsylvania House speaker denied their request on the grounds that their beliefs were not religious. In August 2016, the atheists sued the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in federal court, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause to bar a non-religious person from offering prayer.

Legislative prayer reminds us that our rights come from something higher than government

Legislative prayer is a tradition that goes back to our nation’s founding. Both houses of the First Congress hired chaplains who, just a couple of years later, likely prayed on the days Congress debated the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has held that such prayers, recognized by the Framers and existing for decades without leading to an establishment of religion, do not violate the Establishment Clause. Moreover, legislative prayer supports the Constitution by reminding us of the source of our rights: a power higher than the government.

Acknowledging the important place legislative prayer holds does not require government to give atheistic non-prayer the same platform. The prayer simply accommodates religious believers in what is already a secular process. The Pennsylvania State House that requires guest speakers for invocations be members of the legislature or members of a church or religious organization. This makes sense. Everyone has beliefs, but not all beliefs are religious. The purpose of the chaplaincy is to provide religious support. To allow militant and other secular atheists to occupy the chaplaincy undermines the purpose of the position in the first place. The group of atheists suing the Pennsylvania State House do not appeal to a higher power, and on top of that, they are known for mocking and ridiculing religion.

What’s at stake includes more than legislative prayer. Since our nation’s founding, religion has had a special distinction in the law as a right that cannot be overruled by government. Giving non-religious beliefs the same platform and distinction as religious beliefs would undermine more than just religion—it would weaken the legal foundation of our religious liberty.

Becket steps in

In August 2018, the district court decided in favor of the atheists, ruling that the Pennsylvania State House legislative prayer policy violates the Constitution. The Speaker of the Pennsylvania House appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several chaplains, and on August 23, 2019 the Third Circuit ruled in favor of the Speaker of the House, writing, “we uphold the policy because only theistic prayer can satisfy the historical purpose of appealing for divine guidance in lawmaking.”

IMPORTANCE TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

  • Public square: Because religious exercise is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. Religious expression, including legislative prayer, should not be treated as dangerous or scrubbed from our public discourse.
  • Legislative prayer: Contrary to thinking that legislative prayer violated the Establishment Clause, our nation’s founders in fact explicitly understood legislative prayer to be a reminder of the source of our rights: a power higher than the government. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that legislative prayer was constitutional in Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Gundy v. United States

In Gundy v. the United States the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to decide whether Congress violated the “nondelegation doctrine” by giving to the U.S. Attorney General Congress’s constitutionally-assigned task of defining the scope of criminal liability. The nondelegation doctrine is an important principle for maintaining our government’s three-branch structure of checks and balances, and it is particularly important for protecting religious liberty.

The “nondelegation doctrine” is part of our checks and balances

The “nondelegation doctrine” says that Congress cannot vaguely delegate its powers to administrative agencies. Doing so undermines the purpose of our governmental structure. Our nation’s founders divided our government into three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—so that these branches would “check” and “balance” each other. Without those checks and balances, one branch of government can grow in power to the point of eclipsing the others—exactly what our founders wanted to prevent.

Without the nondelegation doctrine—religious liberty is at risk

Allowing Congress to delegate its constitutionally-assigned powers to the Executive Branch increases the already far-too-extensive powers of the administrative state. On top of that, historically, administrative agencies are less attentive to safeguarding religious liberty than Congress. Once an agency has trampled on a religious group’s rights, it can be a long and difficult process to win them back, especially for minority groups. Pastor Soto, for example, a Native American and member of the Lipan Apache tribe, spent ten years fighting in court to get back sacred eagle feathers confiscated by an undercover federal agent from the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) unconstitutionally denied funding to severely damaged houses of worship simply because they are religious, even as the houses of worship are providing assistance to others impacted by the same natural disasters. And the HHS Mandate cases Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor clearly demonstrated the disastrous consequences of Congress delegating broad powers to an administrative agency—Congress did not impose a contraceptive mandate, HHS bureaucrats did.

In June 2018, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Gundy v. United States highlighting the specific importance of the nondelegation doctrine to religious liberty. Without the nondelegation doctrine, religious groups—particularly minority ones—are at risk of losing their rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gundy v. United States on October 2, 2018. On June 20, 2019 the court ruled against Gundy, deciding that the delegation of powers in Gundy’s case did not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Gundy is represented by Sarah Baumgartel of the Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Religious communities: The “nondelegation doctrine” is particularly important for protecting religious liberty of religious communities, especially minority ones. Administrative agencies are historically less attentive to religious liberty rights than Congress.

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. University of Iowa

A faith community for students, focused on fellowship and service

For 25 years, the InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship student group has been part of campus life at the University of Iowa, a campus that features over 500 student groups. As a Christian group, InterVarsity fulfills its mission by providing a community where students can grow in their faith while pursuing their academic education. The student group hosts weekly Bible studies, monthly meetings that include prayer and worship, and discussions on important religious and social issues on campus. It also serves the local, state, and global communities by hosting and participating in community service initiatives, including Oxfam and the C.R.O.P. Hunger Walk to combat global poverty. Intervarsity has been the top fundraiser for the C.R.O.P. Walk six times in the last decade. The University of Iowa has previously recognized the student group for its outstanding service to the student body.

InterVarsity encourages and welcomes all students to be members, and as a Christian group, it reasonably asks that group leaders share its Christian faith. In this respect, InterVarsity is no different from the many other student groups on campus that ask their leaders to adhere to certain requirements. For instance, fraternities have only male leaders and members; female sports clubs have only female leaders and members; and political and ideological groups can require their leaders to agree with their mission.

Banned from campus

On June 1, 2018, following the end of the school year, the University of Iowa sent a notice to InterVarsity, threatening the student group with deregistration. Why? For the first time in 25 years, the University deemed the Christian group’s reasonable requirement that its leaders share its faith to be “noncompliant” with university non-discrimination policies. The University gave InterVarsity two weeks to change its constitution.

No group, especially a religious group, can expect its mission to survive without leaders who share and further its mission—religious or not. When InterVarsity explained that the group’s very existence depended on leaders who share its faith mission, the University doubled down, insisting that the student group could not even “encourage” leaders to believe in and live by its religious mission. Shortly after, University officials deregistered the student group, effectively eliminating it from campus.

A sweeping, discriminatory assault on student rights

In July 2018, the University of Iowa officially deregistered InterVarsity, along with 38 other student groups —including the Sikh Awareness Club, the Chinese Student Christian Fellowship, the Imam Mahdi Organization, Geneva Campus Ministry, and the Latter-day Saint Student Association. Yet, despite the University’s insistence that it must scrub the campus of groups with “non-compliant” leadership requirements, sports clubs, fraternities and sororities, and political and ideological groups can require their leaders (and members) to share their mission or their unique identity. The University’s inconsistency is more than puzzling—it is discriminatory.

On August 6, 2018, Becket, on behalf of InterVarsity student group, sued the University of Iowa in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, defending InterVarsity’s right to require its leaders to believe in and live its religious mission. The University of Iowa is a public university and an extension of the government. It has no right to interfere with the way religious groups, including student groups, choose the leaders who represent and further their faith teachings.

As result of the lawsuit, the University agreed to temporarily reinstate InterVarsity, as well as all other religious groups that had been deregistered, including Sikh, Muslim, and other Christian organizations. But the reinstatement only lasted while litigation against the University was ongoing, and the University continued to argue that it had authority to kick out religious groups like InterVarsity.

On September 30, 2019, a federal district court found that the University had violated the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion. The court also ruled that the individual University officials who discriminated against InterVarsity had violated clearly established law, and so were personally liable for their actions. The University appealed to the Eighth Circuit. On July 16, 2021, the appellate court unanimously upheld the lower court ruling and said that “[w]hat the University did here was clearly unconstitutional” and “turned a blind eye to decades of First Amendment jurisprudence.”

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Education: There is a nation-wide trend of curbing free speech—especially religious speech—on college campuses. But students do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religious exercise, and freedom of association when studying at a public university.
  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. This includes public university campuses, which are reflections of the students who attend them, including students with religious beliefs.
  • Religious communities: Becket’s 2012 Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor guarantees the right of religious groups to select their own leaders without government interference or entanglement.

Barker v. Conroy

A tradition dating back to the nation’s founding

Since 1789, the U.S. House of Representatives has included the traditional office of chaplain. Besides offering pastoral care to the members of the House—including presiding over memorials and funerals—the chaplain opens legislative sessions with a prayer. The practice of legislative prayer can be traced back to the time of the Founding Fathers, who did not see it as a forbidden “establishment of religion” but rather as a powerful reminder of their own limited political authority: the people’s inalienable rights did not come from government or its officials, but from a divine source that superseded government. Today, members of Congress are welcome to invite others to give the opening prayer with the chaplain’s permission, and people of many diverse faiths have done so over the years, including Christians, Hindus, Jains, Jews, and Muslims.

Anti-religion activist seeks to dismantle tradition

In February 2015, Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (best known for his anti-religious beliefs and his Foundation’s lawsuits that ridicule religion and religious people), attempted to disrupt over 200 years of tradition and requested to open a legislative session with a “non-prayer.” FFRF is a group that seeks to scrub public life of all references to religion, and Barker is a self-avowed atheist who has worked for years to dismantle religion and its presence in the public square, frequently through ridiculing religion and religious people. When the House chaplain rejected Barker’s request, Barker sued the House in district court in May 2016 arguing that he had the right to begin a legislative session with a non-prayer under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). He also claimed that the House’s practice of opening with prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The courts agree with Becket: Legislative prayer is constitutional

In May 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that legislative prayer is constitutional in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case where Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending legislative prayer. This landmark case set a precedent for lower courts, and in October 2017, the district court properly ruled against Barker. Barker then appealed the Establishment Clause claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Thomas Hungar, general counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives defended.

In July 2018, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief, explaining the clear constitutionality of legislative prayer as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief also explains that the Establishment Clause is not triggered every time the government acknowledges or supports religion. Religious practices—like legislative prayer—that existed at our nation’s founding and were accepted by the drafters of the Establishment Clause do not violate the Establishment Clause. The Founders were concerned about eliminating religious coercion by the state, not about stripping religion from public life. Merely being exposed to other’s religious practices does not amount to coercion. This important distinction is critical to understanding the First Amendment and the founding generation’s understanding of the special role religion plays in our history, traditions, and culture.

The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in October 2018. On April 19, 2019, the court unanimously ruled that the House of Representatives does not violate the Establishment Clause by requiring its opening prayer to be a religious prayer. The court’s ruling reinforces that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted in line with its historical meaning and that the founders would not have considered the longstanding tradition of legislative prayer to be an establishment of religion. It also affirms the legitimate place of religion in public life.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Public square: Because religious exercise is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. Religious expression, including legislative prayer, should not be treated as dangerous or scrubbed from our public discourse.

Su v. Stephen Wise Temple

A synagogue’s work at risk

Stephen S. Wise Temple is one of the largest and most prominent Reform Jewish synagogues in Southern California, serving its congregation through worship, community service, and education. But the Temple’s work was put at risk when the State of California claimed it could interfere with the synagogue’s internal decisions about its ministers.

In September 2013, the State of California sued the Temple in state court over whether the Temple gives certain ministers—here, preschool teachers—long enough lunch breaks. Represented by Horvitz Levy, the Temple stood up for its rights, arguing that California has no right to second guess the Temple’s decisions about how its ministers should carry out its religious mission.

The Supreme Court has confirmed autonomy for houses of worship

In March 2016, the trial court agreed with the Temple, basing its decision on the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which Becket won on behalf of a Lutheran elementary school in 2012. In Hosanna-Tabor, the Court unanimously recognized a principle of the First Amendment known as the ministerial exception, which states that the government should not interfere with religious institutions’ decisions about the employment of their ministers – including teachers in religious schools.

The State of California appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the ministerial exception does not apply to the Temple in this case. In July 2018, Becket – joined by the Church Of God In Christ denomination, one of the largest African-American denominations in the United States – filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District. On March 8, 2019, the Court of Appeals ruled against the Temple, and on June 19, 2019, the California Supreme Court denied further review.

Houses of worship have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to choosing how their religious ministers will conduct religious ministry. Thus, the Temple, not the government, gets to determine how ministry should be performed by the ministers who teach Jewish religious values and traditions to young children.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Freedom of religious groups to choose how their ministers will minister: Becket’s 2012 Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor set a precedent on this issue for churches.
  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Both church and state are better off when the state isn’t evaluating the internal religious affairs of a religious ministry.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops

No good deed goes unpunished

The Catholic Church has long been known for its pro-life stance. In line with these beliefs, Catholic churches in Texas have worked with hospitals and families for many years to provide burial for unborn remains. When the State of Texas passed a law requiring all hospitals and abortion clinics to bury or cremate all unborn remains, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops offered support—as an act of ministry, the bishops publicly offered to donate free space in Catholic cemeteries across the state for this purpose.

In December 2016, Whole Woman’s Health, a group that runs abortion facilities in Texas, sued the State to stop the fetal remains law. Even though the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops was not part of the lawsuit, in March 2018 Whole Woman’s Health retaliated against the bishops for publicly supporting the fetal remains law. Whole Woman’s Health served them with a subpoena demanding that the bishops hand over all communications about abortion. The bishops handed over more than 4,000 pages of communications, but the bishops stood their ground when it came to private religious deliberations among the bishops, refusing to hand them over.

Church theology is not a public affair

Churches should be free to lend tangible support to public initiatives without fear that they will be forced to hand over private, internal communications, especially on matters of doctrine and theology. The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops had already handed over thousands of communications with outside groups. Handing over their private, internal religious deliberations between the bishops regarding matters of faith would seriously interfere with the Church’s ability to conduct its ministries – not to mention that handing them over to advocacy groups who believe differently than the Church does on matters like abortion would be damaging.

Despite this, on June 17, 2018, a trial judge ordered the bishops to hand over their internal communications about abortion to Whole Woman’s Health. The bishops appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for emergency protection from the order. On June 18, 2018, the Fifth Circuit suspended the trial court’s order, protecting the bishops until the case could be fully considered. Simultaneous briefs were filed at the Fifth Circuit on June 25, 2018.

Fifth Circuit Court protects bishops from “Hobson’s choice”

On July 15, 2018, the Fifth Circuit granted the bishops permanent protection from the order. The Court found that the bishops’ claims “go to the heart of the constitutional protection of religious belief and practice as well as citizens’ right to advocate sensitive policies in the public square.” The Court also stated that the abortion facilities’ efforts against the bishops “looks like an act of intimidation,” placing the bishops’ conference in a “‘Hobson’s choice’ of retreating from the public square or defending its position.” On July 30, Whole Woman’s Health asked the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case. On August 16, 2018, the en banc Fifth Circuit rejected Whole Woman’s Health’s petition for rehearing.

In November 2018, Whole Woman’s Health asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision. On January 11, 2019, Becket filed a brief opposing that request. On February 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Whole Woman’s Health’s appeal, putting an end to the abortion group’s intrusion efforts.

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops was represented by Becket and by Steven Levatino of Levatino | Pace PLLC in Austin, Texas.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Religious communities: Religious communities must be free to operate and minister without government interference, including by keeping internal church communications private, especially when it comes to matters of doctrine and theology.
  • Public square: Churches should be free to support public initiatives that affect their religious beliefs without being forced to forfeit their privacy.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Government cannot take private property without “just compensation”

Rose Mary Knick lives on 90 acres of farmland in the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which her family has owned for nearly 50 years. In April 2013, Township officials entered and searched Ms. Knick’s private property without a warrant, saw a few stones that appeared to be grave markers, and claimed that Ms. Knick’s private property was considered a cemetery, and therefore must be made accessible to the public. Ms. Knick challenged the Township, since, by requiring her property to be open to the public, it had violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which forbids that “private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The district court dismissed her case—not because Ms. Knick was wrong, but because, under an old Supreme Court precedent called Williamson County, Ms. Knick had to complete a lengthy bureaucratic process before she could assert her constitutional rights in court. Ms. Knick continued appealing her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Takings Clause interpretation leaves houses of worship vulnerable

The Williamson County rule is bad enough when applied in takings cases like Ms. Knick’s. But some courts have extended the rule to apply also to claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a bipartisan congressional law passed to protect property rights for houses of worship and minimize the unfair delays, expenses, and hurdles they often suffer at the hands of zoning officials. Houses of worship are particularly vulnerable to this kind of abuse, and RLUIPA has played a critical role in ensuring that religious groups are not discriminated against as they find a space to gather for worship and religious exercise.

Becket has stood up for churches, a Jewish synagogue, a Sikh temple, a Buddhist temple, a mosque and even a Hawaiian agricultural Christian community that have faced zoning discrimination. But application of the Williamson County rule to RLUIPA cases undermines RLUIPA’s protection of religious groups, particularly minority faiths, allowing local governments hostile to religious groups to simply strangle it with red tape.

Becket steps in to protect RLUIPA standards

In October 2017, Ms. Knick appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect herself and others from the harmful Williamson County rule and ensure that Takings Clause cases are brought to court without years of bureaucratic delay. In March 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case. On June 5, 2018, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, pointing out how some lower courts have expanded the Williamson County rule to RLUIPA cases and arguing that this application undermines RLUIPA and unjustly harms religious groups. When their property rights are violated, houses of worship should be free to challenge the government under RLUIPA instead of spending time and money they do not have on a burdensome bureaucratic process.

Oral argument took place on October 3, 2018. On June 21, 2019 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms. Knick. Chief Justice Roberts announced that the precedent from Williamson County was overruled in part, writing, “Contrary to Williamson County, a property owner has a claim for a violation of the Takings Clause as soon as a government takes his property for public use without paying for it.” Ms. Knick is represented by Pacific Legal Foundation.

 

Importance to religious liberty

  • Property rights: Houses of worship and religious organizations are particularly vulnerable when it comes to property rights. When their rights are violated, they should be free to challenge the government without spending time and money they do not have on a burdensome bureaucratic process.

Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia

Faith-Based Foster Care Fact Sheet

A history of heroic service in the City of Brotherly Love

Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch each have decades of experience in the foster care system. Sharonell has fostered 40 children, and Toni spent years working as a foster care social worker and child advocate before fostering and adopting herself. These two Catholic women chose to partner with Catholic Social Services because they wanted to work with a faith-affirming agency and were impressed by its excellent reputation.

The Catholic Church pioneered foster care in Philadelphia over 200 years ago when it founded an agency to help mothers, children, and families in need. Inspired and motivated by its religious identity, Catholic Social Services has been providing critical foster care services to children ever since. It is one of the most successful foster agencies in the city and has a great reputation. Catholic Social Services’ faith (and its ability to recruit foster families who are inspired by their own faith) is a big part of its success. It’s also proved excellent at supporting and retaining foster families. Catholic Social Services’ caseworkers build strong relationships with both foster kids and their families, and are available any time—day or night. When Sharonell took in new foster kids on Christmas Eve, Catholic Social Services’ caseworkers delivered wrapped presents to her door.

But because of the city’s discriminatory actions, loving foster families that partner with Catholic Social Services (like Sharonell and Toni) were stuck on the sidelines—their homes sitting empty—even though the government has admitted that there were kids in immediate need of their love and support.

Making room for diversity

When someone wants to become a foster parent, the first step is to contact a private foster agency (there are 30 in Philadelphia) and complete a home study. Home studies are deeply personal and require the agency to send someone into the family’s home to assess things like the strength of their personal relationships, their physical and mental health, and their relationships with their children. Only once this is completed can an agency partner with the foster family to help care for a child in need.

As part of the Catholic Church, Catholic Social Services cannot partner with and endorse same-sex or unmarried couples. Instead, it will help that couple to find a match from among the 29 other nearby foster agencies that can provide the same endorsement and partner with that couple to serve kids in need. Three of these other agencies are even recognized for their excellence in serving the LGBTQ community.

Agencies help foster families find a better match all the time (like, for example, if a family lives too far away, or the agency has a long waiting list, or a couple is seeking to foster kids with special needs). But this wasn’t enough for city officials, who demanded that if a same-sex couple ever approached Catholic Social Services (none had), the agency had to endorse their relationship and partner with them.

Catholic Social Services’ religious beliefs and traditions aren’t a policy or set of guidelines it can change. The agency walks with the Catholic Church in its teachings about marriage and family as well as its commitment to serving the local community—and all parts of the human family—as best it can. As a majority of the Supreme Court Justices acknowledged, Catholic Social Services is “an arm of [the Catholic Church].” Its Catholic convictions are why the agency is committed to serving all children in need—regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Sidelining all-stars while kids are left hanging

In Philadelphia, there are dozens of private agencies that partner with LGBTQ foster parents. And same-sex couples have been fostering kids in Philadelphia for years with their help. Nothing about this case would change that. Instead, Catholic Social Services wants to continue serving vulnerable kids and foster families without compromising its beliefs (as it has done successfully for the last 200 years) alongside a diverse network of other agencies also serving the Philadelphia community. Catholic Social Services has loving families ready to care for kids today, but the government is keeping them on the sidelines.

Foster moms asked the Supreme Court to protect the agency that affirms their religious identity

In May 2018, Becket stepped in to represent children, families, and Catholic Social Services in their lawsuit against Philadelphia’s government. In June 2018, Becket asked a federal court to end the government’s discriminatory actions and let Catholic Social Services serve foster kids and families. In July 2018, the district court denied the request, and Becket immediately appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In April 2019, the Third Circuit ruled against Sharonell Fulton, Toni Simms-Busch, and Catholic Social Services in a controversial decision that split with several other appeals courts. Becket then asked the Supreme Court to take up their case and protect the freedom of faith-affirming foster agencies nationwide to maintain their deeply held beliefs while serving those most in need. On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. Oral argument took place on November 4, 2020 and on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of “exemplary” foster mothers Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch, allowing these foster care heroes to continue serving children in need in partnership with the Catholic foster ministry that has been serving Philadelphia for over 200 years. As the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed, “CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”

Importance to religious liberty

  • Religious Freedom: Religious organizations must be free to act according to their faith, including when caring for children in need. The government cannot exclude religious groups by demanding they give up their religious beliefs in order to continue providing much needed social services.
  • Public Square: Faith-affirming organizations serve their neighbors and provide benefits to the community when they are able to operate in the public square. Religion in the public square is not a threat, but rather the expression of a natural human impulse.

Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church

A small African-American church serving the people of Pittsburgh

Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church is a small, historic African American church in Pittsburgh. Founded in 1899, its current worship services host about 100 people. The community served by Sixth Mount Zion is one of Pittsburgh’s poorest: one-third of the households in its neighborhood are headed by single moms, one quarter of the houses sit vacant, and one person is unemployed for every three that have a job. To support its community, Sixth Mount Zion hosts a number of ministries to the poor, including a monthly food-bank.

A pastor leads the church’s ministries into decline

In December 2012, the membership of Sixth Mount Zion called Reverend William David Lee to be its pastor. As the church’s pastor, Reverend Lee was expected to be the “only leader of the flock.” This meant leading the spiritual life of the church, including leading worship services, educating the congregation, and conducting weddings, baptisms, and funerals.

Three months after taking over the church’s leadership, Rev. Lee insisted that the church sign a contract giving him a 20-year term in office. When church members expressed concern, he assured them that they could still fire him if they believed he wasn’t leading the church in the right direction.

But two years after Reverend Lee became pastor, it became apparent that church life had changed under Lee’s religious leadership—for the worse. A joint board of church deacons and trustees found that membership had plummeted 61 percent, Sunday worship attendance had dropped 32 percent, and tithing and offerings had decreased 39 percent, while church expenses had increased 200 percent. Concerned for the church’s future, the church membership voted to have Rev. Lee step down from the pulpit in January 2015.

Becket defends Sixth Mount Zion’s right to choose its leader

In September 2015, Rev. Lee sued Sixth Mount Zion and eleven of the church’s lay leaders in federal court for $2.6 million.  In August 2017, the court rejected Rev. Lee’s lawsuit. Relying on Hosanna-Tabor, the court ruled that judges cannot second-guess a church’s decision about the quality of its pastor’s religious leadership.

In September 2017, Rev Lee appealed the federal court’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Becket filed its response brief on behalf of Sixth Mount Zion in April 2018. Oral argument took place in July 2018 (audio here).

In September 2018, the Third Circuit ruled 3-0 for the church, stating that the First Amendment prevents courts from deciding questions of spiritual leadership. The Third Circuit’s ruling bolsters the right of all houses of worship to select their leaders—a right called the “ministerial exception”—stating that “While the amount of church contributions and members is a matter of arithmetic, assessing Lee’s role … requires a determination of what constitutes adequate spiritual leadership.” That raises “questions that would impermissibly entangle the court in religious governance and doctrine prohibited by the Establishment Clause.”

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Freedom of groups to choose their own leaders: Becket’s 2012 Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor set a precedent protecting a church’s right to choose its own leaders. Both church and state are better off when the state isn’t evaluating the internal religious decisions of a religious ministry.

Trump v. Hawaii

In 2017, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders banning entry for citizens of certain Muslim-majority countries. Becket filed an amicus brief when one of the orders came before the Supreme Court last year in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project. In January 2018, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Trump v. Hawaii, arguing that the federal courts should rely on the Free Exercise Clause, not the Establishment Clause, to resolve claims of religious targeting of Muslims. 

The notorious Lemon test is an ahistorical Establishment Clause test that asks judges to evaluate the state of mind of lawmakers rather than analyzing whether the government is creating an establishment of religion. Becket argues in its brief that when analyzing claims that the government is targeting particular religious people for disfavor, courts should use the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to decide the claims instead.

On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled on separate grounds, holding that the Establishment Clause did not apply with the same force to foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States. 

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • The Free Exercise Clause: The Free Exercise Clause protects religious people from government targeting because of their religious beliefs.  
  • Establishment Clause: The ahistorical Lemon test depends heavily on speculations about the state of mind of a single government official —this case should instead be evaluated under the Free Exercise Clause. 

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Lehigh County

Seals and flags reflect our nation’s history and culture

Images of historic significance are common on the seals and flags of states, counties, and towns across America. New Mexico’s flag has a single image: the sacred sun symbol of the Zia Native American tribe. Louisiana’s flag has a symbol of a pelican with a bleeding heart that feeds its hatchlings, a symbol long used to illustrate how Christians are nourished by the Eucharist and reflecting the early French Catholic influence in the Louisiana Territory. Utah’s flag and seal have images recalling the Mormon pioneers. And many seals and flags in the American southwest have images of friars and mission churches reflecting the early influence of Spanish Catholics in that region.

Militant atheists try to scrub history from Lehigh County’s seal

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania’s seal includes a collection of images that reflect its history and culture. These images include cement silos, textiles, and a farm, symbolizing significant aspects of the County’s early economy; the Liberty Bell and a red heart, symbolizing its role in the American Revolution and its sense of patriotism; a lamp with books, representing its schools; and a cross, recalling the early Christians who settled Lehigh County in pursuit of religious freedom.

The county’s seal has existed for over 70 years without controversy. But in 2016, militant atheists from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued, demanding that the federal court in Pennsylvania scrub the cross from the county’s seal. They claim that including the cross among the dozen symbols on the seal establishes the Christian religion as the official county religion, and so it must be removed.

Lehigh County fought back—not to endorse one religion over another or religion over nonreligion—but simply to preserve a small reminder that the religious minorities who settled Lehigh County played an important role in its history that is worth remembering, just as it is worth remembering Lehigh County’s early role in the American Revolution, its early economic influences, and its patriotism and schools. Memorializing history is not unlawful just because aspects of it happen to be religious.

Defending religious symbols in the public square

In September 2017, a federal district judge issued an opinion noting that Lehigh County’s seal complies with the actual text of the First Amendment and with the intent of the founding fathers, who wanted to protect citizens from having to worship against their will or pay for churches they didn’t like, but never intended to strip every reference to religion from the public square. The court thought the case should be “cut and dry” for the county. But instead of applying the actual text and meaning of the First Amendment, the court felt bound by an old Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which requires courts to guess whether the government is trying to “endorse” religion whenever it mentions God or religion. Thanks to Lemon, the courts are flooded with cases challenging “In God We Trust” on our coins, the phrase “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance, prayers in public meetings, and the countless religious images on state and federal buildings, flags, seals, and war memorials.

Even the Supreme Court seems to agree that enough is enough. In recent years it has moved away from the Lemon test, ruling that manifestations of religion in government and in the public square that were acceptable at our nation’s founding are still acceptable today and that recognizing the role of religion among our nation’s peoples, history, and culture does not violate the Constitution.

The case reached the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to decide whether Lehigh County included the cross to force Christianity on its citizens or whether the cross is simply a reminder, among a dozen others, of one significant aspect of the county’s history. The Third Circuit placed the case on hold while the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a historic war memorial in the form of a cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland. On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Bladensburg cross.

On August 8, 2019, following the Supreme Court’s precedent, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that Lehigh County can maintain the Latin cross in its seal as a symbol significant to the county’s history. The court recognized that “Lemon does not apply” to religiously expressive imagery in the public square in light of the Bladensburg decision, and that requiring “the cross’s extirpation” could be hostile, not neutral, toward religion.

Becket has also defended a World War II religious memorial in a Montana ski resort, a historic Pensacola park cross monument, and a 9/11 Ground Zero cross artifact, among others.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public Square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and has a natural place in the public square. The government is not required to strip the public square of important symbols just because they are religious.     

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. Wayne State University

Community and service for 75 years

The InterVarsity student group on Wayne State campus began in the 1940s as one of the first InterVarsity chapters in the United States, instituted as a place for students to come together and share their faith. Over the years, it has hosted campus discussions on issues like human trafficking, helped clean up blighted neighborhoods in Detroit, and volunteered at the campus food pantry. Most of all, InterVarsity has created a thriving community of students who come together for Bible study, worship, friendship and support during their college careers. This is particularly important at Wayne State, since it is a commuter campus and many students can struggle to find a place where they belong.

Kicked off campus for their religious beliefs

In 2017, InterVarsity applied to renew its student organization status, a renewal the students thought would be automatic. Instead, the Dean of Students’ office told them that their chapter constitution was unacceptable. According to Wayne State, InterVarsity did not meet the necessary requirements because its expectation that its leaders embrace its faith was “discriminatory.” But asking leaders to share its faith was a matter of basic integrity and was an absolute necessity to remaining a Christian group. And it had never been an issue in the prior 75 years on campus. Further, student membership is open to all, and all are invited to group events. Yet in October 2017, Wayne State abruptly derecognized the group and canceled all its existing meeting reservations.

Meanwhile, the university recognizes more than 400 student groups, and allows them to select their leaders. The Secular Student Alliance can require leaders to be secularists, Students for Life can require its members to be pro-life, and more than a dozen fraternities and sororities can limit membership to one sex. These requirements are normal and acceptable, yet the school blatantly discriminated against InterVarsity by barring it from having the same ability to select leaders who share and live by its mission.

InterVarsity stands up to religious discrimination

With Becket’s help, on March 6, 2018, the student group sued Wayne State University to protect their right to be treated like other groups and select leaders who share its faith and mission. By specifically targeting religious groups, Wayne State is violating its own policy against religious discrimination—in addition to the First Amendment.

After Becket took Wayne State, as well as Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette, to court, the school relented and reinstated InterVarsity on campus. Now, the university is asking a federal court to give it the power to kick the group off campus at a later time. In June 2018, Becket filed two briefs seeking a permanent fix to the school’s discriminatory policy, which allows more than 90 student groups to choose leaders who agree with them – but not InterVarsity. In July 2018, InterVarsity dropped its lawsuit against Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette after they acknowledged that Michigan universities must respect the rights of religious student groups to choose their own leaders.

The parties filed motions for summary judgment in October 2020. Becket filed its reply brief, asking the court to permanently forbid Wayne State from kicking IVCF off campus and award IVCF proper damages, on December 3, 2020. Oral argument in the case was heard in March of 2021, and on April 5, 2021, a federal court ruled in favor of InterVarsity, protecting its status as a campus club and holding Wayne State University officials responsible for violating InterVarsity’s First Amendment Rights.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Education: There is a nation-wide trend of curbing free speech—especially religious speech—on college campuses. But students do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religious exercise, and freedom of association when studying at a public university.
  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. This includes public university campuses, which are reflections of the students who attend them, including students with religious beliefs.
  • Religious communities: Becket’s 2012 Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor guarantees the right of religious groups to select their own leaders without government interference or entanglement.

Pacific Lutheran University v. SEIU Local 925

Pacific Lutheran University is a private university in Tacoma, Washington offering undergraduate and graduate studies in a liberal arts environment. It is committed to “diversity, justice, and sustainability,” and at the same time, fosters a proud Lutheran tradition.

But Pacific Lutheran had to fight to maintain autonomy as a religious university. In 2013, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) tried to unionize non-tenured professors at the University, even though until then religious universities had been exempt from unionization in order to preserve church-state separation. SEIU claimed that Pacific Lutheran was not “sufficiently religious” to qualify for the exemption and therefore was subject to labor laws enforced by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Represented by Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP, Pacific Lutheran appealed an initial regulatory decision against it to the NLRB, emphasizing its status as a religious university, and that as a religious university it is up to Pacific Lutheran to make decisions about employees’ status based on its religious mission. Otherwise Pacific Lutheran risked losing its independent authority to guide practices for its adjunct professors, which is crucial to promoting faith-based values. In a religious university like Pacific Lutheran, teachers are expected to reflect their institution’s faith, and the law must reflect — and protect — that reality.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pacific Lutheran arguing that the First Amendment principle of church autonomy as recognized in cases like Becket’s Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor meant that the NLRB could not oversee unionization contests within religious universities.

Despite these arguments, the NLRB ruled against Pacific Lutheran saying that adjunct professors do not overtly perform a religious function and therefore fall under NLRB jurisdiction. The decision also claimed that an institution must prove its religious affiliation, and the religious roles played by employees, before asserting the exemption. This decision was tantamount to a complete reversal of the Board’s former policy, which provided broad latitude to churches and other religious employers.

After the NLRB issued its decision—which is binding nationwide—SEIU withdrew its unionization petition, meaning that the NLRB’s change in policy narrowing the religious exemption could not be tested in a higher court. Since then, unionization efforts have begun at a number of religious (primarily Catholic) universities across the country.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

In 2015, Mark Janus, a government employee at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Service, sued his union—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Janus argued that mandatory union fees forced him to subsidize the union in taking negotiating positions against the government with which he disagreed. After losing in the district court in September 2016 and again at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2017, Janus appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December 2017, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief emphasizing that government workers must be allowed to opt out of mandatory fees to protect their freedom of speech and religious freedom. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled for Janus when it clarified that mandatory fees are a form of government coercion that violate workers’ rights.

Pay no attention to the government behind the curtain

Pay no attention to the government behind the curtain! At least that’s what supporters of mandatory union fees for government workers wanted in Janus v. AFSCME. Unions can be protective forces for government workers—but not when they use the force of the government to exact mandatory fees from government employees, to support speech with which the employees disagree.

In 2015, Mark Janus, a government employee at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Service, sued the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in federal court, claiming that mandatory union fees force him to subsidize the union in taking positions against the government with which he disagrees. Janus asked the district court to protect his First Amendment rights and make public sector unions earn the trust of government employees, rather than using government power to force them to support union speech with mandatory fees. In September 2016, the district court ruled against Janus. On appeal in March 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals again ruled against Janus. Janus appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case.

Becket argues that mandatory fees threaten religious liberty

In December 2017, Becket filed an amicus brief in support of Janus, arguing that the government is engaging in “coercion laundering” when it gives unions power to force government employees to support speech they don’t like, even though the government could not force them directly. The government shouldn’t be excused from forcing employees to speak against their will by using unions to hide the coercion.

Our brief showed that this issue has far reaching consequences, especially for religious liberty. For instance, the government uses private accrediting agencies as gatekeepers for federal funding like Pell Grants. Accreditors should not be allowed to use their funding authority to suppress religious speech any more than the government itself could. There are many other situations where the government relies on private entities to provide government benefits or to perform government services. When acting on the government’s behalf, these organizations should be required to respect constitutional rights the same way the government is. Just like “money laundering” (passing illegitimate funds through a legitimate business) cannot remove the taint of criminally obtained funds, “coercion laundering” (allowing a private party to force someone to do something the government could not force them to) cannot remove the taint of unconstitutional coercion.

U.S. Supreme Court: Mandatory union fees are form of government coercion

On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Janus’ case. On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Janus in a 5-4 decision, striking down mandatory union fees for government workers. The ruling clarified that mandatory fees are a form of government coercion that violates workers’ rights.

This ruling has significant impact for religious colleges and universities, suggesting that private accrediting agencies that are delegated government authority cannot use that authority to infringe on the schools’ religious speech and practices. Janus was represented by Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Janus was represented by Winston & Strawn, Liberty Justice Center, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: When acting on the government’s behalf, private entities should be required to respect constitutional rights the same way the government is. Government workers must be allowed to opt out of mandatory fees to protect their freedom of speech and religious freedom.
  • Free speech: The government engages in “coercion laundering” when it gives unions power to force government employees to support speech they don’t like, even though the government could not force them directly. The government shouldn’t be excused from forcing employees to speak against their will just because it is using unions to hide the coercion.
  • Education: The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME has significant impact for religious colleges and universities, suggesting that private accrediting agencies that are delegated government authority cannot use that authority to infringe on the schools’ religious speech and practices.

First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera

A mission to care for women 

Support Circle is a non-profit clinic and counseling center dedicated to providing support for women facing unplanned pregnancies. At no cost to the women they serve, Support Circle has for decades provided pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, medical care, emotional support, and career counseling to women in the San Francisco Bay Area. Through the many services they offer, Support Circle seeks the well-being of each woman and child that comes to them for help. But because of their belief that abortion is harmful both to women and their unborn children, Support Circle does not offer or refer for abortions. This pro-life viewpoint has resulted in San Francisco trying to stop women in need from even finding out about Support Circle in the first place.  

City ordinance restricts speech—and women’s options 

 In 2011, the City of San Francisco introduced an ordinance that prohibits “limited services pregnancy centers” from making false or misleading statements about the services they offer. But there is hypocrisy built into the ordinance: Support Circle is considered a “limited service” pregnancy center because it does not provide or make referrals for abortion, yet centers that do not offer or refer for other services—like ultrasounds or adoption—are not considered “limited service” centers. Essentially, San Francisco created a one-sided false advertising law, targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, but not abortion providers, for restrictions on their speech. 

Worse, the City says that centers are violating its new ordinance if search engines like Google display their website when the terms “San Francisco” and “abortion” are entered into the search engine together. But Support Circle counsels women considering abortion, and also offers post-abortion counseling, while making clear to all women it serves that it does not offer or refer for abortions. The end result of the city’s ordinance is that women looking for information about abortion on the internet won’t get a chance to see the options available through Support Circle. Instead, they’ll hear only one side of the story—the abortion providers’ side.  

Becket defends free speech for all 

Women facing an unplanned pregnancy have a right to know all their options. And pro-life pregnancy centers have the right to attempt to reach women in need using the same online marketing tools available to every other organization, without being targeted for their viewpoint. 

Thus, in 2012, Support Circle sued the city to stop this unnecessary and unconstitutional ordinance. After a loss at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in February 2018, Support Circle appealed its case to the Supreme Court. Becket joins Locke Lord in defending Support Circle’s right to provide necessary options to women in need without being silenced for its pro-life views. 

In June 2018, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

On January 16, 2018 Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Support Circle at the U.S. Supreme Court in NIFLA v. Becerra, another case involving a government attempt to target pregnancy centers’ speech. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to protect pro-life pregnancy centers’ right to serve women and children according to their religious mission.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Free speech: Governments cannot restrict speech because of the speaker’s beliefs. This principle is especially important for speech relating to deeply important and controversial moral and religious issues, like abortion. San Francisco’s law is a one-sided false advertising law that violates this principle and amounts to viewpoint discrimination.  

Chahal v. Seamands

The United States Military Academy at West Point will now accommodate Sikh soldiers, allowing them to wear their essential articles of faith, after two young men persisted for the right to serve their country without being forced to abandon their articles of faith. 

Called to serve their country 

Cadet Arjan Singh Ghotra has been preparing to serve in the U.S. Army since high school. He volunteered for both the Civil Air Patrol and the Virginia Defense Force, and won the Virginia Defense Force Medal for his service at age 17. When he became eligible in 2015, Cadet Ghotra enlisted in the Virginia Army National Guard. After completing one year in the National Guard he applied to, and was accepted at, West Point.   

Like Cadet Ghotra, Cadet Ugrian Singh Chahal knew at a young age that he wanted to serve his country through the military. Inspired by a family history of army service and the service members he met growing up near the Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, Cadet Chahal worked hard and, like Cadet Ghotra, gained admission to West Point in 2016. 

Denied the ability to serve both God and Country   

From World War I until 1981, the U.S. Army allowed observant Sikhs to serve honorably in the U.S. military while maintaining their articles of faith. But a 1981 policy change banned observant Sikhs from military service simply because they wore turbans and unshorn hair and beards—two of the articles of faith required by their religion.  

As observant Sikhs, Cadets Ghotra and Chahal asked for accommodations that would permit them to continue their service to their country at West Point without having to abandon their articles of faith. Their requests were denied. They were left with the heartbreaking choice: to serve their country or to follow their faith. 

Making room for faith in the ranks 

When Cadet Ghotra realized in March 2016 that he would not be able to participate in practice drills at West Point because of the prohibition on his articles of faith, he submitted his request for a religious accommodation. But because the Army refused to respond, Becket, the Sikh Coalition, and McDermott Will & Emery stepped in to challenge the Army’s policy.  

At a court hearing in August, the Army conceded that it had no legitimate grounds for denying Sikhs the full opportunity to serve their country at West Point and issued new guidelines allowing them to maintain their articles of faith while serving.   

Cadets Ghotra and Chahal are the first two fully-observant Sikh men to serve at West Point. 

Myrick v. Warren

Targeted for her religious beliefs

Religious liberty and LGBT rights don’t have to be in conflict. No one knows that better than Gayle Myrick.

Gayle Myrick was a well-respected magistrate in North Carolina for many years. As a magistrate she issued warrants, set bail, handled traffic fines, and—on rare occasions—performed wedding ceremonies.

Gayle loved helping others and treating everyone fairly. She always received top performance reviews and positive feedback. When same-sex marriage became legal, Gayle didn’t want to stop anyone from getting married. But she also knew that her religious beliefs prevented her from performing a same-sex wedding ceremony.

A commonsense solution

Since handling weddings was such a small portion of her work, Gayle’s immediate supervisor proposed a solution—simply shift Gayle’s schedule by a couple hours so that she was not on duty when the county offered weddings. The government frequently offered similar scheduling accommodations to other magistrates for a variety of reasons, from simple things like going fishing to larger issues like night classes or even drug rehab.

This was a reasonable solution: Every couple would still get married without any delay or embarrassment, and Gayle would get to keep her job.

Unfortunately, the state government rejected this solution and made clear Gayle had to choose: her faith or her job. Gayle was forced to resign, which meant she lost her retirement and the job she loved.

Becket defends dignity in our diverse society

With the help of Becket and North Carolina attorney Ellis Boyle, Gayle filed a claim of religious discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under a federal civil rights law that protects government workers. In March 2017, a federal judge said in a landmark ruling that the government broke the law when it refused to let Gayle shift her schedule, especially since other magistrates were allowed to shift their schedules all the time. The government also acknowledged it had treated Gayle unfairly, and in January 2018, agreed to pay a substantial amount to make her whole and give back the pay and retirement benefits that were unjustly taken from her. The state later passed a law making sure no magistrates would be targeted for their religious beliefs and no one would be denied a prompt marriage.

Faith and sexual orientation are deeply important to the identity of many people, and this case shows that these two things don’t have to be at odds with each other. From a Jewish worker’s need to keep the Sabbath, to a Muslim employee’s need to engage in daily prayer, there are thousands of examples of reasonable solutions in the workplace that protect the dignity of everyone. Our civil rights laws help us create a society where people with diverse views can live alongside each other without conflict.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Individual freedom: The government cannot force religious individuals to violate their deeply held beliefs to further a government goal when there are other ways for the government to accomplish that goal, and when the government already accommodates exemptions for secular reasons.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

A mission to provide essential care

For over twenty years, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) has provided education and training to hundreds of pregnancy clinics across the country. Driven by faith, NIFLA provides essential legal resources and counsel to clinics that share their commitment to life-affirming support for vulnerable women and their families.

Free speech—unless the government favors the other side

In 2015, California enacted the FACT Act, joining a number of other state and local governments that have passed laws to target pregnancy centers that do not recommend or refer for abortion services. The FACT Act requires licensed pregnancy centers, which offer free services to pregnant women, to post in their waiting rooms a disclosure explaining that the state of California provides free or low-cost abortion and contraception services. This licensed disclosure must also include a phone number for a county office that refers women to clinics that provide abortion services. Under the law, other pregnancy centers, too, would have to post burdensome disclosures, not only on site but in all of their advertisements. The FACT Act thus would have forced NIFLA centers to advertise messaging that violates their deeply held beliefs and undermines their mission to offer life-affirming care to women and children.

NIFLA challenged the FACT Act in court. After losses in the district court in January 2016 and at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2016, NIFLA appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. In January 2018, Becket filed a friend-of-the court brief on behalf of Support Circle, supporting NIFLA and defending their right to continue to serve women and children according to their religious mission.

Victory for free speech

The Supreme Court heard the case in March 2018. During oral argument, California admitted to the Court that some applications of the law were unconstitutional, and the Justices spent much of the argument focusing on the law’s obvious attempt to target pro-life clinics. On June 26, 2018, the Court ruled 5-4 protecting pregnancy centers’ right to serve women and children according to their religious mission. NIFLA was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.

The ruling affirms that the First Amendment protects individuals that may hold viewpoints different from those of the government. On issues as deeply important as abortion, it is vital that the government does not silence one side of the debate.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Free speech: The First Amendment protects speakers from being punished for advancing viewpoints not shared by the government. On issues as divisive as abortion, it is vital that the government does not silence one side of the debate.
  • Public square: Private organizations, including those with a religious foundation, must be free to operate in the public square according to their beliefs.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

A scholarship program for low-income Montana students 

Children in Montana have been stripped of their right to participate in a modest scholarship program simply because some of them might attend religious schools.

In 2015 the state legislature passed the Montana Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which allows Montanans a tax credit of up to $150 of contributions to privately-run scholarship programs. However, the Montana Department of Revenue refused to implement the program, and in an ensuing lawsuit, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program, citing the state’s Blaine Amendment, an archaic anti-religious law that forbids any aid—direct or indirect—from going to schools owned or operated by a “church, sect, or denomination.” Because some scholarships might be used at religious schools, the Montana Supreme Court said no students could have them.

Treating religious school students as second-class citizens

By denying religious schools’ right to participate in a widely available public program, the Montana Supreme Court ignored the Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that ruled religious groups cannot be barred from participation in widely available public programs simply because they are religious. And the Montana court can’t excuse away the underlying religious bigotry by barring all students the program’s benefit.

Institute for Justice, along with Holland & Hart LLP, represents three low-income Montana mothers who would like to participate in the program by using the scholarships to help send their children to religious private schools.

Becket supports equal treatment of religious schools in public programs

In January 2018, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Montana Supreme Court in support of the parents, arguing that religious organizations cannot be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to widely available public benefit programs and that courts can’t strike down entire benefit programs just to keep religious kids from benefitting from them. Oral argument was held on April 6, 2018, at the Montana Supreme Court, which in December 2018, ruled against the scholarship program, striking down the entire program because some funds would go to kids who chose to use them at religious schools.

On March 13, 2019, the Montana parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Montana mothers’ case. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the discriminatory history of the Blaine Amendments renders them unconstitutional, and that religious organizations cannot be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to widely available public benefit programs. Becket’s brief also argued that relying on Blaine Amendments to shut down entire programs only extends the religious bigotry that motivated the enactment. Oral argument took place January 22, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court decided that children in Montana cannot be stripped of their right to participate in a scholarship program simply because they attend religious schools. The Court also recognized that Blaine Amendments are “born of bigotry.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito addressed more thoroughly the history of discrimination behind the Blaine Amendments, repeatedly referring to Becket’s brief.  

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools. 
  • Dismantling discriminatory state laws:  So long as anti-religious laws from the mid-19th century called Blaine Amendments remain in the books, people of all faiths can face discrimination, simply because they choose to attend a religious school. 
  • Reinforcing precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley: In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the state of Missouri can’t prevent a religious school from participating in a publicly available program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids on equal footing with other schools. 

Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

A reminder of the reason for the season

Every Christmas season, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., conducts a holiday campaign called “Find the Perfect Gift” to remind people of the religious meaning of Christmas and to invite them to give to those in need. The campaign includes extensive advertising in public spaces as well as on social media. Buying advertisements on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s buses and Metro subway cars is one of the most effective way for the Archdiocese to spread its message of giving and hope to the DC metro area.

Religious speech censored on the metro

But in 2017, as the Christmas season approached, the Metro denied the Archdiocese request to purchase ad space because of the campaign’s religious message. Metro’s 2015 ad policy bans any ad Metro deems controversial, including political, advocacy, and religious advertising. WMATA’s guidelines disqualified the Archdiocese from using ad space simply because the ads are religious. Ads about the secular or commercial meaning of Christmas – such as department store sales – were permitted, whereas religious ads encouraging generosity and service during the holiday season were prohibited. Although a secular organization can post meeting times, addresses, or contact information on a Metro ad, religious groups, including a monastery, were banned from doing the same thing.

In November 2017, represented by former Solictor General Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis, the Archdiocese of Washington sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for banning religious speech. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and the Archdiocese appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In January 2018, Becket along with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON), filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit defending the Archdiocese’s free exercise rights, arguing that the government does not get to arbitrarily exclude messages from the public square just because they are religious. Targeting and censoring religious messages violates the First Amendment.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

On July 31, 2018, the D.C. Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, stating that WMATA was justified in excluding religious advertising. The Archdiocese appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on May 20, 2019.

Because not all nine justices could hear the case, the Supreme Court decided to not take the case. Along with the denial of certiorari, Justice Gorsuch stated that if they had agreed to intervene, “a reversal would be warranted.” He also stated that the “Constitution requires the government to respect religious speech, not to maximize advertising revenues…The one thing it cannot do is what it did here–permit a subject sure to inspire religious views, one that even WMATA is ‘half’ religious in nature, and then suppress those views. The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints, not single them out for silencing.” 

Importance to religious liberty

  • Free speech: Freedom of speech is not only an inherent human right, but also a fundamental building block of our society. The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular. This involves religious speech as well.
  • Public square: Religious organizations must be free to operate in the public square according to their beliefs.

Dumont v. Lyon

A Desperate Need 

There is a national foster care crisis: more and more vulnerable children are being placed in the foster care system, and there aren’t enough families to care for them. For the nearly 13,000 children in Michigan foster care, nothing is more important than finding a loving, permanent home. Each year, over 600 Michigan children “age out” of the foster system, meaning that at the age of 18 they are on their own, never having found a family to provide stability, love and support. With so many children in need, and a shortage of families willing to take them in, the State of Michigan relies on private agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities. Like other agencies, St. Vincent partners with the state to recruit and support foster and adoptive families. St. Vincent is particularly good at finding homes for sibling groups, older children, and children with special needs. In 2017, St. Vincent recruited more new adoptive families than nearly 90 percent of the other agencies in its service area.

ACLU would put children’s needs last 

In September 2017, the ACLU sued the State of Michigan to forbid the state from partnering with faith-based adoption agencies like St. Vincent, solely because of their religious beliefs about marriage. St. Vincent’s beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a loving home. Gay couples working with other agencies have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care in the past. In fact, the ACLU’s clients live closer to four other foster and adoption agencies that would have helped them adopt. Instead of going to these agencies, they have spent years targeting St. Vincent and trying to shut down their programs. 

ACLU’s lawsuit is not about helping kids. It’s about scoring cheap political points at the expense of kids. The only thing that the ACLU’s lawsuit would accomplish is fewer homes for children, especially minority children and those with special needs.

Protecting children and families 

In March 2018, the Court granted Becket’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of St. Vincent Catholic Charities, Shamber Flore and the Buck family. Becket asked the court to dismiss this unnecessary lawsuit, but in September 2018 the court decided the case should go forward.

On March 22, 2019, the Attorney General Michigan and the ACLU signed a settlement agreement to try to stop the state from working with faith-based adoption agencies, which could keep thousands of children from finding the loving homes they deserve.

Becket filed a new lawsuit defending St. Vincent and foster families in federal court on April 15, 2019. 

Importance to religious liberty 

  • Individual freedom: The government discriminates against religious groups if it prevents them from providing services simply based on their religious beliefs. 
  • Public square: Faith-based organizations have the same right as secular organizations to operate in the public square. Religion in the public square is not a threat, but rather a natural expression of a natural human impulse. 
  • Establishment Clause: A state does not violate the Establishment Clause when it partners with faith-based agencies to further the interests of a state initiative. In this case, private adoption agencies provide critical resources to address a state issue: the shortage of families willing and able to adopt children in the foster care system. 

BLinC v. University of Iowa

Students integrating faith and work

Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) is a Christian student organization at the University of Iowa that hosts weekly discussion groups, where students pray, share Biblical messages, and spiritually strengthen one another. At the heart of BLinC’s identity is its mission to form future business leaders who will integrate their religious values such as integrity, service, and compassion into the workplace. BLinC regularly invites Christian business professionals to mentor students on how they can integrate the faith and their careers. As a part of its ministry, BLinC also successfully partners with a local non-profit, after-school program for mentoring at-risk youth. It has also teamed up with a Christ-centered education organization dedicated to teaching low-income children how to become excellent students and leaders in their communities.

As a Christian group, BLinC reasonably asks that group leaders share its Christian faith and beliefs. In this respect, BLinC is no different from the many other student groups on campus that ask their leaders to adhere to certain requirements. For instance, fraternities have only male leaders and members; female sports clubs have only female leaders and members; and political and ideological groups can require their leaders to agree with their mission.

University of Iowa targeted BLinC for its religious beliefs

But in October 2017, school officials at the University of Iowa targeted BLinC because of its religious beliefs. University officials claimed that, because BLinC requires its leaders to sign a Statement of Faith, agreeing that they believe and will follow BLinC’s religious beliefs, it is violating the school’s antidiscrimination policy. BLinC was told that to get back on campus, it would have to change its religious beliefs.

Yet, despite the University’s insistence that BLinC’s Statement of Faith violates school policy, the University supports the rights of other groups to select leaders who share and live by their mission. The University supports the rights of fraternities at the University of Iowa to admit only men. The Feminist Union can require its members to agree on issues of contraception and abortion. The group Students for Life requires its members to be pro-life. All of that is perfectly acceptable, making it more apparent that the school is discriminating against BLinC by barring it from having the same ability to select leaders as other groups.

Federal court to UI: Apply policy to all groups, or stop targeting religious groups

In December 2017, BLinC sued the University of Iowa in federal court to protect its right to select leaders who share its faith and mission. On January 23, 2018, the court ruled in favor of BLinC, reinstating it on campus and giving the University 90 days to either apply its policy as written, which would allow all groups to select leaders who embrace their mission, or stop all groups from selecting leaders based on their ideologies. When the University continued to apply its policy inconsistently, the district court extended its preliminary injunction to cover the life of the case on June 28, 2018.

On December 21, 2018, the United States filed a groundbreaking brief in support of BLINC. The United States explained that the university’s discrimination against BLinC for ‘fail[ing] to confirm to University orthodoxy’ not only harms “the free and open discourse” of the university, but also is “a textbook violation of BLinC’s First Amendment rights” to free association, free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Oral argument was heard in federal district court in Des Moines, Iowa on February 1, 2019. Before the hearing, the university revealed that it had placed virtually every religious student group on campus—and only religious groups—on probation pending the outcome of BLinC’s case. On February 6, 2019, the court ruled that the university must end its unequal treatment of religious student organizations, and allow BLinC permanently back on campus. The ruling states, “The Constitution does not tolerate the way [the university] chose to enforce the Human Rights Policy. Particularly when free speech is involved, the uneven application of any policy risks the most exacting standard of judicial scrutiny, which [the university] ha[s] failed to withstand.” The ruling is the first federal court decision granting equal access to a religious student group in almost a decade.

The Court, however, declined to hold the University officials personally responsible for their wrongdoing, concluding that the law was not clear at the time of their misconduct. BLinC appealed that portion of the Court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Oral argument was heard on September 22, 2020. On March 22, 2021, the court ruled that the University of Iowa’s unconstitutional conduct was so blatant and clear that university leadership should be held personally accountable for their unlawful actions.

IMPORTANCE TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

  • Education: There is a nation-wide trend of curbing free speech and free association—especially religious speech in religious groups—on college campuses. But students do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion, and association by studying at a taxpayer-supported public university.
  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and should not be scrubbed from the public square. This includes public university campuses, which are reflections of the students who attend them and the taxpayers who support them, including religious students and taxpayers.
  • Religious communities: Becket’s 2012 Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor guarantees the right of religious groups to select their own leaders without government interference or entanglement.

Chabad of Key West v. FEMA

Houses of worship need not apply

Following a natural disaster, FEMA provides disaster aid grants to nonprofits like zoos, homeless shelters, and stamp clubs, but for many years, its policy made it clear that houses of worship need not apply. Despite FEMA’s recognition that synagogues, mosques, and churches are essential partners in the recovery process, FEMA’s policy denied houses of worship relief funds solely because they are religious.

This meant synagogues like the Chabad of Key West and the Chabad of the Space Coast, which suffered serious wind and water damage during hurricane Irma, were left out in the cold. Despite pitching in to help their neighbors in recovery efforts, the synagogues didn’t know how they were going to repair their own facilities.

Becket defends equal treatment

In November of 2017, Becket filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Chabad of Key West and the Chabad of Space Coast in federal district court in Florida, pointing out that FEMA’s discriminatory policy was a violation of the First Amendment, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, which protects the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.

In January of 2018, responding to pressure from litigation, FEMA changed its policy, putting an end to decades of discrimination against houses of worship. On February 9, 2018, Congress passed a bill and the President signed into law a bill that codified FEMA’s policy, ensuring that Chabad of Key West, Chabad of the Space Coast, and other houses of worship will be treated equally alongside other charitable organizations in the future. Since FEMA began treating the synagogues like all other disaster relief applicants, they were able to dismiss their lawsuit on February 13, 2018.

Becket also filed a similar lawsuit in Houston, Texas in Harvest Family Church v. FEMA.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Public Square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. It can, and should, have an equal place in the public square.
  • Reinforcing precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley: In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the state of Missouri can’t prevent a religious school from participating in a publicly available program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids on equal footing with other schools.

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

WEBSITE for Little Sisters Cases

Despite Supreme Court victory and new rule, Little Sisters are still in court 

On October 6, 2017, Health & Human Services issued a new rule with an updated, broad religious exemption that finally protected religious non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor. In its new rule, the government admitted that it broke the law by trying to force the Little Sisters and others to provide services like the week-after-pill in their health plans that violated their religious beliefs. That result should mean that the end is near for the Little Sisters’ lawsuit. 

However, following the new mandate announcement, the state of Pennsylvania sued the federal government to take away the Little Sisters’ religious exemption. Pennsylvania admits that it already has and already uses many government programs to provide contraceptives to women who need them.  Pennsylvania never challenged the Obama Administration for creating much larger exceptions for secular corporations—exceptions that covered tens of millions more people than the religious exemption.  Pennsylvania does not even have its own contraceptive mandate at all.  And Pennsylvania’s lawsuit does not identify a single real person who previously had contraceptive coverage but will lose it because of the new Rule. 

Despite all this, Pennsylvania asked a judge to order that the Little Sisters must comply with the federal mandate (not a state mandate) or pay tens of millions of dollars in fines. 

Becket challenges Pennsylvania’s attempt to take away Little Sisters’ religious rights 

In November 2017, Becket intervened on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor in California and Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court refused to let the Little Sisters intervene in the case, or even argue in court. A week later, the Pennsylvania court temporarily blocked the new rule that gave the Little Sisters a religious exemption. Becket immediately appealed both rulings.  

The Third Circuit ruled that the Little Sisters could participate in the lawsuit, but on July 12, 2019, another Third Circuit panel ruled against the Little Sisters. Becket has argued all along that the government has many ways to provide services to women who want them as well as protect the Little Sisters. Neither the federal government nor the state governments need nuns to help them give out contraceptives. On October 1, 2019, the Little Sisters asked the Supreme Court to protect them from the HHS contraceptive mandate again and end their legal battle once and for all. On January 17, 2020 the Supreme Court agreed to review the Third Circuit’s decision. Oral argument took place on May 6, 2020. 

Supreme Court protects the Little Sisters, again 

On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, allowing them to continue serving the elderly poor and dying without threat of millions of dollars in fines. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas said that “For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother. . . . But for the past seven years, they—like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision— have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The Court held that the federal government was right to protect those beliefs. 

Pennsylvania continues its bully campaign against the Little Sisters 

Despite losing at the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania and more than a dozen state governments kept pushing in the lower courts to strip away the Little Sisters’ protection. On August 13, 2025, in a nationwide ruling against a Trump Administration religious conscience rule, a federal district court in Philadelphia sided with Pennsylvania. The Little Sisters have once again appealed to the Third Circuit.  

Importance to religious liberty  

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs in order to further a government goal.   
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without the government discriminating among sincere religious. 
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace and not just in houses of worship. 

California v. Little Sisters of the Poor

WEBSITE for Little Sisters Cases

More information on the history of the HHS mandate and HHS cases can be found here. 

Despite Supreme Court victory and new rule, the Little Sisters are still in court 

In October 2017, Health & Human Services issued a new rule with an updated, broad religious exemption that finally protected religious non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor. In its new rule, the government admitted that it broke the law by trying to force the Little Sisters and others to provide services like the week-after-pill in their health plans that violated their religious beliefs.  

But the Little Sisters are still in court. Following the new mandate announcement, the state of California sued the federal government to take away the Little Sisters’ religious exemption. California admits that it has many of its own programs to provide contraceptives to women who want them. California never filed suit over the much larger secular exemptions created by the Obama Administration for big corporations—exemptions that applied to tens of millions more people than the religious exemption. California’s own mandate does not even apply to the Little Sisters of the Poor. And California has not identified a single actual person who had contraceptive coverage but will lose it because of this new rule. Despite all this, California asked a judge to find that the Little Sisters should be forced to comply with the federal mandate (not a state mandate) or pay tens of millions of dollars of government fines. 

Becket is seeing the Little Sisters through their fight 

On November 21, 2017, Becket intervened on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor in California and Pennsylvania. Becket has argued all along that the government has many ways to provide services to women who want them as well as protect the Little Sisters. Neither the federal government nor the state governments need nuns to help them give out contraceptives. 

On December 12, 2017, the Little Sisters argued in an Oakland, California district court for their right to participate in the case and receive protection from government fines. On December 29, 2017, the court granted their motion to intervene in the case. In January 2018, the Little Sisters appealed to the Ninth Circuit to overturn a federal judge’s decision to invalidate the new HHS rule protecting the Sisters. Becket’s brief, filed in April 2018, explained why the states have no right to challenge this regulation, and why the new regulation is required by law and the 2016 Supreme Court order in Zubik v. Burwell. 

Ninth Circuit gives CA the go-ahead to continue its fight against the Little Sisters 

Oral argument took place on October 19, 2018. On November 7, 2018 the government issued a new rule finalizing its exemption protecting religious ministries. On December 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit ruled against HHS’s interim exemption and allowed California to continue its fight against the Little Sisters. The Ninth Circuit ruling did not address the final HHS rules. 

On January 11, 2019, Becket represented the Little Sisters at oral argument in federal court in Oakland, California to defend their religious exemption from the HHS mandate. On January 14, 2019, the court ruled against them – a decision which the Little Sisters immediately appealed. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on June 6, 2019. On October 22, the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 against the Little Sisters, stating it would “welcome guidance from the Supreme Court.”

On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Little Sisters in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania protecting the Little Sisters for the third time, and sent California v. Little Sisters of the Poor back to the Ninth Circuit to be decided in light of the Court’s decision.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs in order to further a government goal.  
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without fear of government interference.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace and not just in houses of worship.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association

“The nation’s founders knew what an unconstitutional establishment of religion looked like, and a passive symbol like a memorial cross wasn’t it.” –Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket

A beloved symbol of sacrifice and honor

Known locally as the Peace Cross, the Bladensburg memorial was erected in 1925 on private land with funds raised by the American Legion, a military veterans association. The memorial was designed by mothers who lost their sons in the war, and they modeled it after those memorialized in the celebrated poem “In Flanders Fields” that stood “row on row” to “mark [the] place” where their sons lay.

Today the Peace Cross stands among a number of other war memorials and, since 1961, it has been owned by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission as a historic site.

Atheist activists attempt to tear down history

Yet in 2014 the American Humanist Association sued, arguing that the Peace Cross is a government establishment of religion. But the Constitution does not require religion to be stripped from our nation’s history and culture. The cross is an internationally recognized symbol of sacrifice and loss and a frequently used symbol to honor fallen soldiers. Mere disagreement with something one sees should not be confused with a forbidden religious establishment.

In April 2016, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief with Sidley Austin LLP at the U.S. Court of Appeals at the Fourth Circuit defending the memorial, stating it “does not violate the Establishment Clause because it bears none of the historical hallmarks of an establishment of religion.” But in October 2017, the Fourth Circuit ruled against the memorial using the notorious Lemon test, a malleable three-part legal test that has been criticized harshly by many Supreme Court justices. The American Legion, represented by First Liberty Institute of Plano, Texas, and the Jones Day law firm, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Defending religion in the public square at the Supreme Court

In December 2018, Becket, represented by Stanford law professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision and scrap the Lemon test in favor of an approach that returns the Establishment Clause to its historical meaning. Oral arguments took place on February 27, 2019. During oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts raised the argument Becket had urged in brief suggesting that a historical approach offers a clear way for resolving disputes about religious symbols in the public square.

On June 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of the Peace Cross, allowing it to remain standing. The Court’s opinion reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision against the Peace Cross and stated that, for many, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.” Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief was cited in concurring opinions by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch.

In Kondrat’yev, et al v. City of Pensacola, Becket is also fighting a militant atheist lawsuit against a World War II-era cross in Pensacola, Florida, that has stood as a symbol of patriotism and fellowship for more than 75 years. On June 28, 2019 the Supreme Court sent the Pensacola case back to the Eleventh Circuit to be reconsidered in light of their Bladensburg decision. In February 2020 the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the cross is constitutional and should remain standing.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Public Square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and has a natural place in the public square. The government is not required to strip the public square of important symbols just because they are religious.  

Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc.

The Milwaukee Jewish Day School welcomes a broad diversity of Jewish students from the surrounding community. The school’s basic Jewish beliefs are broadly incorporated into its curriculum, with students attending daily prayer, studying Hebrew, observing Jewish holidays and the Sabbath, and studying the Torah. The Jewish faith drives the school’s mission, and the school’s teachers are an integral part of accomplishing that mission.

But one former teacher claimed the school is not “Jewish enough” to qualify for First Amendment protection from government meddling in the school’s internal religious decisions.  That protection—known as the “ministerial exception”  is the requirement that the government stay out of religious groups’ selection of their own religious leaders. (For a more detailed explanation, see this video.) The teacher taught Hebrew and Jewish studies, taught directly from the Torah, and led the students in daily regular prayer—but she claimed she was not a religious leader or part of the school’s religious mission.

In September 2016, the former teacher sued the school in a Wisconsin federal district court, claiming she had been unlawfully terminated. The court rightly rejected her arguments and ruled that a teacher like her, who regularly led prayer and taught religious studies, qualifies as a minister under the First Amendment’s ministerial exception—and that the school has the right to choose its own religious leaders. Displeased with the court’s decision, the teacher appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in October 2017, urging the Seventh Circuit to protect religious schools of all faiths from government interference. In February 2018, the Seventh Circuit ruled in the school’s favor, adopting Becket’s position that the school was without question a religious institution protected by the ministerial exception. And as Becket further pointed out, the Court’s opinion concluded that the plaintiff’s “role as a teacher of [ ] faith to the next generation outweighed other considerations” and showed that she was covered by the ministerial exception. Becket’s amicus brief called for this result, emphasizing that the ministerial exception applied because the plaintiff’s “role required her to perform important religious functions for the school,” particularly because she “taught the tenets of the faith to the next generation.”  In November 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the decision in favor of the school in place.

The Seventh Circuit’s opinion in favor of Milwaukee Jewish Day School is significant, because it marks the first time that the Seventh Circuit has defined and confirmed the scope of ministerial exception since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 9-0 decision in Hosanna-Tabor, where Becket defended a Lutheran church school’s right to choose its own teachers.

The school was represented by Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk (Aaron Aizenberg).

Importance to religious liberty

  • Freedom of religious groups to choose their own leaders: Becket’s 2012 Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor set a precedent on this issue for churches.
  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Both church and state are better off when the state isn’t meddling in the internal religious affairs of a religious ministry.

Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

An artist’s livelihood at stake

Jack Phillips is a Christian and a baker. For almost 25 years he has run Masterpiece Cake Shop in Denver, creating artistic, custom-designed cakes for his customers. As a Christian and an artist, he believes his work should only promote messages that align with his religious beliefs.

In July 2012, a same-sex couple asked Phillips to bake a cake for their wedding. Phillips explained that he could not, in good conscience, participate in a wedding ceremony he disagreed with. Although the couple quickly received a cake from another bakery, they filed a complaint against Masterpiece with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In June 2014, the Commission ruled against Masterpiece.

Forced to violate his beliefs—or forfeit his business

The Commission’s ruling would have required Phillips to create whatever cakes customers requested, regardless of his religious views. Phillips appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which again ruled against him in August 2015. Phillips appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in September 2017, the Court agreed to hear his case. Phillips was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.

In September 2017, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Phillips and defending his right to decline to participate in wedding ceremonies that he religiously objects to. Becket separately asked the Court to hear his case in tandem with another religious wedding vendor case, Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers.

Victory for free speech and religious liberty

In a diverse and pluralistic society, individuals of different faiths and backgrounds will disagree on many issues, and we must allow for these differences to flourish without the threat of government forcing a religious individual to violate his or her conscience. Weddings are important and sacred events to many Americans. Religious dissenters shouldn’t be forced to participate in a wedding ceremony they do not agree with.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cake Shop. The Justices ruled 7-2 that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution protects Jack Phillips from unfair treatment based on his religious beliefs.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace.
  • Free speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular. In this case, Jack Phillips’ artistic expressions were a form of speech, and the government should not force him into expression that violates his religious beliefs.

Harvest Family Church v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

Pillars of hope and help for disaster-stricken communities

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in 2017, houses of worship across Texas opened their doors and welcomed thousands of families forced to evacuate their homes. From housing and feeding evacuees to loading trucks with meals and hygiene supplies, local churches, synagogues, and mosques were pillars of safety, hope, and help when disaster struck.

Yet at the same time they were opening their doors to the community, they were picking up the pieces to their own devastated buildings. Houses of worship like Harvest Family Church and Hi-Way Tabernacle suffered unprecedented flooding, and churches along the Gulf Coast like Rockport First Assembly had their steeples blown off and windows blown out.

Becket defends churches from FEMA discrimination

FEMA has repeatedly praised churches and religious ministries for the valuable shelter and aid they provide to disaster-stricken communities, and regularly uses houses of worship as staging areas for relief efforts. Yet FEMA banned houses of worship from receiving recovery grants that are available to other similar private nonprofits, such as museums, zoos, and even community centers that provide services such as sewing classes and stamp-collecting clubs. This discriminatory policy stood in defiance of a 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, which protects the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.

In September of 2017, Becket filed a lawsuit on behalf of Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God. Because the churches were badly damaged and struggling to recover from the hurricane, Becket filed an emergency request for the court to quickly grant equal access to relief.

In December 2017, the district court ruled against the churches. That same day, the churches filed an emergency appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which granted an expedited appeal but not emergency protection.

Victory: Supreme Court urges a new FEMA policy

Becket then filed an emergency request with Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court Justice who hears emergency petitions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to grant emergency relief to avoid further delay in allowing the churches to apply for help. The Supreme Court responded by asking FEMA to explain its discrimination against houses of worship by January 10, 2018.

The pressure from the Court’s request allowed the churches to celebrate a complete victory for houses of worship nationwide: On January 3, FEMA quickly published a new policy and announced the change before the January 10 deadline. The new policy gave the churches what they needed, putting an end to FEMA’s decades of discrimination against houses of worship. Since FEMA would now treat houses of worship like all other non-profit disaster relief applicants, the churches dismissed their lawsuit shortly after.

FEMA also opened up a new application window for houses of worship that had previously been denied aid under its old policy, including two synagogues in Florida represented by Becket that also sued FEMA due to damage they sustained by Hurricane Irma.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Public Square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. It can, and should, have an equal place in the public square.
  • Reinforcing precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley: In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the state of Missouri can’t prevent a religious school from participating in a publicly available program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids on equal footing with other schools.

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Trump

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that keeping government officials out of internal church decisions is vital to protecting a separation of church and state. That includes allowing houses of worship to choose what to teach during their worship services. But now an atheist group is trying to force the IRS into the business of editing sermons and punishing church beliefs. Becket is fighting back.  

Leaders should be free to preach about issues that matter 

Throughout American history, religious leaders of different faiths have helped speak up for those who could not speak for themselves. They encouraged their congregations to throw off British oppression, to support the abolition of slavery, and to protect civil rights. That tradition continues today. 

In 2012, the Reverend Charles Moodie and his family left New York to settle in Englewood, a Chicago neighborhood plagued with violence, drugs, and poverty. In his mission to help the underprivileged and drug addicted find redemption and the fellowship of a community, Reverend Moodie pastors Chicago City Life Center. Reverend Moodie preaches about social and political issues that affect the people of his congregation, including protecting the most vulnerable in society. 

In Wisconsin, two more pastors also assert their freedom to lead their congregations in the faith. Pastor Koua Vang preaches about political issues that impact his Hmong community, a group of people that has historically experienced injustice and oppression under communist regimes in Laos and Vietnam. Father Patrick Malone likewise preaches about the need for his congregation, Holy Cross Anglican Church, to seek justice in every aspect of life, including politics.  

But now their right to freely preach is facing a dangerous threat.  

Atheists demand the tax man’s censorship of sermons 

In 1954, Congress passed a law—popularly known as the Johnson Amendment—that bans certain nonprofits from teaching about politics or candidates. There’s no evidence that Congress intended to limit the historical tradition of pastors preaching from the pulpit, but the IRS claims that it can ban such preaching. While the IRS talks tough, it has never attempted to actually prevent a pastor from preaching during religious services. 

But now the atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) wants to change that. It wants the IRS to punish pastors for their sermons by asking the court to enforce regulations that would revoke the churches’ tax-exempt status, involve the IRS in the churches’ finances, and levy fines against both the churches and their individual leaders. This is FFRF’s second attempt to enforce the Johnson Amendment; it tried three years ago, but then threw in the towel after Becket got involved. Now FFRF is back in court trying its same old arguments again.  

If enforced, the rule could silence Reverend Moodie and countless other ministers like him, restricting their ability to lead their churches. 

Defending religious leaders’ right to free speech 

In June 2017, Becket sought to intervene on behalf of Reverend Moodie, Pastor Vang, Father Malone, and Holy Cross Anglican to protect their right to preach free from IRS entanglement. Religious leaders – not the IRS or FFRF – should decide what to preach. In August 2017, Becket asked the court to reject FFRF’s suit outright as a violation of the separation of church and state.

In December 2017, FFRF dismissed their own lawsuit, giving up before the court had a chance to rule against them. By law, because this is now the second time that FFRF has given up on the same claim, FFRF’s dismissal means they have lost on the merits—and the pastors have permanently fended off FFRF.

Caplan v. Town of Acton, Massachusetts

Would France let Notre Dame fall into ruin? Should India let the Taj Mahal crumble or England let Big Ben go into disrepair? ­Of course not. Historic structures enrich cities all over the world as reminders of our diverse and rich history.

The state of Massachusetts understands the importance of preserving historic landmarks. Through its Community Preservation Act, the state makes perseveration funds available to secular and religious structures alike, recognizing that both are significant to the history of the state and should be preserved. Since 2000, more than 8,000 projects have been performed on secular and religious buildings to preserve them for future generations and public use.

Yet a small group of residents in Acton, Massachusetts, are claiming that funds can be made available for all sorts of historic buildings – just not churches. The group claims that allowing churches to participate in this widely available program violates part of the Massachusetts Constitution known as the Anti-Aid Amendment. The Anti-Aid Amendment, like the Blaine Amendments adopted in numerous state constitutions during the 19th and 20th centuries, was adopted during a movement of anti-Catholic bigotry. To this day, state laws like these are used by anti-religion activists in attempts to prohibit state funds to anything remotely religious.

Yet courts have consistently ruled that churches cannot be banned from widely available public benefit programs. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that a state can’t deny church schools from participating in a shredded-tire resurfacing program to make playgrounds safer for kids.

The town of Acton went to court, represented by Anderson & Kreiger LLP. In 2016, two historic churches in Acton were protected. But the small group of residents appealed. In August 2017, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the churches’ right to receive preservation funds on equal footing with secular structures. This case was heard in September 2017. In March 2018 the Supreme Judicial Court said that despite Trinity Lutheran, a church’s status as a church is an “important” factor weighing against a grant of preservation funds. The court’s ruling requires Massachusetts communities to discriminate, instructing them to hold churches to a higher standard than secular buildings in determining whether churches qualify to participate in historic preservation programs.

FFRF v. Morris County Board of Freeholders

At the Supreme Court, changes to the law are often slow and incremental. Sometimes these changes take place even when the Court decides not to take a case, as when one or more Justices write in a way that helps lower courts see the issues in a new light. This case, involving government grants for the preservation of historic buildings, including churches, is one such matter. Although the Court declined to hear the case, an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, and joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, reveals their commitment to equality for religion in the public square.

Historic buildings are an important part of our national heritage, from Independence Hall, to George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Virginia, to the Ebenezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King served as pastor until his death. These buildings need frequent restoration to remain available to the public for future use. In 2002, Morris County created a historic preservation fund to help restore beautiful, historic buildings within the County. The program is a competitive grant program and requires applicants—both secular and religious—to establish the historic significance of the building, typically by showing they are on the state or national historic registry.  

In December 2015, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued Morris County in New Jersey Superior Court, complaining that allowing churches to participate in the program violated the New Jersey Constitution. They claimed that Morris County can restore historic buildings—just not churches. Yet courts have consistently ruled that churches cannot be banned from widely available public benefit programs. In June 2017, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer  that a state can’t deny church schools from participating in a shredded-tire resurfacing program to make playgrounds safer for kids. Similarly, in January 2017, the New Jersey court had ruled in Morris County’s favor and protected the right of religious historic buildings to participate in the program. But in April 2018, and despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and ruled in FFRF’s favor, saying that under the New Jersey constitution the government cannot provide grants to preserve the architecture of historic churches. 

On September 19, 2018, Morris Country, represented by Becket, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to let Morris County continue treating all historic sites the same, without having to engage in religious discrimination. 

On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to review the case, but Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Gorsuch issued an opinion that goes a long way toward steering lower courts in the right direction. The opinion suggested that it would be inappropriate for the Court to take another case like Trinity Lutheran so soon after it was decided. This policy gives the lower courts more time to work through new decisions on a particular issue before the Supreme Court considers what gaps or confusion remain in the law. But in a promising move for his first writing on religious liberty at the Court, Justice Kavanaugh made clear that excluding sites from a historic preservation program because they are religious creates “serious tension with this Court’s religious equality precedents.”

This is not the last time the Court will have a chance to definitively resolve the issue. Although the New Jersey Supreme Court’s bar against religious organizations remains in place, a church suing the State of New Jersey or one of its counties after being denied funds could point to Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion to support a claim of religious discrimination. And Justice Kavanaugh himself agreed that “[a]t some point” the high court will have to step back in. In the meantime, the lower courts are on warning: according to Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Gorsuch, excluding religious organizations from generally available government programs is “pure discrimination against religion.”

Importance to religious liberty

  • Public Square: Houses of worship that have historical significance should qualify for the same benefits as other historically significant sites.
  • Reinforcing precedent: In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that the state of Missouri couldn’t prevent a religious school from participating in a publicly available program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids on equal footing with other schools.

Kondrat’yev, et al v. City of Pensacola

A historic cross in a historic city 

The City of Pensacola has a rich history older than the U.S. itself. A key seaport connected to the Gulf of Mexico, it is named after the Native American people who lived there as early as the 1100s, and it was one of the first areas to be settled by Spanish explorers. Today, Pensacola is known as the “Cradle of Naval Aviation” and is home to many members of the military.    

On a scenic bayou within the City lies Bayview Park, a popular location for social and civic gatherings. The 28-acre park features a senior center, amphitheater, two dog parks, tennis courts, a bocce ball court, playground, several boat ramps and docks, walking trails, picnic areas, and a memorial to a local citizen who died in a waterskiing accident. Tucked in the northeast corner of the park is the Bayview cross, a monument first erected in 1941 by the Jaycees, a non-profit civic group, to unite the community just months before the U.S. entered World War II.  

A needless lawsuit 

For over 70 years, Pensacola citizens have held community events at the monument, such as sunrise services, Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day remembrances, and other voluntary gatherings. More than a religious symbol, the Bayview cross has become part of the history of Pensacola and a reminder of the many diverse groups, religious and nonreligious alike, that make the City what it is. But in May 2016, four plaintiffs, represented by the American Humanist Association, filed a lawsuit in federal court to remove the cross. Two of the plaintiffs live in Canada; one has held his own ceremonies at the cross; the fourth lives seven miles away from the park. But they all claim that seeing the cross is offensive.  

Becket defends the cross 

 In June 2017, despite recognizing that the cross “is part of the rich history of Pensacola,” and that the cross “might well pass constitutional muster,” the federal court ruled that the cross has a “religious purpose” and must be removed. Becket immediately came to the City’s defense, arguing that that religion is a fundamental aspect of human culture and history, and the Constitution does not require the government to strip every religious symbol from the public square.

In September 2018, the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals ruled that it was “bound” by earlier precedent to rule against the cross. But two of the three judges said the earlier precedent was “wrong” and “needs to be reversed.” They urged the full Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court to uphold the cross.

In September 2018 Pensacola appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 28, 2019 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit to be reconsidered in light of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland. The court decided on February 19, 2020 that the cross is constitutional.

Importance to religious liberty 

  • Public Square: Because religious exercise is natural to human culture, it has a natural place in the public square. Religious symbols should not be treated as dangerous expression, scrubbed from society. Instead, the government can and should recognize the important role of religion in our history and culture.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project

In March 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning entry for ninety days by citizens from six majority Muslim countries, raising serious religious freedom concerns. Plaintiffs brought lawsuits against the executive order, and the lawsuits have traveled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Becket has a long track record of defending people of all faiths, including Muslims. In 2015, Becket won the historic Supreme Court victory in Holt v. Hobbs, which protected the religious freedom rights of Muslim prisoners. We believe that to protect people of faith, particularly religious minorities like Muslims, Native Americans, and Sikhs, it is vital that legal precedent is set properly. But the ACLU and other groups in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project have litigated their case under the wrong part of the Constitution. They are challenging the travel ban using the notorious Lemon test – a widely discredited set of criteria that creates confusion – and weak law— for important religious freedom cases. The Lemon test is particularly disliked by the Supreme Court because it forces judges to psychoanalyze the intent of policymakers at the time they wrote the law.

Instead, when the government targets a religious group for punishment or mistreatment, courts should use the laws that are designed to deal with burdens on religious exercise, namely the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Unlike Lemon, these laws have objective tests designed to root out religious targeting and protect religious minorities.

It is only possible to get cases like this right if courts are using the correct legal standards. Deciding religious freedom cases using the correct laws is the best way to achieve a truly just outcome both for the Muslim plaintiffs and for all Americans who have First Amendment protections. 

In June 2017 the Supreme Court announced that it would hear Trump v. IRAP and Trump v. Hawaii as a consolidated case. After oral argument was scheduled for October 10, 2017, the executive order expired and the Court dismissed both cases as moot, vacating the lower courts’ decisions including any Lemon test analysis.

Moses v. Ruszkowski

New Mexico textbooks for kids

Every child has the right to a quality education. Accessing that right is already an uphill battle for students in New Mexico, especially for thousands of low-income and minority children. The problem is not new, and state legislators have been working to fix it. Over 100 years ago, before New Mexico even became a state, the territorial and state legislatures enacted laws to ensure that all children had equal access to quality textbooks, regardless of where they attend school. Ever since, the textbook law has benefited children, particularly thousands of low-income and minority students, many of whom live in rural areas with limited options for quality education. But now, their access to quality education is at risk because of anti-religious activists and a discriminatory state law.

A law designed to discriminate

In 2012, two anti-religious activists sued the state, arguing that the New Mexico textbook lending program violated the state constitution because it allows children from religious schools the same access to education materials as children in other schools. To defend their lawsuit, the anti-religious activists pointed to a discriminatory 19th century state law—designed to disadvantage New Mexico’s native Catholic citizens—called the Blaine Amendment. Across the country, Blaine Amendments have been used by anti-religious activists to keep religious organizations from participating in neutral, generally applicable, government programs on equal terms as everyone else. They have been used to try stopping children with disabilities from attending a school that meets their needs, to prevent schools from making their playgrounds safer, to keep food kitchens from helping the poor, and more.

Becket defends children seeking an education

Both the trial court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals protected the state textbook program, but the decision was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. In 2015, based on the Blaine Amendment, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state’s textbook program was unconstitutional. By its plain language, New Mexico’s Blaine Amendment prohibits the use of state funds toward “sectarian” or “private” schools. At the time of enactment, however, essentially all private schools were religious, and the law’s intention and effect were to promote religious discrimination. In 2017, Becket appealed the New Mexico Supreme Court’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has recognized that Blaine Amendments arose from anti-religious bigotry.

In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, a similar case involving Missouri’s Blaine Amendment. The Trinity Lutheran ruling stated that a church school could not be excluded from a generally available public benefit simply because it was religious. Based on the Trinity Lutheran decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the New Mexico Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on the textbook lending program. The New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 7, 2018.

On December 13, 2018, the Court reversed its earlier ruling, acknowledging that Blaine Amendments are “tainted” by anti-Catholic sentiment, and concluding that New Mexico’s Blaine Amendment should be interpreted narrowly to avoid denying students state-approved textbooks and other learning materials simply because they attend a religiously affiliated school. The Court’s opinion rejects the activists’ arguments that the textbook lending program improperly aids religion stating, “The textbook loan program furthers New Mexico’s legitimate public interest in promoting education and eliminating illiteracy.” The textbook lending program was then reinstated.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination.
  • Dismantling discriminatory state laws: While anti-religious laws from the mid-19th century remain in place, people of all faiths are at risk of being discriminated against.
  • Reinforcing precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley: In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the state of Missouri can’t prevent a religious school from participating in a publicly available program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids on equal footing with other schools.

Bormuth v. County of Jackson, Michigan

A tradition dating back to the nation’s founding

In the County of Jackson, Michigan, Pagan activist Peter Bormuth tried to stop small-town county commissioners from continuing their tradition of voluntary prayer before their meetings.

The practice of legislative prayer can be traced back to the time of the Founding Fathers, who did not see it as a forbidden “establishment of religion” but rather as a powerful reminder of their own limited political authority: the people’s inalienable rights did not come from government or its officials, but from a divine source that superseded government.

In May 2017, Becket teamed up with leading religious liberty scholar and Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the Founding Fathers would never have viewed legislator-led legislative prayer as creating an official state church, which the First Amendment prohibits.

What is an establishment of religion?

The job of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from establishing a state church, but determining what establishes a state church has been notoriously difficult for courts.

In 1971, the Supreme Court created a three-part test that attempted to answer that question in the notorious Lemon v. Kurtzman case. The Lemon test was immediately a disaster. Its malleable approach ignored what the Founders considered to be an establishment of religion, invited anti-religious activists to file lawsuits against anything that looked vaguely religious, and led to unpredictable outcomes.

Justice Scalia famously compared the Lemon test to a zombie that frightened small-town America with arbitrary rulings and massive attorneys’ fees. Lemon’s reign toppled memorials to police officers, ended services to prisoners, and censored historic landmarks.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court finally put Lemon in its grave. In its Town of Greece v. Galloway ruling, the Court replaced Lemon’s subjective test with a command that any Establishment Clause test must start with an objective evaluation of our nation’s history. Town of Greece said that because legislative prayer was nothing like what the Founders considered to be an establishment of religion, and in fact was something the Founders approved and practiced, it didn’t violate the Establishment Clause.

The court rejects Lemon and takes the historical approach

Bormuth tried to resurrect the Lemon test and ignore the Town of Greece ruling in two ways: his arguments ignored the history that legislators have opened meetings with prayer since before the founding of the country, and it ignored that Town of Greece explicitly protected legislative prayer.

The full Sixth Circuit rejected both elements of Bormuth’s gambit—following Town of Greece, it ignored Lemon and took history seriously. And because the Sixth Circuit follows Town of Greece, its ruling directly conflicts with another legislative prayer case, Lund v. Rowan County, recently decided by the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On January 5, 2018 Bormuth petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case but the petition was denied in June 2018. The Sixth Circuit denied rehearing the case on August 24, 2018.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public square: Because religious exercise is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. Religious expression, including legislative prayer, should not be treated as dangerous or scrubbed from our public discourse.

Newdow v. United States of America (Second Circuit)

God is not a dirty word. The Founders believed this and courts have continually upheld their view.

Yet atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow has sued again and again to scrub “God” from the public square. For years, he has repeatedly attacked our national motto, “In God We Trust,” by suing the government. The motto is based on the national anthem and first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864. So far, his lawsuits have all been rejected.

In 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Newdow’s argument that the national motto violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by “establishing a monotheistic religion.” Becket’s amicus brief countered those arguments, explaining that for the Founders who wrote the First Amendment, an “establishment of religion” meant an official state church with government funding, government control, and fusion of church and state – and that honoring our nation’s religious heritage on our coinage is not one of them.

Newdow’s latest two lawsuits in his crusade against the word God are in the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit courts of appeals. These lawsuits are an attempt to create a heckler’s veto for atheists—a chance for anyone who disagrees with the government to dictate what it can say about our nation’s history. Becket’s briefs in the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit explain to the courts that if Newdow succeeds here, church-state conflict will balloon, and we will see a lot more litigation against God around the country.

US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York is counsel in this case.

New Doe Child # 1 v. United States of America (Eighth Circuit)

“God” is not a dirty word

God is not a dirty word. The Founders believed this and courts have continually protected their view.

Yet atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow has sued again and again to scrub “God” from the public square. For years, he has repeatedly attacked our national motto, “In God We Trust,” by suing the government in courts across the country. The motto is based on the national anthem and first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864. Newdow’s lawsuits are an attempt to create a heckler’s veto for atheists—a chance for anyone who disagrees with the government to dictate what it can say about our nation’s history. So far, his lawsuits have all been rejected.

In 2017, Newdow filed two separate lawsuits in the Sixth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals to erase “God” from the public square, demanding “In God We Trust” literally be scrubbed from all U.S. coins and bills. In each case, Newdow represented a group of atheists claiming that the national motto violates their practice of atheism under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. The Department of Justice represented the government to defend the motto. Becket filed friend-of-the-court briefs defending the government’s use of “In God We Trust” in both cases.

“In God We Trust” does not violate the First Amendment

In April 2017, Becket’s brief in the Eighth Circuit countered Newdow’s argument that the motto establishes a religion. For the Founders who wrote the First Amendment, an “establishment of religion” meant an official state church with government funding, government control, and fusion of church and state. As Becket’s brief pointed out, “Virginia’s earliest settlers attended twice-daily services on pain of losing daily rations, whipping, and six months of hard-labor imprisonment…” While that constituted an establishment of religion, “[t]he motto’s presence on currency, of course, does not involve church attendance, compulsory or otherwise.”

This is not the first time Becket, or the courts, have weighed in to protect the national motto. In 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Newdow’s argument that the motto violates the First Amendment by “establishing a monotheistic religion.” As Becket wrote in our friend-of-the-court brief in that case, it is not an establishment of religion simply to pay tribute to our nation’s religious heritage.

Court protects “In God We Trust”

On March 13, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in St. Paul, Minnesota. On August 28, 2018, the Court rejected the atheists’ attempt to strip the national motto from U.S. coins and bills and adopted Becket’s argument that recognizing our national heritage does not violate the First Amendment by establishing a religion.

On October 12, 2018, Newdow sought a rehearing by the full Eighth Circuit Court. On November 26, 2018, the Court shut down Newdow’s case when it denied the request.

Newdow then sought review from the Supreme Court, which denied his request on June 10, 2019, ending the case.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and has a natural place in the public square. “God” is not a dirty word, and paying tribute to our nation’s heritage in a national motto does not violate the First Amendment. 

Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church v. City of New York

The homeless in New York can always count on Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church to find a place to rest.

For years, the church has welcomed homeless people to sleep on the steps and sidewalk of its property as part of its religious mission. The church also operates a homeless shelter inside its basement, but that space is limited to just ten elderly people. Thirty more homeless individuals regularly sleep outside the church doors. The church has a sign that says “This is God’s House, All are Welcome.” And they mean it.

But in 2001, city officials decided they could no longer tolerate the church’s policy. They roused the homeless people from their sleep and cleared the steps and street. Represented by Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, the church sued the city for violating their right to put their faith into practice by serving those less fortunate – as protected in our Constitution and by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

In January 2002, a judge ruled that the city could not remove the homeless on the steps of the church, but that they could remove homeless who were on the sidewalk, which the church also owned. Not taking no for an answer, the city appealed.

In March 2002, Becket filed an amicus brief on behalf a number of religious groups, including the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Christian Legal Society, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Council of Churches of the City of New York, the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing, the Queens Federation of Churches, and the Rutgers Presbyterian Church.

In June 2006, the court protected the church, stating that providing homeless with outdoor sleeping space is sincere religious practice, which is protected by the Constitution.

New Doe Child # 1 v. The Congress of the United States (Sixth Circuit)

“God” is not a dirty word

God is not a dirty word. The Founders believed this and courts have continually upheld their view.

Yet atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow has sued again and again to scrub “God” from the public square. For years, he has repeatedly attacked our national motto, “In God We Trust,” by suing the government. The motto is based on the national anthem and first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864. So far, his lawsuits have all been rejected.

Newdow’s latest two lawsuits in his crusade against the word God are in the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit courts of appeals. In each case, he has led a group of atheists claiming that the national motto violates their practice of atheism under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief to defend the government’s use of “In God We Trust” in both cases.

Becket’s Sixth Circuit amicus brief, filed in February 2017, stated: “Plaintiffs want to have it both ways. They want to reject any notion of religious belief and transcendent truth and yet call it an ‘exercise of religion.’ Neither the English language nor the law can stretch that far.”

“In God We Trust” does not violate the First Amendment

In April 2017, Becket filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri. In that case, Newdow argued not only that the motto violates atheists’ religious freedom, but that it establishes a religion as well. Becket’s amicus brief countered those arguments, explaining that for the Founders who wrote the First Amendment, an “establishment of religion” meant an official state church with government funding, government control, and fusion of church and state – and that honoring our nation’s religious heritage on our coinage is not one of them. The brief states, “Virginia’s earliest settlers attended twice-daily services on pain of losing daily rations, whipping, and six months of hard-labor imprisonment … . The motto’s presence on currency, of course, does not involve church attendance, compulsory or otherwise.”

These are not the first cases to consider the national motto, which has been upheld in court before. In 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Newdow’s argument that the national motto violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by “establishing a monotheistic religion.” Becket filed an amicus brief defending the motto, arguing that it is not an establishment of religion to simply pay tribute to our nation’s religious heritage.

Newdow’s lawsuits are an attempt to create a heckler’s veto for atheists—a chance for anyone who disagrees with the government to dictate what it can say about our nation’s history. Becket’s briefs explain to the courts that if Newdow succeeds here, church-state conflict will balloon, and we will see a lot more litigation against God around the country.

Court protects “In God We Trust”

The Sixth Circuit heard oral argument in June 2017 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Newdow and the Department of Justice argued on each side. On May 29, 2018, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 against the challenge to the national motto. On August 8, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied en banc review.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public square: Religion is a natural part of human culture and has a natural place in the public square. “God” is not a dirty word, and paying tribute to our nation’s heritage in a national motto does not violate the First Amendment. 

Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton, Fla.

Searching for a house of worship

The Chabad of East Boca is an Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Florida that provides religious worship, outreach, and educational services. Like many other faith groups, it needed a house of worship for its congregation. After searching for years, the Chabad finally found the ideal location, took all the necessary steps to build, and—after a long series of public meetings—received unanimous city council approval to move forward in 2015. The approval came under a zoning law passed in 2008 that gave all houses of worship equal rights to build. But a small opposition group, led by a New York attorney, sued in federal court to stop the synagogue from being built.

Opposition fueled by anti-Semitism

Beginning in 2007, the Chabad experienced well-organized and well-financed hostility from a small group. Even after the building was unanimously approved in 2015, two landowners hired a New York attorney—notorious for her opposition to religious civil rights laws—and filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent the synagogue’s construction. The lawsuit made the bizarre claim that allowing a house of worship equal access to build on private land violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

The small group openly admitted that some other group’s opposition to the Chabad was driven by anti-Semitism. They claimed that allowing the synagogue to be built discriminated against them as Christians—even though the 2008 city ordinance they challenged granted equal access for all faith groups, local Christian congregations supported the synagogue, and they had never been prevented from building a church. They also claimed that building the 2-story synagogue would cause “inevitable” floods and prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the area, even though the area is already surrounded by 22-story condos and strip malls.

In addition to fighting the lawsuit, the Chabad also suffered a string of attacks in the last few years. A teenage member of the synagogue was physically assaulted on a public sidewalk and told to “go back to Auschwitz.” The ministry’s temporary home was also vandalized repeatedly: its glass mezuzahs containing sacred scripture were destroyed and stolen, and a glass synagogue door was smashed.

Winning the right to build

The Chabad twice urged a federal court to reject the lawsuit, and it won both times, first in July 2016 and then again in March 2017. The court went so far as to find that the plaintiffs “fail[ed] to allege any injury at all.” But in April 2017, the plaintiffs prolonged the case by appealing to the Eleventh Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit granted the Chabad its third victory, protecting the Chabad’s right to build a synagogue.

The Chabad was represented by Becket and Kirkland & Ellis.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Property rights: Local governments must treat all houses of worship equally when it comes to property rights, zoning laws, and permit processes. A Jewish synagogue must be afforded the same access to building permits as a Christian church or any other house of worship.
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to operate according to their religious beliefs even if the wider community around them disagrees with those beliefs.

Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

An honest commitment to care for women 

The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, which operates on Catholic Church-owned property, helps more than 1,200 women each year. The Center provides women with basic services like pregnancy tests, baby and maternity clothes, parenting books, diapers, bottles and formula, and sonograms—all free of charge. The Center also counsels more than 8,000 local women per year through its 24-hour helpline.

The Center’s staff and volunteers are motivated by their faith to help women and children during a vulnerable time in their lives. Displayed in each waiting room is a “Commitment of Care,” a document that explains the Center’s promises of nondiscrimination, honesty, and confidentiality, and also states that the Center “does not offer, recommend, or refer for abortion or birth control, but we are committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures and risks.”

The government’s discriminatory double standard

In 2009, the City of Baltimore targeted the Center, demanding they display government signs about the services they do not offer. The city mandated that the Center display signs on the walls of their church-owned property stating that they “do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services.” Yet, the only centers targeted by this discriminatory law were pro-life centers. The city of Baltimore did not require abortion clinics to display signs about services they do not offer, such as adoption or prenatal care.

The city claimed that the government-mandated abortion message did not alter the Center’s speech, because the Commitment of Care already notified women that the Center did not offer referrals for abortion. But this reasoning completely missed a crucial part of the First Amendment promise of free speech: that people, not the government, know best what they want to say and how they want to say it.

Defending free speech for all

In March 2010, the Center sued the mayor and city counsel of Baltimore in district court for the right to continue to serve and communicate with women who come to them for help, in a way that respects each woman’s choice and circumstances as well as the Center’s mission. The Center already accurately informs women about the help they provide in a way that is in line with their mission; that should be enough.

In January 2011, the Center won. But the government wouldn’t take no for an answer. On appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the city again lost in January 2018. In its opinion, the Fourth Circuit explained that the city’s law essentially forced the Center to portray “abortion as one among a menu of morally equivalent choices”—a message “antithetical to the very moral, religious, and ideological reasons the Center exists.” The law therefore violated the First Amendment.

In March 2018, the city made a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the city’s appeal, definitively protecting the Center’s free speech rights.

The Center was represented by Becket, by David Kinkopf and Steve Metzger from Gallagher, Evelius, and Jones LLP, and by Peter Basile from Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew, P.A.

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • Free speech: The government cannot control the way an individual or organization speaks about its own beliefs. People, not the government, know best what they want to say and how they want to say it.

Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius

Unconstitutional mandate threatens a Benedictine college

Founded by Benedictine monks, Belmont Abbey College celebrates a rich thousand-year-old monastic tradition of dedicated prayer and learning. Since 1876, the college has striven to carry out a clear mission: “That in all things God may be glorified.” But in 2011, Belmont Abbey’s right to live out its Catholic values was threatened by the federal government.

A new federal mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required the Catholic college to provide services such as the week-after pill in its insurance plans. The HHS mandate forced Belmont Abbey to either violate the Catholic values that drives its mission or pay massive fines to the IRS.

Becket defends religious groups from government interference

As a Catholic liberal arts college, Belmont Abbey upholds the teachings of the Catholic Church, including the respect for all human life. Participating in a system to provide services such as contraception, sterilization, and abortion pills would contradict the Catholic mission it seeks to advance.

Although the government exempted certain religious employers, the requirements were extremely narrow, limited only to religious employers who primarily serve and employ those of their same faith. Belmont Abbey had no choice but to go to court to defend its right to remain true to its Catholic convictions. With Becket’s help, Belmont Abbey challenged the HHS mandate in federal court in November 2011.

In September 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, granted a motion for expedited appeal. In December, the court handed an intermediate victory to Belmont Abbey when it commanded HHS to act quickly to fix the HHS Mandate. But after the government’s new promised accommodation still infringed on the Catholic university’s beliefs, Becket refiled Belmont Abbey’s lawsuit in November 2013. In January 2014, the D.C. Circuit stayed the case pending decisions in similar cases before the same court.

After joining a class-action lawsuit, Belmont Abbey College voluntarily dismissed their own case in November 2014.

On October 6, 2017, Health & Human Services issued a new rule with an exemption that protects religious ministries, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling and a Presidential Executive Order. In its new rule, the government admitted that it broke the law by trying to force religious groups to provide services in their health plans that violated their religious beliefs like the week-after pill. On November 7, 2018, the government finalized that rule, continuing to protect religious ministries.

Importance to religious liberty 

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs in order to further a government goal.  
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without fear of government interference.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace and not just in houses of worship.

Wheaton College v. Azar

A college with a mission of faith

Wheaton College’s mission expresses its commitment to do all things “For Christ and His Kingdom.” Founded in 1860 by the prominent abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard, Wheaton’s history is marked by the stories of students and alumni whose faith drives them to affect the church and society for good.

An unconstitutional federal mandate 

In 2010, the federal government issued a mandate, regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that forced Wheaton College to include services like the week-after pill in its insurance plans, which violated its deeply held beliefs. Despite Wheaton’s expressed religious objections, the government refused to grant the College a religious exemption. In July 2012, Wheaton College sued the government to protect its right to operate according to its religious mission without the threat of government fines.

Wheaton College’s first lawsuit was delayed for over a year by the government’s promise of a religious accommodation—but the government still insisted that Wheaton College was not a “religious employer” and was ineligible for an exemption. In the meantime, though, Wheaton’s lawsuit forced the federal government to rewrite its one-year “safe harbor” condition to include Wheaton, giving the College another year to comply with the mandate or face crippling fines. As a result of the change, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Wheaton College’s lawsuit as premature. In September 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted a motion for expedited appeal, which later handed an intermediate victory to the religious colleges by ordering HHS to act quickly to fix the existing HHS mandate.

The government’s proposed “accommodation” turned out not to be much of a fix, and it still required Wheaton to choose between its belief in the sanctity of life or millions of dollars in government fines. So in December 2013, Becket refiled its lawsuit on behalf of Wheaton. In June 2014, the district court denied Wheaton’s request for relief. Wheaton appealed. In July 2014, while the case was on appeal, Wheaton received last minute protection from the Supreme Court against IRS fines. In July 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Wheaton College relief from the mandate. Finally, in May 2016, the Supreme Court decided the related case Zubik v. Burwell. The Supreme Court’s decision ordered the government to explore alternatives that would protect religious freedom. On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with broader religious exemption, admitting that the mandate was illegal as applied to religious objectors, including Wheaton College.

A five-year fight ends in resounding victory

On February 22, 2018, Wheaton’s five-year legal battle finally came to an end when the district court ruled in Wheaton College’s favor, protecting the College from any current or future application of the mandate.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Individual freedom: Government cannot force religious individuals or groups to violate their deeply held beliefs to further a government goal when there are other ways for the government to accomplish that goal.
  • Religious communities: Faith-based organizations, including schools, have the right to operate according to their religious mission free of government interference.
  • HHS mandate: For years, the federal government has refused or delayed relief from the HHS mandate to religious organizations. The 2018 victory for Wheaton is a critical step in securing robust religious liberty protections from the mandate for all religious non-profits. 

U.S. v. Sterling

Our nation’s military was practicing religious liberty even before our country recognized it’s inherently beneficial traits: solving religious conflicts and advancing the human right to freely seek God. If there is one lesson our military history has taught us it’s that religious diversity works.

A recent military court ruling threatens that heritage. A member of the Marine Corps, Monifa Sterling, was forced to take down a Bible verse from her desk despite other soldiers’ permission to decorate their workspaces. The court ruled that the verse, “No weapon formed against me shall prosper,” was not “religious” enough to be protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The ruling also noted that religion was “divisive” and “contentious” and government is allowed to censor it to avoid the risk that other Marines might be “exposed” to it.

But scripture is religious, and religion is not some sort of toxic cousin of profanity that deserves suppression instead of protection. The court’s ruling is very dangerous, particularly for minority religious groups with lesser-known faiths, who will more likely be targeted for “preemptive” censorship. The ruling also forgets the lesson of history: respectful religious pluralism enhances both individual rights and the military mission. To correct these errors, a diverse coalition of experts on military religious liberty joined the Becket’s amicus brief explaining why the lower court’s ruling must be overturned. The experts include military veterans, chaplains, and senior-level military commanders who have extensive personal and professional experience supporting soldiers’ free exercise of faith. They come from a variety of religions: Jewish, Catholic, Sikh, Southern Baptist, Muslim, Presbyterian, Mormon, Lutheran, Anglican, and Assemblies of God. Bancroft PLLC (Paul Clement), Liberty Institute, and Major John Stephens represented Ms. Sterling.

On August 10, 2016, the military’s highest court ruled against Monifa Sterling.

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer

The state of Missouri wants to make sure children run on safe playgrounds – unless they attend a religious school.

The Trinity Lutheran Church Learning Center is a Christian preschool that wanted to improve its playground surface, which consisted of gravel and grass. To facilitate the needed upgrades, the school applied to a state program in 2012 that provides grants to use recycled shredded tires for a softer and safer playground surface. Trinity Lutheran ranked fifth of 44 applicants based on overall quality of the intended project, the number of people who would benefit from the improved playground, and the quality of the school’s recycling education programs. However, despite the school’s high ranking, the state denied the grant solely because it was associated with a church.

The state used the Blaine Amendment, a 19th century anti-Catholic and bigoted law that prohibits religious organizations, such as a Florida prisoner ministry, a Catholic orphanage and several religious schools, from participating in public programs. Trinity Lutheran sued the state of Missouri in 2013 for this blatant discrimination. Becket, along with Stanford Professor Michael McConnell, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief defending Trinity Lutheran’s right to participate in the state’s tire recycling program on equal footing as all other applicants. Trinity Lutheran, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, has fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case on April 19, 2017.

In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Missouri can’t discriminate against the school in a program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids.

*Photo Credit: Flickr

 

Society of American Bosnians & Herzegovinians v. City of Des Plaines

The Society of American Bosnians and Herzegovinians is a small Muslim community in a Chicago suburb with approximately 160 members that observes a Sufi approach to Islam. For years, the Society attempted to rent facilities for its worship services, but hoped to one day build a mosque in the City of Des Plaines, Illinois, which already has 42 houses of worship.

In 2013, after searching for two years, the Society found a property in a manufacturing district that had stood vacant for many years. The City’s Comprehensive Zoning Plan proposed that the district be rezoned to allow houses of worship, since other religious groups seeking property in the district had similar applications granted.

Studies showed that re-zoning would have minimal impact on parking and traffic, so the City Plan Commission unanimously recommended granting the Society’s application. However, after a public hearing, the Des Plaines City Council denied the re-zoning application, claiming that a mosque would create traffic and parking problems. Unlike its requirements for other religious organizations, the City demanded that the Society provide four times the number of parking spots required by law, which would have forced the Society to reduce its worship space by half. Because the Society was delayed in moving forward with its plans, its contract for the property was terminated.

The Society represented by Anthony J. Peraica & Associates, sued the City for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects religious organizations from discrimination in land-use regulation. Becket, joined by Charles Wentworth of the Illinois law firm Lofgren & Wentworth, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Society’s right to build a house of worship.

In addition to this case, Becket has supported or is currently supporting a mosque in New Jersey and has also previously invoked RLUIPA in defending a Christian agricultural community in Hawaii, a Sikh temple and a Jewish synagogue in California, a Buddhist temple in Connecticut, and churches in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Slockish v. U.S. Department of Transportation

A spiritual promise to protect sacred lands of Mount Hood

Members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde have lived in the areas surrounding Mount Hood for centuries. Sacred land nearby, known as Ana Kwna Nchi Nchi Patat, or the Place of Big Big Trees, has been used for religious ceremonies and sacred burials since long before this nation was founded. 

For decades, Hereditary Chief Wilbur Slockish and Carol Logan, a spiritual practitioner and elder in her tribe, have visited the land to pray, meditate and pay respects to their ancestors through memorial ceremonies. As leaders in their community, their role of protecting the land and preserving their traditions is of utmost importance. 

Government bulldozes sacred lands

In 2006, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration announced a project to expand U.S. Highway 26, which runs between Mount Hood and Portland in Oregon. The Native leaders alerted government officials to the importance of the burial grounds, as tribe members had done in the past when the government announced expansion plans. Yet, this time, the government refused to listen.   

In 2008, ignoring the tribe members’ objections, government officials bulldozed the ancestral burial grounds. Although the government left the other side of the highway untouched—protecting nearby wetlands and a tattoo parlor—it destroyed ancestral grave sites, dismantled a sacred stone altar, and removed safe access to the sites.  

Defending the religious rights of Native Americans

In October 2008, Chief Slockish and Carol Logan, together with the Cascade Geographic Society, the Mount Hood Sacred Lands Preservation Alliance, and the late Hereditary Chief Johnny Jackson, sued the government, relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After two-and-a-half years of negotiations between the tribe members and the government, negotiations failed.   

In 2015, the tribe members returned to court. In October 2017, an important hearing was held in which the tribe members asked the court to find that the destruction of their sacred site substantially burdened their religious practices. Sadly, the tribes were denied justice when the judge ruled that RFRA did not apply to the case and the government was free to bulldoze sacred Native American burial grounds and destroy sacred artifacts if it occurred on federal land.  

In December 2018, the tribe members asked the court for relief based on their claims that the destruction of their sacred site violated environmental laws. Following a magistrate judge’s preliminary recommendation against the tribe members in April 2020, the district court denied relief to the tribe members in a 3-page order on February 21, 2021.

The tribe members then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On November 24, 2021, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government will not be held responsible for its destruction of the sacred site and dismissed the case as “moot.” Essentially, the Ninth Circuit said nothing could be done since the destruction had already occurred.

On October 3, 2022, Becket asked the United States Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and hold the federal government accountable for needlessly destroying their sacred land. On October 5, 2023, after a 15-year legal odyssey, the government agreed to settle the case and make efforts to restore the site by replanting trees, allowing the tribal members to rebuild a centuries-old stone altar, and recognizing historic Native American use of the site.  

The tribe members are represented by Becket together with Keith Talbot of the Seattle-based law firm, Patterson Buchanan Forbes & Leitch. 

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious liberty includes the right to worship how and where one’s faith dictates. Government should not restrict the ability of individuals or groups to access religious sites, especially when there is an alternative way for the government to achieve its goal.
  • Religious liberty for Native Americans: Whether they are directly targeted or indirectly affected by government actions, minority religious groups are particularly vulnerable to government violations of their religious liberty. Actively defending religious liberty for Native Americans strengthens religious liberty for people of all faiths.

Singh v. McConville

Soldiers of faith and service

Specialist Kanwar Bir Singh, Specialist Harpal Singh, and Private Arjan Singh Ghotra are three Sikh soldiers who can now freely serve in the U.S. Army while following their faith.

Specialist Kanwar Singh was highly regarded for his ROTC service during college and achieved the highest possible score on the military entrance exam when applying to join the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Specialist Harpal Singh is fluent in Punjabi, Hindi, and Urdu, all three of which are highly sought after by the Army. He also has significant expertise in telecommunications technologies, having deployed around the world—including to Ghana, Russia, and the Middle East—to develop telecommunications systems. Private Arjan Ghotra joined the Virginia Army National Guard at age seventeen after serving for several years in the Civil Air Patrol and the Virginia Defense Force.

All three men exemplify the values of the Army. Yet all three faced discrimination for wearing turbans, unshorn hair, and beards according to their faith.

Discriminating against the faithful

These three soldiers sought their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Passed in 1993 by President Clinton, RFRA prohibits the Army from suppressing a soldier’s sincere religious exercise without a compelling government reason.

In this instance the government had no good reason for discriminating against Sikh Americans. Nearly 100,000 soldiers have exemptions from the Army’s beard ban for medical reasons. Our military’s Special Forces commonly wear beards on the front lines in Afghanistan. And observant Sikhs have always served, and continue serving, in the militaries of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, and elsewhere. Canada’s current Secretary of Defense is a fully-bearded Sikh, who previously served alongside American forces in Afghanistan.

Becket defends Sikh soldiers

This is the second lawsuit launched by Becket in defense of Sikh Americans seeking to serve the country. In Singh v. Carter, Becket also represented decorated Army Captain Simratpal Singh, who filed a similar suit against the Army for the right to keep his beard according to his faith.

In March 2016, Becket filed a lawsuit on behalf of Specialist Kanwar Bir Singh, Specialist Harpal Singh, and Private Arjan Singh Ghotra and their right to serve in the Army without abandoning their Sikh faith.

In April 2016, the Army took a historic step toward allowing Sikhs to serve in the military by accommodating Specialist Kanwar Singh, Specialist Harpal Singh, and Private Arjan Ghotra, at least long enough for them to complete basic training. In January 2017, that victory was made permanent when the Army issued new regulations stating that Sikh soldiers will not be forced to abandon their religious turbans, unshorn hair, or beards throughout their military career.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Individual freedom:  Individual religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing the signs of one’s faith. Religious individuals must be free to follow their faith in all aspects of life, especially those who serve in our military to defend the freedom of all Americans. 
  • Public Square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. It can, and should, have an equal place in the public square. 
  • RFRA: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act ensures that the government cannot burden the religious exercise of individuals or groups to violate their deeply held beliefs without compelling interest or when there are reasonable alternatives to doing so.  

Singh v. Carter

Torn between serving country and living out faith 

Military service has a rich legacy within the Sikh tradition: observant Sikhs have served in the U.S. military from at least World War I through the Vietnam War. For Captain Simratpal “Simmer” Singh, a committed Sikh, the legacy is also personal, as military service runs strong in his family. Endorsed by his local congressman, Simmer was accepted into West Point in 2006. But a 30-year ban on beards threatened Simmer’s ability to serve. 

As a child, Simmer Singh wore the  patka, a small turban worn by Sikh children to cover their unshorn hair. In high school, he began wearing a full turban and beard—also core “articles of faith” in the Sikh religion—to remind him of the inherent dignity and equality of every individual before God. He expected to wear these articles of faith to his death – until he joined the Army. Simmer believed that he would be given a religious accommodation for his unshorn hair, beard, and turban, but on Reception Day he was told he had to cut his hair and shave or leave the Academy. Compelled on the spot to choose between serving his country and his faith—a decision no American should have to make—he chose to serve, committing to reclaim his articles of faith at the earliest opportunity. 

Captain Singh went on to serve with distinction for more than ten years. He completed both Ranger School and Special Forces Assessment and Selection Courses, received a Bronze Star Medal for clearing IEDs in Afghanistan, and attained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering. 

RFRA protects Sikhs who serve 

In 2015, Simmer learned about his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal statute passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 with the support of an extensive coalition of religious and civil rights groups. RFRA prohibits the Army from suppressing an individual’s sincere religious exercise without a compelling government reason. 

In this case, the Army had no good reason for discriminating against Sikh Americans by banning their religious beard, since it gave nearly 100,000 soldiers exemptions from its beard ban for medical reasons. Special Forces Operators commonly wear beards on the front lines in Afghanistan. And observant Sikhs have continually served in the militaries of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, and throughout the world. In fact, Canadian Minister of National Defense Harjit Singh Sajjan is a fully-bearded Sikh and previously served alongside American forces in Afghanistan. 

Victory for Sikh soldiers 

In October 2015, Becket, along with the Sikh Coalition and the law firm McDermott Will & Emery, petitioned the Army to grant Captain Singh a religious accommodation. In December 2015, the Army  issued  a one-month accommodation under RFRA, but then shortly after, ordered Simmer to undergo a series of discriminatory tests that other soldiers who wore beards for medical reasons were not required to complete. 

On February 29, 2016, Becket, McDermott, and the Sikh Coalition  filed a lawsuit  on Simmer’s behalf to block the discriminatory testing and to obtain a permanent accommodation.  Days later, in a rare move against the Army, the court ordered the Department of Defense to cease all discriminatory testing against Captain Singh because of his religious beard and granted him  temporary protection  while the case was ongoing. In March 2016, Becket filed a similar lawsuit in  Singh v. McConville  on behalf of Specialist Kanwar Bir Singh, Specialist Harpal Singh, and Private Arjan Singh Ghotra and their right to serve in the Army without abandoning their Sikh articles of faith. 

Following the court ruling, the Army granted Simmer a longer accommodation that allowed him to serve with his religious beard, unshorn hair, and turban for up to one year. On January 4, 2017, that victory became permanent when the Army issued new regulations stating that Sikh soldiers will not be forced to abandon their religious turbans, unshorn hair, or beards throughout their military career.

Importance to religious liberty: 

  • Individual freedom:  Individual religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing the signs of one’s faith. Religious individuals must be free to follow their faith in all aspects of life, especially those who serve in our military to defend the freedom of all Americans. 
  • Public Square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. It can, and should, have an equal place in the public square. 
  • RFRA: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act ensures that the government cannot burden the religious exercise of individuals or groups to violate their deeply held beliefs without compelling interest or when there are reasonable alternatives to doing so.  

Reaching Souls International v. Azar

Evangelical ministries challenge a federal mandate

In 2013, an orphan care ministry, a Christian college, and a 100-year-old Baptist ministry went to court to challenge the HHS mandate, which forced them to violate their beliefs or pay crippling IRS fines. The mandate required employers to provide services like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans but did not accommodate religious ministries like Reaching Souls International, Truett-McConnell College, and GuideStone Financial Resources.

Reaching Souls International is a nonprofit evangelistic ministry that has preached the Gospel to over 20 million people and rescued hundreds of orphans in Africa, India, and Cuba by placing them into loving homes. If Reaching Souls does not comply with the government’s mandate, it will face each year in IRS fines.

Truett-McConnell College is a Georgia Baptist college committed to training students to share the Gospel by providing a biblically-centered education. If Truett-McConnell does not comply with the mandate, it will face millions of dollars each year in IRS fines.

GuideStone Financial Resources has been the benefits arm of the Southern Baptist Convention for over 100 years and provides retirement and health benefits to thousands of Southern Baptist churches and evangelical ministries like Reaching Souls and Truett-McConnell College.

Defending their religious mission and beliefs

These evangelical ministries simply could not comply with the mandate to provide free access to abortion-inducing drugs and devices through the GuideStone health plan because doing so would violate their Christian beliefs about the sanctity of human life. While the government exempted churches and church-controlled ministries from the mandate, it refused to exempt religious ministries like Reaching Souls and Truett-McConnell College.

Faced with no choice but to defend their beliefs, the ministries filed suit in October 2013, representing over 187 ministries that both relied on GuideStone for health benefits and faced massive IRS fines for refusing to violate their beliefs.

In December 2013, their case became the first class-action suit to win relief from the government’s HHS mandate. But on July 14, 2015, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court decision and ruled against the evangelical ministries. On July 23, 2015, GuideStone, Reaching Souls, and Truett-McConnell appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court and a new federal rule protect ministries

Reaching Souls, Truett-McConnell, and GuideStone’s fight brought them all the way to the Supreme Court, which on November 6, 2015 agreed to hear their case along with several other religious ministries. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the landmark case, Zubik v. Burwell. Zubik granted a victory to religious non-profits by directing the government to find another way to achieve its goals without violating religious liberty. Because of that ruling, the Tenth Circuit threw out its previous ruling against Reaching Souls, Truett-McConnell, and GuideStone, instead ordering the ministries and the government to address possible alternatives to the mandate.

On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption. On November 7, 2018, the federal government issued a final rule protecting religious ministries like Reaching Souls while offering alternative means for women to obtain free contraception.

Becket and Locke Lord LLP represented Reaching Souls, Truett-McConnell, and GuideStone in their fight for religious freedom. This was the second class action filed challenging the administration’s mandate; the first was filed by Becket and Locke Lord LLP on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and hundreds of Catholic ministries participating in the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, a national plan for Catholic employers. Becket also represented Eternal Word Television Network, Houston Baptist University, and others in similar lawsuits against the HHS mandate.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that the government cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs.
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to build and lead their ministries according to their beliefs free from governmental discrimination.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace.

Oliver v. Hofmeister

A program to give children with learning disabilities better opportunities

In 2010, the State of Oklahoma enacted the Lindsey Nicole Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities to give students with learning disabilities access to private education by granting scholarships based on the cost of their public education. The program allowed students to attend a school that could help them with their specific learning disabilities. The vast majority of the state’s 541 school districts immediately complied with the law by issuing scholarship checks to eligible students. But four school districts decided that complying with the law would somehow violate the state’s Blaine Amendment, an archaic provision in the state constitution that targets “sectarian” groups.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that these provisions were “born of bigotry” in an era of widespread anti-Catholicism. Yet these four districts unilaterally asserted the Oklahoma Blaine Amendment to deny students the funds, arguing that it might aid religiously-affiliated schools. Conveniently, this allowed those school districts to keep the funds for themselves. After Becket sued to defend the students’ rights, the legislature learned of their plight and changed the law so the scholarships would issue directly from the State Board of Education, bypassing the renegade school districts.

A five-year battle with public school bureaucrats

Two of the school districts—Jenks and Union Public Schools—then turned around and sued the parents for accepting their scholarships. Becket defended the students’ rights again, this time all the way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which dismissed the lawsuit, chastising the school districts for going after their own students.

Despite that ruling, the school districts renewed the lawsuit, this time against the State Board of Education for granting the scholarships. In 2014, a lower court upheld the scholarship program, but only for students attending schools that were secular or religious “in name only.” Becket stepped in again, arguing what should have been obvious: when the state makes benefits generally available to its citizens, it can’t discriminate against some of them just because they are religious. Becket pointed out that this bizarre ruling would require the state to examine the beliefs of every religious school and decide which ones were too religious to accept the students’ scholarships.

Giving children with special needs equal access to public programs

In February 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court once again ruled in the students’ favor, finally upholding the Lindsey Nicole Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities for good. Oklahoma children with learning disabilities are free to use their share of the state’s education funds for an education best suited to their individual needs.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that the government is not allowed to create a Goldilocks scenario of deciding which religious beliefs are ”just right.” The First Amendment requires that public programs be administered neutrally, without regard to religious belief. Thanks to Becket, the students and their families are finally able to participate in Oklahoma’s scholarship program on equal footing with everyone else.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools. 
  • Dismantling discriminatory state laws: So long as anti-religious laws from the mid-19th century called Blaine Amendments remain in the books, people of all faiths can face discrimination, simply because they choose to attend a religious school. 

Neely v. Wyoming Ethics

The story of a small-town, Wyoming judge raises a big question: Is there room in our society for people to live according to different views of marriage?

Ruth Neely is a municipal judge and part-time circuit court magistrate from Pinedale, Wyoming. Shortly after Wyoming legalized same-sex marriage, a local reporter published an article stating that Judge Neely would be unable to perform same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs. Based on the article, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics launched an unprecedented investigation against her.

Even though Wyoming law does not require (or pay) judges to perform weddings at all, and she has never been asked to solemnize a same-sex wedding, and there are several other magistrates who would be happy to do so, the Commission recommended that Judge Neely be stripped of all her judicial duties and fined up to $40,000 because of her beliefs. Town residents, including members of the LGBT community, were incredulous. In Pinedale, Judge Neely is known as an exemplary, caring judge who has spent 21 years treating everyone fairly.

Judge Neely was forced to defend her religious beliefs in the Wyoming Supreme Court, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. In May 2016, Becket submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it would violate the Wyoming and federal constitutions to penalize Judge Neely because of her religious beliefs. In March 2017, the Wyoming Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s request for extreme sanctions, allowing Judge Neely to keep both of her judicial positions. But a bare majority of the Court, in a 3-2 vote, ruled that she cannot continue performing any marriage ceremonies unless she’s willing to violate her faith by personally performing same-sex ceremonies. The dissenting justices defended Judge Neely and got the big question right: “In our pluralistic society, the law should not be used to coerce ideological conformity. Rather, on deeply contested moral issues, the law should ‘create a society in which both sides can live their own values.’”

Becket stands ready to defend others like Judge Neely, who, despite government pressure to conform, courageously choose to follow their conscience.

Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Prisoners are people too

Prisoners lose many of their physical rights when they enter prison, but they do not lose their dignity. They may be unpopular, but they still have human rights.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA) was established to protect those rights. Congress unanimously passed RLUIPA in 2000 because prison bureaucrats around the country were arbitrarily banning Bible studies, confiscating sacred texts, denying access to the sacraments, and prohibiting religious diets to prisoners. These arbitrary bans not only undermined the rehabilitation of prisoners, but also stripped them of their dignity by denying their right to seek God.

A Texas-sized denial of dignity

Max Moussazadeh is an Orthodox Jew who was imprisoned in Texas and denied kosher meals. In October 2005, Becket sued the State of Texas on Mr. Moussazedeh’s behalf, arguing that the state was arbitrarily denying Mr. Moussazadeh’s religious freedom in violation of RLUIPA. The vast majority of prison systems across the U.S. provide Jewish prisoners with kosher meals, and have done so for many years. Texas could do so at a cost of less than 0.02% of the prison system’s annual food budget.

Victory and freedom

Thanks to Becket’s and Latham & Watkins’ lawsuit — which lasted twelve years and included two victories at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — the Texas prison system established a kosher diet plan and began providing Mr. Moussazadeh and all Orthodox Jewish inmates with kosher meals. Mr. Moussazadeh then put his lawsuit on hold, and ultimately dropped the lawsuit in 2017 after being released from prison.

Becket has also brought successful kosher meal cases against the states of Florida and Georgia, and assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. In 2015, it won a unanimous Supreme Court victory in Holt v. Hobbs, a landmark case protecting the right of all prisoners to peacefully practice their faith.

 

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar

An unconstitutional federal mandate 

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a federal mandate as part of the Affordable Care Act. The mandate required employers to provide all FDA-approved contraceptives in their health insurance plans, including the week-after pill, free of cost. Despite the obvious religious liberty issues with a contraceptive mandate, HHS included only a narrow religious exemption—one that did not include religious non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nun that runs homes for the elderly poor across the country.  

The Little Sisters’ Catholic beliefs about life and contraception meant that complying with the mandate was impossible. The Little Sisters initially tried to communicate their concerns with the federal government. In good faith, they believed that the government would grant them an exemption. After all, HHS already exempted thousands of other secular employers whose plans were “grandfathered” in under the new rule—including Exxon, Pepsi Bottling, and Visa—and even exempted the healthcare programs for the U.S. military. Instead, HHS doubled down, continued to refuse to exempt the Little Sisters, and threatened them with ruinous fines of tens of millions of dollars if they did not comply with the mandate.  

Five years of litigation—including at the Supreme Court 

In September 2013, represented by Becket, the Little Sisters of the Poor went to court against the federal government to protect their religious freedom. After a district court ruled against them, the Little Sisters appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which again ruled against them. However, on December 31, 2013, Justice Sotomayor of the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Little Sisters emergency protection against the rule, temporarily protecting them from fines. The entire Court then granted the Little Sisters a longer-term injunction in January 2014, and sent the case back to the Tenth Circuit for reconsideration. 

But after the Tenth Circuit ruled against the Little Sisters once more, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to review the Little Sisters’ case. In March 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, a consolidation of six cases brought by religious non-profits against the mandate, including the Little Sisters of the Poor. At the Supreme Court, the Obama administration admitted to the Court that the mandate required the Little Sisters’ participation and the use of their health plan, and that the government could provide contraceptive services in other ways that didn’t require using the Little Sisters. These key admissions cleared the path for the Supreme Court to find a solution.

In May 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court rulings against the Little Sisters, ordered the government not to fine the Little Sisters, and instructed the lower courts to provide the government an opportunity to find a way to provide services to the women who want them without involving the Little Sisters.  

Resolution at last, and a win-win outcome 

The Supreme Court decision was a victory, but one that would take another two years to reach completion. In May 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing HHS and other federal agencies to protect the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits from the mandate.  

On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption. In June 2018, the Little Sisters’ original case was finally resolved with an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And on November 7, 2018, HHS issued a rule  finalizing the Little Sisters’ religious exemption.  

The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court and the President’s executive order were big wins for the Little Sisters. But that does not mean anyone lost. As the Little Sisters had argued all along, the solution in no way bars the government from providing these services to women who want them. In fact, any alternative delivery method the government chooses could likely be applied not only to women in religious plans, but to the tens of millions of women in corporate and government plans HHS had previously exempted from the mandate. In the end, the government was able to both provide the mandated services free of charge to any woman who wanted them and accommodate the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs.  

IMPORTANCE TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs in order to further a government goal. 
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without the government dictating their beliefs.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations must be free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, both privately and publicly, at home and in the workplace.

Matal v. Tam

What do a Jewish-owned clothing line called “Heeb,” an Asian American rock band called “The Slants,” and the Washington Redskins have in common? The U.S. government says they are too “disparaging” to receive trademark protection.

In 2011 Simon Tam tried to register the name of his rock band, The Slants. The government rejected his application because “Slant” disparages Asian-Americans (watch his TedTalk, “Give Racism a Chance”). Tam, who is Asian-American, challenged the decision in court and won. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in January 2017.

For more than a decade, Becket and the federal government have fought laws banning “insulting” and “defaming” religious speech at the United Nations and in places like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Australia. These laws are widely abused to target religious minorities like Asia Bibi, the Pakistani woman sitting on death row for allegedly insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Becket filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging the government to stop excluding allegedly “disparaging” names from the federal trademark system. In December 2016, Becket told the Supreme Court that the U.S. government should practice at home what it preaches abroad: free speech for all, even speech that offends.

In June 2017 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 8-0 championing the band’s free speech.

Tam was represented by Eugene Volokh and Stuart Banner of the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, and John Connell of Archer & Grenier, P.C.

Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Township of Bernards

A suburban New Jersey town denied a small Muslim congregation the right to build a new mosque where it could meet to worship. So the congregation went to court.

A small mosque with a big dream

Mohammad Ali Chaudry is a Pakistani immigrant who has lived with his family in Basking Ridge, New Jersey for nearly 40 years. Chaudry, who has a Ph.D. in economics from Tufts University and is a retired AT&T executive, has a long history of community engagement, including serving on the town’s board of education and as mayor from 2004 to 2007. He is also the founding and current president of the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, a small Muslim congregation.

In 2008, Chaudry began looking for property to build a larger space to hold the Society’s prayer meetings and Sunday school for children. A few years later, Chaudry purchased a 4-acre site zoned for houses of worship and began planning construction. The small, unassuming mosque was designed to fit in with the residential neighborhood, without a traditional dome and with discrete minarets that looked like chimneys.

Red tape discrimination from the town board

In 2012, after the Society filed its application for a permit with the Township’s Planning Board, what ensued was four years of local bureaucratic quagmire. The Board held a record 39 public hearings during which time the Society faced hostility and vandalism from members of the local community.

The Society’s application met every requirement from the Township Planning Board, but the goal posts kept changing. For example, the 150-congregant mosque was required by local ordinance to have 50 parking spaces—the same amount required for churches and synagogues of the same size. But local bureaucrats changed the rules to require more than double that amount of parking for the mosque.

In January 2016, the application to build the mosque was ultimately denied.

Becket defends the right to worship

In March 2016, represented by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP,  the Society sued the town for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In May 2016, the Society asked the court to rule in its favor.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the mosque, which was signed by a diverse coalition including the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Becket, Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Muslim Bar Association of New York, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association of Evangelicals, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, Queens Federation of Churches, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, South Asian Bar Association of New York, and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey.

On November 22, 2016 the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Township of Bernards over the denial of zoning approval for the mosque. On December 31, 2016, the court ruled in favor of the mosque’s right to build.

In May 2017, the Township settled the lawsuits, agreeing to treat all houses of worship equally.

Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers

Meet Barronelle Stutzman, a floral artist and faithful Christian

For nearly forty years, Barronelle Stutzman has run Arlene’s Flowers, creating custom floral arrangements in the small town of Richland, Washington. As a Christian, she believes her creativity is a gift, and she uses that gift to honor God in her life’s work. As an artist, she enjoys helping her customers celebrate their life events and over the years has come to know many of them as friends.

For nine years Barronelle joyfully served long-time customer and friend Rob Ingersoll, designing custom arrangements for birthdays, Valentine’s Day and other holidays that he celebrated with his partner Curt Freed. In 2013 Rob asked Barronelle to do the flowers for his wedding. Although Barronelle has hired and served gay customers in the past with arrangements for other celebrations, she could not create something for a ceremony that violated her beliefs. She took Rob’s hands and told him with tears in her eyes that she values his friendship but could not participate in his wedding because of her faith. He told her he understood, and another florist quickly provided their wedding’s floral arrangements for free.

Washington Attorney General and ACLU sue Barronelle because of her beliefs

Barronelle was soon sued by the state’s Attorney General and the ACLU. In 2015, a state court ruled that Barronelle was personally liable for Rob Ingersoll’s $8 dollars in damages as well as his attorney’s fees, which means that she could lose her business, her home, and her life savings.

The Washington Supreme Court heard oral argument in Barronelle’s case in November 2016. Becket filed an amicus brief in February 2016 supporting Barronelle, who is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Other groups supporting Barronelle include the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the Coalition of African American Pastors USA, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Cato Institute, 27 law professors, and 13 states. In February 2017, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against Barronelle.

Becket defends people of faith from government hostility 

In August 2017, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case in tandem with the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and remanded Barronelle’s case back to the Washington Supreme Court. In March 5, 2019, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that state acted with religious hostility against Barronelle, in violation of her First Amendment rights, and that the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision requires the government to allow religious individuals to freely practice their faith.

On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against Barronelle Stutzman. On September 11, 2019, Barronelle appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. In this case, the government is forcing Barronelle to choose between her deeply held religious convictions and her livelihood.
  • Free speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular. In this case, Barronelle’s artistic expressions were a form of speech, and the government should not force her to create something that violates her religious beliefs.

Holt v. Hobbs

Protecting religious expression for prisoners is important, see why:

Religious freedom restricted for prisoners in “unnecessary ways”

Nearly two decades ago, Congress found that government bureaucrats routinely trample on religious liberty in prison. As the joint statement of Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Kennedy (D-MA) put it: “Whether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources, some institutions restrict religious liberty in egregious and unnecessary ways.”

These religious liberty restrictions affected people of many faiths. Many prisons barred Jewish inmates from wearing yarmulkes, denied Catholics access to the sacraments of communion and confession, and shut down Evangelical Bible studies. Many prisons also banned religious diets such as kosher food, confiscated and destroyed sacred texts, such as the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, and often banned religious objects, such as rosaries, prayer shawls, and yarmulkes. One prison prohibited various religious holidays, restricting prisoners’ ability to fast, pray, and worship God on special occasions. And in one extreme instance, prison officials violated the seal of the confessional by bugging inmates’ confessions to their priests.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

In response to these and many other displays of religious suppression, an overwhelmingly bipartisan Congress enacted a landmark civil rights statute, which was signed by President Clinton in 2000: the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

RLUIPA embodies a very simple principle: Prison officials should not impose egregious and unnecessary restrictions on religious liberty. Of course, prisoners lose many of their physical rights when they enter prison, but they cannot be forced to surrender peaceful expressions of their humanity due to the arbitrary whims of prison officials. Just as the Constitution prevents dehumanizing forms of cruel and unusual punishment, RLUIPA prevents stubborn bureaucrats from stripping inmates of human dignity by denying them the ability to seek God.

Despite RLUIPA, prisoners still face religious liberty violations

Despite the promise of RLUIPA, some inmates still experience persecution for peaceful displays of religious devotion. In June 2011, Abdul Muhammad, an inmate in an Arkansas state prison, sued in federal court for the right to wear a beard in accordance with religious beliefs. The Arkansas prison had denied Mr. Muhammad’s request to grow the ½ inch beard his Muslim faith commands, citing security and safety concerns, even though Arkansas already allowed inmates to grow beards for medical reasons, and even though Mr. Muhammad’s ½ inch beard would be permissible in 44 state and federal prison systems across the country.

Representing himself, Mr. Muhammad lost in federal trial court and in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. He then submitted a handwritten petition for an injunction to the Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted his petition and said that it would hear his appeal in full.

Unanimous victory at the Supreme Court

Becket and Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law stepped in to represent Mr. Muhammad at the Supreme Court. On January 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Muhammad, saying Arkansas had clearly put Mr. Muhammad in an impossible choice: to violate his beliefs or suffering disciplinary sanctions. The Court rejected Arkansas’s defenses, pointing out that because so many other states were able to accommodate inmates required to grow a beard for both medical and religious reasons, Arkansas had to explain why its situation was different.

Becket has long defended prisoners’ religious liberty, including protecting prisoners’ rights to kosher diets in Florida, Georgia, and Texas. Defending prisoners from arbitrary restrictions on their religious freedom strengthens religious liberty for all.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Individual religious freedom encompasses more than just thought or contemplation—it involves action. Individuals must be free to follow their religious convictions into practice, including when they are incarcerated.
  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons.

For the in-depth story, listen to the Stream of Conscience podcast episode about this case, Conviction and Confinement.

Baker v. Hands On Originals

A Christian printer ordered to violate his faith

Blaine Adamson owns Hands On Originals, a small screen printing shop in Kentucky that creates promotional materials like shirts, hats, blankets, and mugs. Blaine serves everyone regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. But he doesn’t print messages that are contrary to his faith, such as messages promoting violence. As printers across the country have agreed, it is standard industry practice for printers to decline messages that contradict their core beliefs. Blaine has operated this way for years without a problem.

Until 2012, when the Gay and Lesbian Services Organizations (GLSO) asked Blaine to create t-shirts promoting the local Pride Festival. Because the message of the t-shirts conflicted with Blaine’s religious beliefs, he offered to connect GLSO with other printers who would match his price. GLSO received numerous offers to print the t-shirts and ultimately received them for free. But GLSO filed a complaint with the local human rights commission, which ordered Blaine to print the shirts and attend “diversity training” to change his views.

Support from the LGBT community

Two different Kentucky courts have ruled that this sort of coercion is illegal. Blaine has also received strong support from the printing industry and LGBT business owners.

“This isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue. No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in. It’s as simple as that,” said Kathy Trautvertter & Diane DiGeloromo of BMP T-shirts.

Becket defends Blaine’s free speech

The human rights commission has now appealed the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court. In February 2018, Becket and University of Virginia Law Professor Doug Laycock, together with Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLCS, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Blaine. The brief argues: “Just as a pro-choice printer has a right to decline to print a religious message attacking Planned Parenthood, and a gay photographer has a right to decline to photograph a religious anti-gay rally, a Christian printer who believes in traditional marriage has a right to decline to print materials contradicting that view. The law protects the freedom of individuals in a pluralistic society to disagree.”

On October 31, 2019, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hands On Originals, further protecting free speech and our pluralistic society.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. In this case, the government is forcing Blaine Adamson to choose between his deeply held religious convictions and his livelihood.
  • Free speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular. In this case, Blaine’s artistic expressions are a form of speech, and the government should not force him to create something that violates his religious beliefs.

Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra

In May 2016, the federal government issued a mandate requiring that virtually every healthcare provider in the country be willing to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures. The mandate made no exception for providers who believe those procedures to be harmful or object to them on religious grounds, and it applied to all patients, including children.

The mandate elevated ideology over medicine. A growing body of research shows there significant risks with gender reassignment therapy, such as heart conditions, increased cancer risk, and loss of bone density. Moreover, most children who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it naturally without these invasive and irreversible procedures. So under the mandate, many doctors were being required to violate not only their religious beliefs, but also the Hippocratic Oath, on pain of draconian penalties.

An association of over 19,000 healthcare professionals, eight states, and two religious hospitals challenged the mandate in the federal court for the Northern District of Texas. (A similar suit, involving other challengers, was filed in North Dakota). In December 2016, the Texas court issued a preliminary ruling that the policy was an unlawful overreach by a federal agency and a likely violation of religious liberty. And in October 2019, the court confirmed its earlier ruling, explaining that doctors must be free to practice in their field of medicine without being forced to perform these controversial procedures that violate their faith.

The court did not, however, issue an order permanently stopping the government from imposing this unlawful mandate on religious hospitals and doctors. Becket therefore appealed on behalf of the challengers. In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court should consider further whether to grant that lasting protection.

Back at the district court, in August 2021, the judge granted the permanent relief the doctors and hospitals sought. The federal government and ACLU appealed. Then, on August 26, 2022, the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court, permanently protecting the freedom of doctors and hospitals to care for all patients in accordance with their conscience and experienced professional judgment.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: The freedom of conscience is the human right to believe, express beliefs, and act according to the dictates of an individual’s conscience. Becket defends the right of all individuals to live according to their consciences without government coercion.

Eternal Word Television Network v. Azar

An unconstitutional mandate threatened nun-founded Catholic television network

Thirty years ago, a cloistered nun named Mother Angelica started a small television network in her monastery garage to spread the teachings of the Catholic church. Today, the network she started, Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), continues her mission. But in 2011, EWTN’s ability to remain to its Catholic faith was threatened by the federal government.

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a federal mandate that required employers to provide services like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans, free of cost. Because the government refused to grant religious exemptions to religious non-profits like EWTN, the mandate would force the nun’s network to authorize and take part in providing contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion drugs to EWTN’s employees—fundamentally violating EWTN’s Catholic beliefs and mission. If EWTN did not comply with the mandate, it would face millions of dollars in fines from the IRS.

To continue its religious mission, EWTN spent seven years in court

EWTN refused to be part of the government’s plan to provide contraceptive services and drugs that destroy human life. In February 2012, Becket stepped in to represent EWTN in federal court.

What followed was nearly seven years of constant litigation. In June 2014, an Alabama district court ruled against EWTN days before the non-profit was due to face millions of dollars in IRS fines. Becket filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which granted EWTN emergency protection from the fines while its case was still ongoing. Then, in February 2015, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against EWTN—but it gave them shelter from the mandate until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the landmark case, Zubik v. Burwell. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case granted a victory to religious non-profits by directing the government to find another way to achieve its goals without violating religious liberty. Because of that ruling, the Eleventh Circuit threw out its previous ruling against EWTN and instead ordered EWTN and the government to address possible alternatives to the mandate.

A hard-won victory, at last

On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption, and on November 7, 2018, HHS issued a rule finalizing the exemption. On November 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit finally granted EWTN a hard-won victory when it ruled to end EWTN’s seven-year legal battle.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that the government cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs.
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to build and lead their ministries according to their beliefs free from governmental discrimination.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace.

East Texas Baptist University & Houston Baptist University v. Azar

Two Christ-centered Texas universities share a mission

East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University are Christian liberal arts colleges in Texas that hold faith central to their educational missions.

East Texas Baptist University (ETBU) is committed to “Christian stewardship” and “academic excellence while integrating faith with learning.”  Its religious beliefs include traditional Christian teachings on the sanctity of life—this includes that all human beings bear the image and likeness of God, and therefore that all human life is sacred and worth protecting.

The founders of Houston Baptist University (HBU) wanted to establish a Christian college that emphasized quality of life as well as quality of learning. The University’s current mission statement emphasizes the important Christian witness of its administration, faculty, and students, which abides by their central confession: “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

Baptists in America are sensitive to forced government actions that infringe on their religious liberty. America’s first Baptist leader, Roger Williams, fled Massachusetts and founded a colony in Providence, Rhode Island, because his religious beliefs were not allowed under Massachusetts laws. The rich Baptist tradition is manifested in the missions of these two Christ-centered Texas universities, so when a government mandate threatened their beliefs, they were forced to court to defend their religious freedom.

Challenging the HHS mandate

In 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services issued a mandate that forced these universities to either violate their faith-driven mission by providing services, such as the week after pill, or pay crippling IRS fines. So in October 2012, East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University went to court with Becket’s help to fight this unconstitutional mandate.

In March 2013, Westminster Theological Seminary intervened in Becket’s lawsuit on behalf of ETBU and HBU in federal district court, which ruled in favor of the religious universities in December 2013. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the district court’s decision in June 2015.

In July 2015, Becket, along with former Solicitor General and leading Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement, appealed to the Supreme Court on the universities’ behalf. In March 2016 the Court heard the case along with the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits in the consolidated case called Zubik v. Burwell.

Unanimous win-win outcome at the Supreme Court

On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously protected the religious groups, stating that that the government cannot fine ETBU and HBU for carrying out their religious beliefs in their health plans and must find another way to provide services to women who want them. It also threw out the lower court decision against the universities.

In May 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing HHS and other federal agencies to protect the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious ministries from the HHS mandate. Following the order, HHS Secretary Tom Price said that HHS “will be taking action in short order” to protect the Little Sisters and other religious ministries harmed by the mandate.

On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption. On November 7, 2018, the federal government issued a final rule protecting religious ministries like ETBU and HBU while offering alternative means for women to obtain free contraception.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs in order to further a government goal. 
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to organize and operate according to their beliefs without the government dictating their beliefs.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations must be free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, both privately and publicly, at home and in the workplace.

Duncan v. Nevada, Lopez v. Schwartz

Expanding educational opportunities for Nevada students

Like any other state, Nevada seeks to provide quality education to students of all incomes.

So in 2015, the state of Nevada established the Education Savings Account (ESA) program, which allocates money into a specified bank account for each child that, similar to a medical flexible spending account, parents can use only for education expenses such as tuition for private schools, books and tutoring.

The ESA program has allowed thousands of children to seek better educational opportunities, such as by seeking a private school education at a school of their choice.

Meet the activists who want the program gone

Yet not everyone is happy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are suing to end Nevada’s ESA Program. Why? Because the program uses state funds toward services that may be religiously affiliated.

The activist groups are using a 19th century state law with anti-Catholic roots called the Blaine Amendment, which prohibits the use of state funds toward “sectarian” schools. The law was originally enacted – and successfully used – to shut down an orphanage run by Catholic nuns. In the 1880s, forbidding “sectarianism” meant forbidding anything remotely Catholic, but now activist groups are using the term to single out any school that is “too religious.”

Both interpretations are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Becket defends religious schools, and the students who choose them

It is not up to the state to block schoolchildren from religious influence. Every child has the right to seek a better education, whether it is at a religious school or not. Becket is standing up to this blatant discrimination against religious schools and the students who choose them, and is urging the dismissal of this case.

On October 28, 2015, Becket filed an amicus brief  in  Duncan v. Nevada  in Nevada state court, stating, “To claim that the ESA Program funds ‘sectarian’ purposes is simply a modern spin on the same discrimination that birthed the Blaine Amendments.”

On May 18, 2016, that court dismissed the challenge to the ESA program, ruling that Nevada’s Blaine Amendment could not be used to stop neutral programs that allow parents to choose how to use their education funds. In September 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the ESA program did not violate the Blaine Amendment, because once the funds reach the parents’ hands they no longer constitute state money, but private funds to be put toward a child’s education. The Court’s decision means that once the State corrects the fund appropriation process, the program can move forward and benefit schoolchildren statewide.

In a related case, Lopez v. Schwartz, the district court granted temporary relief to the schools and students challenging Nevada’s ESA program. That case is now headed for the Nevada Supreme Court.

Nevada’s Office of the Attorney General and Bancroft, PLLC (Paul Clement) represented the state.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Education: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs without discrimination, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools. 
  • Dismantling discriminatory state laws: So long as anti-religious laws from the mid-19th century called Blaine Amendments remain in the books, people of all faiths can face discrimination, simply because they choose to attend a religious school. 

Douglas County School District v. LaRue

In 2011, Douglas County, Colorado created the Choice Scholarship Program to help low-income families send their children to a private school that best suits their child’s needs, some of which are religious schools.

But in June 2011, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and several Colorado organizations and taxpayers sued to stop the scholarship program. The court ended the program, ruling that it violated the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment, an arcane anti-religious provision adopted in the mid-19th century and originally used to discriminate against a growing wave of Catholic immigrants in the U.S.

To this day, Blaine Amendments remain in dozens of state constitutions and prohibit the use of state funds at “sectarian” schools.  They have an ugly history. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the U.S. endured a rash of anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant bigotry known as the “Know-Nothing” movement—decried at the time by Abraham Lincoln and in recent years throughout the courts. The movement unleashed a wave of religious discrimination in the form of Blaine Amendments, which were adopted in numerous state constitutions in the late 1800s and early 1900s and were designed to suppress Catholic schools in favor of Protestant-dominated public schools.

In April 2012, Becket filed an amicus brief in the Douglas County School District appeal, shining a spotlight on the Colorado Blaine Amendment’s ugly past and its unconstitutional treatment of children in religious schools who simply wish to be treated the same as children in secular schools. The Institute for Justice defended the county.

In February 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the scholarship program. The court wisely avoided relying on the Colorado Blaine Amendment, refusing to invoke its nefarious history. Yet in June 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the court of appeals decision, interpreting the Blaine Amendment to prevent scholarships from going to students who wanted to attend a religious school. In October 2015, Douglas County appealed to the Supreme Court.

Dermody v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)

Churches must have the right to follow their own religious rules, even if some church members disagree with how those rules apply to them. In this case, a disgruntled minister who had failed a church financial audit, threatened that right by asking the court to override the church’s enforcement of its internal financial guidelines against him.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)’s “1001” movement” is a mission project aimed at creating 1,001 new worshiping communities. Under watch of the project executive, a church minister, two employees violated church financial policy when they transferred $100,000 from the church’s accounts into a private entity they had set up. Although the employees did not intend to misuse the money and the money was ultimately recovered, the minister was cited by the church for his failed oversight. The Presbyterian Church immediately published the audit findings on its website and detailed the corrective measures it was taking. Although the church initially never published the minister’s name, he publicly admitted responsibility and then sued the church for defamation.

The minister’s lawsuit was filed in May 2015, and sought monetary compensation for the church’s allegedly defamatory statements. Last September, the trial court denied relief because the church’s statements appeared to be true and the First Amendment barred the court from second-guessing the church’s decision to enforce its standards of ethical conduct for religious leaders. The minister then appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in June 2016 on behalf of the church, arguing that, under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, courts cannot interfere with churches’ statements to their members about the conduct of their religious leaders. In July 2017, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), protecting the right of churches to operate their internal affairs without government intrusion. The church was represented by Stoll Keenan Ogden PLLC.

Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel

Centuries ago, the famous Jewish silversmith Myer Myers crafted sacred rimonim, finials that ornament the Torah scroll in a Jewish synagogue. Today these ancient religious artifacts remain safe under their rightful ownership according to Jewish law, thanks to a court victory protecting the right of houses of worship to make property contracts, just like all Americans.

A tale of two congregations

The case involves both the nation’s oldest Jewish synagogue—Congregation Shearith Israel—and the oldest Jewish synagogue building in the U.S., the Touro Synagogue building in Newport, Rhode Island. Shearith Israel was founded in 1654, and the Touro Synagogue building was built in 1763.

When Newport’s Jews faced persecution during the American Revolutionary War, they fled Newport and the synagogue building, many for New York. Without a congregation in Newport, Shearith Israel took over ownership of the synagogue, along with sacred ritual items such as the rimonim. When Jews returned to Rhode Island in the late 19th Century, Shearith Israel began leasing the synagogue and its sacred artifacts to a new congregation, Jeshuat Israel, under the agreement that they follow Shearith Israel’s religious practices.

In 2011, Jeshuat Israel wanted to sell the rimonim to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which Shearith Israel believed violated Jewish law and their longstanding lease agreement.

A property battle over the nation’s oldest synagogue

Jeshuat Israel went to court and in 2016 a federal district court judge ruled against Shearith Israel, saying that they were not the owners of the synagogue or the rimonim, and gave control of both to Jeshuat Israel. Instead of reviewing the two congregations’ legal agreements, the district court put its own spin on the relationship between the two congregations, ignoring the First Amendment principles that guarantee religious groups the right to make legally binding agreements.

Shearith Israel appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, and in October 2016, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Shearith Israel. Becket argued that the lower court should not have tried to decide issues concerning Jewish religious practice and instead should use secular legal documents to determine religious property disputes just as it would for any other organization. Houses of worship have the right to establish enforceable contracts, just like any other property owner.

The court heard oral argument in the case in March 2017, and in August, the court adopted the arguments in Becket’s brief and ruled in favor of Shearith Israel. Written by retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Judge Lynch, and Judge Baldock, the opinion ruled that Shearith Israel’s ownership of the colonial-era building and centuries-old artifacts should be enforced. In June 2018, the First Circuit let stand its decision in favor of Shearith Israel.

In March 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving in place Shearith Israel’s victory.

Colorado Christian University v. Azar

“A university like Colorado Christian University, whose employees and students share its religious convictions concerning the sanctity of life, should not be forced against its beliefs to distribute drugs that it deems to be morally wrong.” – Senior Counsel Eric Baxter

An unconstitutional mandate threatens a Christ-centered university

For almost a century, Colorado Christian University has offered an education that develops students intellectually, professionally, and spiritually. It’s faith-central mission seeks to cultivate knowledge and a love of God in a Christ-centered community, with an enduring commitment to spiritual formation. But in 2011, CCU’s founding principles were threatened by the federal government.

In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a federal mandate requiring employers to provide services like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans.  The government’s unprecedented intrusion into the health care realm forced the university to authorize and take part in providing services that violated their beliefs, or face crippling fines.

CCU fights back

In December 2011, CCU launched its initial lawsuit against the government’s unconstitutional mandate, making it the first interdenominational Christian college to challenge the HHS mandate in federal court. In August 2013, Becket stepped in to refile CCU’s lawsuit after the government’s new promised “accommodations” still infringed on the Christian university’s religious beliefs. In June 2014, the university won temporary relief at the federal district court.

On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption for religious non-profits. On July 11, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the university a permanent injunction, protecting CCU from having to violate its faith. And on November 7, 2018, the federal government issued a final rule protecting religious ministries like CCU.

Colorado Christian University is now free to continue carrying out its educational mission according to its religious beliefs.

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that the government cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs.
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to build and lead their ministries according to their beliefs free from governmental discrimination.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace.

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton
St. Peter’s Healthcare v. Kaplan
Dignity Health v. Rollins
Overall v. Ascension Health

Status: On June 5, 2017, U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously 8-0 protecting religious hospitals.

Faith-based hospitals draw inspiration from their religious heritage. Driven by their faith to provide compassionate care, these hospitals treat people of all faiths and backgrounds, and their wellness services go beyond just providing medical care. For example, Saint Peter’s Family Health Center also serves juvenile victims of abuse, economically disadvantaged families and mentally disabled or violence-prone youth. And Catholic Health Initiatives provides millions annually to benefit programs and services for the poor, such as free clinics.

These faith-driven hospitals also provide generous benefits to their employees, including pensions through the hospitals’ comprehensive church pension plans. Yet their beliefs and the charitable work they do are being threatened for no reason: a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers are targeting these hospitals for a payoff, dragging them to court and demanding that they pay their attorney fees. Their argument? That hospital ministries are not religious enough to have a tax-exempt church pension plan under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). However, it is not the job of lawyers to decide that hospitals can’t be part of a church, and the IRS has rightly viewed these ministries as part of a larger church for over 30 years.

The legal campaign against faith-based hospitals began in 2013. In 2015, the case Overall v. Ascension Health was settled. In 2016 three other cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, while almost a hundred more are waiting in lower courts across the country. On August 15, 2016, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court supporting the hospitals and their right to freely exercise their religious-based mission to provide compassionate and excellent healthcare according to their faith.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in March 2017. On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously 8-0 to protect religious hospitals founded and run by nuns, allowing them to continue providing generous benefits for their employees as well as free health services to their inner-city communities.

Ave Maria University v. Burwell

A service-oriented university inspired by Mother Theresa

Ave Maria University is a Catholic liberal arts educational institution dedicated to the formation of joyful, intentional followers of Christ through scholarship and service. The university is committed to transmitting authentic Catholic values to its students, who can then carry those values to the world.

President Jim Towey knows first-hand the immense value people of faith can bring society. Before Ave Maria, he served alongside Mother Theresa and worked with her for over 12 years to establish AIDS clinics and homeless shelters. Now through the university’s Mother Theresa Project, students serve domestic at-risk populations, including HIV victims, pregnant women, and displaced immigrants. Abroad, students serve with Habitat for Humanity in local schools, nursing homes, and missions in Mexico, Uganda and India. The university’s bold Catholic identity animates this work.

The HHS mandate threatens the university’s faith

But an unconstitutional mandate soon threatened the very faith that drives Ave Maria’s mission. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a federal mandate as part of the Affordable Care Act. The mandate required employers to provide services such as the week-after pill in their healthcare plans free of cost.

This left Ave Maria in a terrible bind: either betray its Catholic beliefs and cover the drugs, or end employee health benefits and pay hundreds of thousands in annual fines.  Faced with an impossible choice, the university went to court to defend its right to freely follow its faith.

Ave Maria fights back—and wins—in court

In August 2013, represented by Becket, Ave Maria refiled its lawsuit in federal district court, which granted the university a preliminary injunction in October 2014.

On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption for religious non-profits. On July 11, 2018, the federal district court granted the university a permanent injunction, protecting the university from having to violate its faith. And on November 7, 2018, the federal government issued a final rule protecting religious ministries like Ave Maria, definitively ending the case.

Ave Maria is now free to continue carrying out its educational mission according to its religious beliefs.

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that the government cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs.
  • Religious communities: Religious communities have the right to build and lead their ministries according to their beliefs free from governmental discrimination.
  • Individual freedom: Religious individuals and organizations are free to follow their faith in all aspects of their lives, including in the workplace.

Abeles v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA)

Like millions of Jews worldwide, Susan Abeles celebrates the religious festival of Passover, considered one of the most important holidays in Judaism. For 26 years as an employee of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) Susan would take four days off to observe the religious holiday. Each year she would submit the request with ample notice and send multiple email reminders of her upcoming time off. But in 2013, when she returned to work following Passover, her supervisors accused her of following leave protocol improperly. They eventually drove Ms. Abeles to retire early.

Ms. Abeles sued the MWAA for violating her right to observe her religious faith. In a friend-of-the-court brief Becket argued: The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority claims that it is not strictly a government entity and so does not have to follow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), giving it free rein to avoid all anti-discrimination laws and even terminate Jewish employees without consequence. But Becket and additional amicus the American Jewish Committee argue that MWAA is not above the law. Their brief states, “Can a governmental entity wielding the full force of law, armed with police and eminent domain powers and tasked with the oversight of two of the busiest airports in the country, properly declare itself exempt from the reach of both state and federal anti-discrimination law? …the law says no.”

A Virginia federal district court ruled against Ms. Abeles, and she appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In June 2016 Becket and the American Jewish Committee filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Ms. Abeles, who is represented by Nathan Lewin of Lewin & Lewin. In January 2017, a panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled against Susan Abeles. She appealed that ruling to the entire court, but was denied. In July 2017, she appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In August 2017, Becket and Jews for Religious Liberty filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the high court to take up the case, reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision and hold MWAA accountable to RFRA. In October 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Gloucester County v. G.G.

Title IX was enacted in 1972 to promote equality for men and women in education by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex.” But in May 2016, the U.S. Department of Education unilaterally announced a sweeping change: going forward “sex” would mean an individual’s “current, internal sense of whether the individual is male, female, neither, or a combination thereof.” Relying on this new definition, transgender student Gavin Grimm sued the Gloucester County School District in Virginia, challenging a school rule that requires all students to use the restroom that aligns with their biological sex. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Gavin’s favor, and the School District appealed to the Supreme Court. The county was represented by Gene Schaerr and Jonathan Mitchell.

In January 2017, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court that the new proposed definition of sex—if implemented—would harm religious organizations and individuals even beyond the field of education under Title IX. There are many laws that prohibit sex discrimination in other areas, including employment, health care, and social services. Many of those laws follow Title IX’s definitions. If “sex” were redefined in Title IX, it would be redefined in many other areas where Congress has not had opportunity to consider the consequences.

For example, if the Department of Education’s definition of “sex” under Title IX were adopted, the definition of “sex” in the Affordable Health Care Act would also be impacted. As a result, some religious health care providers could be required to perform gender transition surgeries on children against their best medical judgment. For instance, multiple lawsuits have already been filed against religious healthcare providers who believe that gender transition surgeries are harmful to children. Laws that regulate homeless shelters would also be affected so that church-run emergency shelters would be unable to respect their guests’ faith-based privacy or safety concerns by assigning sleeping quarters based on their biological sex. Religious organizations could be restricted from hiring employees who share and observe the organizations’ teachings about human sexuality and gender.

In late 2016, the Department of Education withdrew its definition of sex that supported Gavin’s lawsuit. As a result, the Supreme Court decided not to resolve the case, and instead sent it back to the Court of Appeals to see if the Department’s change of position should affect the outcome of the case.

In the meantime, Gavin graduated from high school. On August 2, 2017, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court to determine whether Gavin’s graduation now makes a court ruling unnecessary. The District Court concluded Gavin’s claim was still viable and ruled that Gloucester County’s policy that student’s use bathrooms according to their biological sex violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court denied review.   

The case finally ended in August 2021, when Gloucester County agreed to pay the ACLU $1.3 million dollars in attorney fees for representing Gavin. 

Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra

In May 2016, the federal government began implementing a mandate that would require a doctor to perform gender transition procedures on any patient, including a child, even if the doctor believed the procedure could harm the patient. The mandate required virtually all private insurance companies and many employers to cover gender reassignment therapy or face severe penalties and legal action.

But there were two major insurance plans exempted from HHS’s mandate—the plans run by HHS itself: Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Research shows that not only are there significant risks with gender reassignment procedures – especially in childhood – such as heart conditions, increased cancer risk, and loss of bone density, but studies of children with gender dysphoria found that fewer than 1-in-4 children referred for gender dysphoria continued to experience that condition into adulthood. The government’s own panel of medical experts concluded that these therapies can be harmful and advised against requiring coverage of these medical and surgical procedures under Medicare and Medicaid. 

Becket filed the lawsuit in federal court in November 2016 on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy, the University of Mary, and SMP Health System. The State of North Dakota also joined Becket’s legal challenge. In December 2016, two different federal courts ruled that the policy was an unlawful overreach by a federal agency and a likely violation of religious liberty. The decision to undergo gender reassignment therapy is a difficult and deeply personal one, and it is especially complicated and sensitive in the case of children. It is a healthcare decision that should be left between a family and their doctor, and not decided by politicians and government bureaucrats. 

In 2020, the government attempted to fix the unlawful rule, but that effort was blocked by other courts. On January 21, 2021, a court struck down the mandate. The court’s decision protects patients, preserves the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, and vindicates crucial conscience rights in medicine.  

The federal government appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which heard oral argument on December 15, 2021. On December 9, 2022, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, protecting religious doctors and hospitals by blocking the government mandate. The ruling was the second appellate ruling to do so, following the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra a few months earlier. 

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: The freedom of conscience is the human right to believe, express beliefs, and act according to the dictates of an individual’s conscience. Becket defends the right of all individuals to live according to their consciences without government coercion.

Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York

A school dedicated to teaching Catholic values

For over 200 years, Catholic schools in New York have provided top-notch elementary schools for ethnically and economically diverse students. And for over 60 years, St. Anthony’s Parish has run a school that is an integral part of that community of schools. Like other Catholic schools, St. Anthony’s is dedicated to create a Christ-centered, academically excellent and welcoming communities by teaching students to pursue knowledge in keeping with their Catholic faith. Every day at St. Anthony’s is infused with Catholic values.

Choosing the leaders of its faith

We all know schools don’t run themselves. For St. Anthony’s to be true to its Catholic teachings, it must have leaders who will respect and protect its Catholic identity. At St. Anthony’s, this all starts with the principal. The principal guides the religious mission of the school, ensuring that the school teaches its faith to its students on a daily basis. The principal exercises her leadership in many ways, including by offering daily prayer, attending the School’s monthly mass and annual feasts, encouraging students and faculty to participate in religious observances, and ensuring that the school curriculum embraces Catholic tradition.

The Supreme Court upholds the ministerial exception 

For decades, courts have ruled that religious schools can require their teachers to share their faith. In fact, in 2012 the Supreme Court unanimously agreed in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor that a 4th grade teacher at a Lutheran religious school is a minister for their faith, and a school has a right to select their ministers without permission from a government bureaucrat.

That right clearly applies to St. Anthony’s. As a Catholic school, St. Anthony’s has the right to choose its religious leaders free from government interference. But a former principal of the school, Joan Fratello, recently challenged that right after St. Anthony’s declined to renew her contract because of insubordination. She thinks that allowing St. Anthony’s to select its own leaders will aid “malevolent organizations and potential terrorists” and contribute to the “destruction of our future” as a country. Sadly, she’s supported by a group of trial lawyers who make money off of litigation and by an anti-religious academic who has long opposed what every justice on the Supreme Court supported in 2012.

Ms. Fratello not only personally provided religious prayer, guidance, and instruction, she also supervised all the teachers with the same duties. Under the law, that means she was a minister. A religious leader who supervises a religious school’s ministries is herself a minister.

Becket stepped in to represent St. Anthony’s. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in the case in March 2017. In July 2017, the court protected the right of St. Anthony School and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York to choose their own leaders.

In August 2017, Fratello’s lawyer filed a frivolous request for the full Second Circuit to reverse its unanimous ruling, which he compared to the infamous Dred Scott decision while comparing the church to “slave owners.” Becket opposed his attempt to prolong the lawsuit and urged the court to put an end to his abusive attacks on the church and the court. The Court denied Fratello’s petition shortly after Becket filed its opposition.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Freedom of religious groups to choose their own leaders: This case set an important precedent, confirming the principle of “ministerial exception” that ensures religious groups have the right to choose their own leaders.
  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Both church and state are better off when the government isn’t meddling in the internal religious affairs of a religious ministry, including a religious school.

Chi Alpha v. Cal State

For 40 years, a group of Christian students have been gathering at Cal State Stanislaus in California’s Central Valley. They call themselves Chi Alpha (Greek letters standing for “Christ’s Ambassadors”) and they were long a recognized part of student life. All that changed this fall when the university yanked their charter and locked them out of their meeting space.

Chi Alpha’s sin? Asking their student religious leaders—who lead worship and Bible study—to share Christian beliefs. Cal State accused Chi Alpha of “religious discrimination” and told the students that, after 40 years, their Christian group was not welcome on campus.

Chi Alpha exists to help college students live out their faith in worship, prayer, and service.

The Chi Alpha group at Cal State Stanislaus is a chapter of Chi Alpha National, the student arm of the Assemblies of God, one of the ten largest churches in the U.S. Chi Alpha was founded in 1953 as a place where college students could learn about Christianity and live out their faith together.

Today, more than 28,000 students gather in Chi Alpha groups across the country. They gather to worship God, study the Bible, pray, and to give back through programs like feedONE, which provides food for over 140,000 hungry children worldwide. Their Christian faith is what unites them and motivates them to serve. And while Chi Alpha membership is open to any student, Chi Alpha asks that the students that lead its worship services and teach its Bible studies actually believe its Christian message.

Cal State’s selective “all-comers” policy

Believe what you teach – most places, that’s called integrity. But not at Cal State.

California State University (Cal State) is the largest public university system in the nation. Chi Alpha has been a recognized part of the Cal State community for over 40 years. That changed this fall, when Cal State Stanislaus told Chi Alpha students that they were guilty of “religious discrimination” for asking that their student religious leaders be Christian.

Within twenty-four hours of being branded as “discriminators,” Chi Alpha’s students found themselves locked out of their reserved meeting space and shut out of the other parts of campus life open to all other student groups.

Today at Cal State, the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance can (and should be allowed to) require its leaders to be feminists. The Young Democrats can (and should be allowed to) require their president to be a Democrat. And frats can require their leaders to be men. But neither Chi Alpha—nor any other religious group—can require its leaders to believe in the message the group exists to teach.

If a religious student group stands its ground, Cal State will brand it a “religious discriminator,” pull its charter, and shut it out of the campus community of recognized student groups. Because these consequences are so severe, many of the students leading these groups feel they have no option but to give in.

Chi Alpha fights back

On March 17, 2015, Chi Alpha wrote a letter to Cal State insisting that the Chi Alpha group at Cal State Stanislaus be reinstated immediately. Religious students shouldn’t be branded “discriminators” and have their groups excluded from the campus community for asking their leaders to have integrity.

After over a year of having various chapters kept off campus, Chi Alpha was finally reinstated at all campuses within the California State University system on November 19, 2015. The decision affirmed Chi Alpha’s right to choose leaders who lived by their standards and their Christian faith.

 

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans

In Texas, drivers have the option of personalizing their vehicles with a specialty license plate. Many of these are designed and submitted by private organizations. In 2015, there were 80 license plates to choose from, with messages that ranged from: support for the University of Oklahoma and the Louisiana State University; advertisements for Mighty Fine Burgers, Freebirds Burritos, Dr. Pepper soda, and Re/Max real estate; and the statement that the driver would “Rather be Golfing.” Some license plates display viewpoints that some government entities oppose as offensive, such as Texas Trophy Hunters Association, “Choose Life,” or “One State Under God” (featuring three crosses).  

In 2009, the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans (SCV) submitted an application for a license plate design featuring the Confederate battle flag and the name of its organization. When the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board rejected the design twice, the SCV sued the Board, and then lost in district court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and sided with SCV. The U.S. Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case.  

On February 17, 2015, Becket, represented by prominent Free Speech expert and law professor Eugene Volokh, filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court arguing that, although Becket does not agree with or support the use of the Confederate flag, allowing government restriction of highly offensive speech violates the First Amendment. Although Texas retained the right to final approval authority, the State never once exercised this right until the SCV submitted its design. When it comes to private speech in the public forum, such as non-profit organizations using bus or subway advertisement space, viewpoint neutrality has always been a constitutional requirement. Becket argues that the government should not have broad authority to discriminate against private speech, however controversial, because such power in the hands of the state is dangerous for free speech and the free expression of religion. 

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case on March 23, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the Court ruled 5-4 that the specialty license program constituted government speech, and so the rule against viewpoint discrimination did not apply to the State. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Free Speech—Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand in hand. We believe in order for a free democracy to be preserved, we must allow a wide variety of voices and opinions to coexist, even conflict. The government doesn’t get to decide what speech is permitted based on whether it is offensive.  
  • Public Square—Messages that offend should not be scrubbed from our public spaces. Allowing differing viewpoints in the public square ensures a diverse marketplace of ideas—including religious ideas that offend many—which is the bedrock of a free society.  

Gaddy v. Georgia Department of Revenue

In 2008 the state of Georgia created a scholarship program that allows children of low income families to attend a school, religious or secular, that best fit their needs. The scholarships are funded through voluntary donations from Georgia taxpayers, who could count the donations as tax credits.

But the program is now being threatened by a group that claims the scholarship program violates Georgia’s Blaine Amendment, an arcane anti-religious provision adopted in the mid-19th century and originally used to discriminate against a growing wave of Catholic immigrants in the U.S.

To this day, Blaine Amendments remain in dozens of state constitutions and prohibit the use of state funds at “sectarian” schools.  They have an ugly history. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the U.S. endured a rash of anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant bigotry known as the “Know-Nothing” movement—decried at the time by Abraham Lincoln and in recent years throughout the courts. The movement unleashed a wave of religious discrimination in the form of Blaine Amendments, which were adopted in numerous state constitutions in the late 1800s and early 1900s and were designed to suppress Catholic schools in favor of Protestant-dominated public schools.

If this scholarship program ends, thousands of low-income children will be deprived of the education they need to succeed. And if the lawsuit succeeds, severe limitations would block the government from working with vital private charities, forbidding crucial service organizations from accepting even neutral government aid.

In December 2016, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief to defend the tax credit program and to condemn Georgia’s anti-religious Blaine Amendment, which is being used to prevent children from getting the best education for their needs. In January 2017, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument, and in June 2017, ruled to protect low-income schoolchildren and their scholarship program. Georgia’s Office of the Attorney General was counsel in this case.

American Humanist Association v. Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District

On March 31, 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA), a group of hypersecularist atheists, partnered with New Jersey atheists to rip the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The complaint marks their second state level assault on the Pledge. The first suit—a Massachusetts based challenge that raised identical claims—was unanimously rejected by Massachusetts’ highest court.

Becket vindicated the Pledge in Massachusetts, and is committed to doing the same in New Jersey. On July 28th, 2014, Becket intervened on behalf of three New Jersey public school students, their parents Frank and Michele Jones, and a fraternal organization called the Knights of Columbus.

Each argument offered by the atheists has been overwhelmingly rejected in every state and federal challenge leveled against the Pledge to date. At root, the AHA’s suit is based on one critically flawed assumption: that the phrase “under God” is a theologically charged religious statement.

For over a decade, Becket has demonstrated the fallacious nature of that assumption. The phrase “under God” encapsulates America’s unique political philosophy that grounds human dignity and fundamental rights in an authority higher than the State. Consequently, historic appeals to “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farwell Address, and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address are not primarily religious. By adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (reaffirmed in 2002), Congress sought to contrast the mutually exclusive conceptions of human rights envisioned by the United States and the U.S.S.R.

Courts have recognized that the Pledge is constitutionally permissible because it uses the phrase “under God” as a statement of political philosophy, not theology. So far, Becket has successfully defended the Pledge of Allegiance in the First Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court, and the United States Supreme Court.

Removing the words “under God” would prevent the Pledge from reminding children that citizens have inalienable rights; rights that the State cannot trample because “a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights.” That guiding principle protects the rights of every American. Now is hardly the time weaken the philosophy that has guided this Republic since its Founding.

On February 6, 2015, Samantha Jones, a high school student in New Jersey, successfully protected the right of all her fellow students to continue reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety. A great victory for religious freedom. On April 13, 2015, the American Humanist Association decided not to appeal Samantha’s victory, marking Becket’s fifth victory in a row defending the words “one nation under God.”

Watch footage of Samantha Jones’ statement following the hearing on November 19, 2014:

Church of Our Savior v. City of Jacksonville Beach

The Church of Our Savior, an Anglican congregation in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, is now free to begin construction on a new, permanent house of worship for its growing congregation.

A small church in an even smaller building

In 2013, Resurrection Anglican Church joined with another Anglican church in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, to form the Church of Our Savior. Since its founding, the Church has worshiped in six different facilities, including the historic Beaches Museum Chapel. The Church leased the Chapel for Sunday worship, as well as major holiday celebrations, weddings and Bible studies.

Yet the Chapel was a less than ideal home. The facility’s maximum capacity of 140 people forced the Church to split into two separate Sunday services, which limited the Church’s growth and inhibited its ability to worship in one unified celebration. To make matters worse, the congregation could not secure a long-term lease with the Chapel, and therefore had no permanent place to worship.

The search for a permanent building to call home

Reverend David Ball, pastor of the Church of Our Savior, had long dreamed of one day building and owning a permanent home for the Church. He searched throughout Jacksonville Beach for a property that was affordable, visible, and accessible. After years of searching, he finally found a property located in a charming residential area that was all three.

Hopeful in its prospects, the Church applied for a permit to be able to construct the new facility. But its permit application was denied twice.

Becket defends the Church of Our Savior

The Church of Our Savior sued, citing a federal civil-rights law that protects churches –  the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) –  and arguing that it had been treated unequally to other similar, nonreligious organizations seeking permits. Becket, along with attorneys Dan Dalton of Dalton & Tomich and Charles Stambaugh of Stambaugh & Associates, defended the Church of Our Savior in its fight for a new, permanent house for worship.

After a federal district court ruled in the Church’s favor in the fall of 2014, the Church and the City settled the case, allowing the Church to begin construction on its new home. The church dedicated their new church facility in October 2017. 

Odgaard v. Iowa

Meet the Odgaards

It was their home away from home.

Betty and Richard Odgaard are a small-town Mennonite couple. In 2002, they rescued a nearly century-old church that was going to be torn down to make room for a gas station. Instead, they converted the church into an art gallery to display Betty’s and other local artists’ work. Inside the Görtz Haus Gallery, the couple also ran a bistro and a small framing, flower, and gift shop.

The Odgaards also personally hosted weddings in the old sanctuary several times a year. For every wedding, Betty would meet with the bride multiple times, plan the celebration, and design the wedding flowers and decorations. Richard would prepare the sanctuary for the ceremony, handle the sound system, and assist the officiant and guests. Each wedding kept them at the gallery from morning until night to set up, facilitate, and clean up after the ceremony. Running the gallery wasn’t just a business; it was the Odgaards’ life’s work.

Their life’s work as an expression of their faith

Betty and Richard chose to keep the church’s religious elements as an expression of their Christian faith. Latin crosses still adorn the building, both inside and out. Stained glass windows depict Biblical images, and a scripture verse on the wall welcomes all visitors. Many of Betty’s paintings displayed in the gallery also express religious themes.

Through the years, the Odgaards gladly hired gay employees and served gay customers at the gallery’s shops and bistro. However, they could not participate in a wedding ceremony that violated their religious beliefs.

After over a decade, the Odgaards were forced to shut down the gallery when the Iowa Civil Rights Commission tried forcing them to personally host a same-sex wedding ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. The state’s prosecution began after a same-sex couple sued the Odgaards, even though there were numerous nearby venues that are eager to host same-sex weddings.

An intense media campaign was launched against the Odgaards. They were subjected to hate mail, boycotts, personal attacks, and even death threats. Officials in the Civil Rights Commission showed open disdain for the Odgaards’ religious rights, and even denied them access to state court to defend their religious liberty claims. Shockingly, the state refused to dismiss its case against the Odgaards even after the two men—contrary to their prior sworn statements—admitted they had been married months before asking the Odgaards to host their ceremony.

Becket defends the Odgaards’ religious liberty

Becket defended the Odgaards in their lawsuit. Facing growing pressure from the state and potentially years of legal proceedings, the Odgaards chose to remain true to their faith. They settled the charges brought against them, paying thousands of dollars to the couple, and agreed to stop hosting all weddings. Without this vital income, the Odgaards were forced to close the gallery.

While heartbroken to see their life’s work end this way, the Odgaards’ faith is stronger than ever, and they’re certain they did the right thing in staying true to their beliefs.

A local church later purchased the gallery as a house of worship, which would mean it can continue to express the Odgaards’ Christian faith—and this time, even the state of Iowa has to respect it.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

The state of California has been forcing religious objectors to speak. Religious groups like the Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) and members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have been forced to either pay trade union dues or pay equivalent fees to one of the three union-approved “nonreligious, nonlabor” charities.

The end result is that religious objectors are forced by the state government to fund either the union or the predetermined set of charities. CEAI has sued the California Teachers Association (CTA) asserting that the state is using its power to coerce religious objectors to support speech they do not agree with.

Becket joined the fight at the Supreme Court with a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that government coercion of religious objectors should not be excused simply because the coercion is taking place through separate avenues such as the collective bargaining agreement. When someone funnels illicit funds through a third party it’s called money laundering, when the government tries to use one person to control another person it’s called coercion laundering. Jones Day and the Center for Individual Rights represented the religious groups.

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen & Holy Cross Anglican Church

As a minister with over 25 years of service and a Benedictine abbot, Father Patrick Malone has long been serious about his faith.

So when he  became the vicar of Holy Cross Anglican Church, Father Malone carried that commitment into preaching how to live as faithful Christians. This includes guiding Holy Cross’s 55 members about seeking justice and protect the disadvantaged in society, especially those who are threatened by unjust laws.

To Father Malone and Holy Cross, this requires preaching on issues like abortion and against the politicians and candidates who support abortion. They believe that silence on the sanctity of life, even while remaining true to other Anglican beliefs with fewer public policy implications, would be just as unfaithful to God as churches that preached against gambling in the antebellum South while failing to stand against slavery. Instead, they follow the tradition of their Anglican forbears who preached to reform child labor laws, the slave trade, and prison policies.

But the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a lawsuit demanding that the IRS enforce a law banning Father Malone’s sermons to Holy Cross. While the IRS has long banned sermons that concern political candidates or certain hot-button moral issues, it has generally avoided actually enforcing the ban against churches, likely because it knows that its rules stand on shaky constitutional ground.

The anti-religious FFRF noticed, and sued in a Wisconsin-based federal district court to force the IRS to start enforcing the ban against churches like Wisconsin-based Holy Cross Anglican.  FFRF wanted the IRS to punish Father Malone and the Church for his sermons by imposing regulations that would revoke the Church’s tax-exempt status, involve the IRS in the Church’s finances, and levy fines against both the Church and individual leaders, such as Father Malone.

Becket successfully intervened on behalf of Father Malone and Holy Cross to defend their rights to freely preach. While there’s room for religious disagreement over what pastors should preach, those religious decisions should be left to churches, not the IRS or FFRF. This case presented a unique opportunity to defend a church’s right to preach free from IRS censorship.

On August 1, 2014, the Court granted FFRF’s request to dismiss its own lawsuit, fleeing from its attempt to use the IRS to censor houses of worship who preach on moral issues with political implications.

 

Central Rabbinical Congress v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

This case involves an unprecedented government regulation of Jewish religious circumcision practices. Last year the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a new circumcision regulation. It penalizes Jewish rabbinical officials known as mohels who engage in the millennia-old circumcision practice of metzitzah b’peh unless the mohels force the infant boy’s parents to sign a form stating the City’s disapproval of the religious practice. The mohels believe the form to be both factually false and an unwarranted interference in a religious practice that has gone on for literally thousands of years.

Represented by Jones Day, several rabbis who act as mohels, along with several Orthodox Jewish rabbinical and community organizations, sued in Brooklyn federal district court, raising both freedom of speech and freedom of religion claims. The federal district court denied the rabbis’ request for an injunction against the city’s regulation, holding that as long as there was some plausible rational basis for the regulation, it would be valid. The rabbis then appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Becket filed an amicus brief in the appeal along with Prof. Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, arguing that because New York City’s regulation targeted a specific religious practice, the highest form of judicial constitutional review — “strict scrutiny” — was required under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. That is especially so because of documented levels of strong hostility towards Orthodox Jews and their religiously motivated practices in New York and surrounding municipalities. Becket did not offer an opinion on whether New York City’s regulation was justified by the health interests it is claiming to protect, only that because of the weighty interests involved, the proper level of constitutional scrutiny should have been applied by the district court judge. The brief has engendered much discussion within New York and elsewhere, particularly because it puts a spotlight on increasing government attacks on Orthodox Jewish practice in New York City and elsewhere.

On August 15, 2014, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the Orthodox Jewish mohels, largely adopting the arguments made in Becket’s brief. The court sent the case back to the district court for the application of “strict scrutiny.”

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

A family seeking the American Dream        

David and Barbara Green founded Hobby Lobby in a garage. From the beginning, it has been a family business—David worked an extra job to support his family, Barbara mailed out orders, and their children glued picture frames at the kitchen table in exchange for money to buy baseball cards. Hobby Lobby has since grown from one 300-square-foot store to more than 700 stores across the country, becoming one of the nation’s leading arts and crafts retailers. Their success story is a true example of the American dream.

The Greens are devout Christians who seek to honor God by “operating their company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” All stores are closed on Sundays and only operate 66 hours per week to allow employees to spend evenings and Sundays with their families.  The Greens start all full-time hourly workers at more than double the federal minimum wage because they believe in treating people well.

A mandate that violates the Green family’s faith

In 2011, the government’s HHS Mandate required the Greens to provide insurance coverage for potentially life-terminating drugs and devices, contrary to the family’s religious convictions—or pay millions of dollars in fines to the IRS.

The Green family has no moral objection to 16 of 20 contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby has continued its longstanding practice of covering these drugs and services for their employees. However, the Greens could not provide or pay for four drugs and devices like the morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these services would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception.

Becket leads the Green family to a Supreme Court victory

The Green family respects the rights of all Americans. But they believed that Hobby Lobby could not stay true to its mission while providing services that go against their beliefs. All they asked was that the government allow them to continue running their family business—providing quality jobs for the employees and quality products for their customers—according to their faith.

With the help of Becket, the Green family went to court to defend their rights and won, proving you don’t leave your religion at the door when you open a family business. After a two-year legal battle, on June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a landmark victory for religious liberty, ruling 5-4 in favor of David and Barbara Green and their family business.

To hear the in-depth story, listen to our Stream of Conscience Podcast episode about this case, Pills and Principles.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. Americans do not lose their religious beliefs when they open a family business.
  • HHS Mandate cases: Winning the HHS mandate cases sets an important precedent, confirming that federal agencies cannot unnecessarily force religious people to violate their beliefs in order to further a government goal.

U.S. v. Florida Department of Corrections

Prisoners are not popular, but they are human. That is why Becket defends religious freedom for prisoners.

In 2000, Congress discovered that government bureaucrats were routinely trampling religious freedom in prison. They were needlessly confiscating sacred texts, breaking up worship meetings, and banning religious diets. So Congress unanimously passed a law that forbids arbitrary restrictions on religious freedom in prison.

Invoking that law, Becket defended the rights of religious prisoners in Florida for over a decade. Until July 2016, Florida’s was one of the last prison systems in the country that denied its inmates religious appropriate diets. Becket sued Florida twice over the denial of a kosher diet—first in 2002, then in 2012. Both times it received a favorable result on behalf of one Jewish prisoner. Then represented by the Department of Justice, the United States government itself sued the Florida Department of Corrections on behalf of all observant prisoners.

In 2015, a federal district court ordered Florida to begin providing kosher meals for all observant Jewish inmates, and the Department appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Becket, represented by the global law firm Jones Day, filed an amicus brief in March 2016 urging the protection of the religious rights of all prisoners. The brief points out that at least 35 states and the federal government provide kosher diets to Jewish prisoners, and there is no reason the Florida Department of Corrections can’t do the same. The court heard oral arguments in July 2016, and two days later it affirmed the district court’s order to provide religious diets for observant Jewish prisoners. In October 2016, in another case that Becket supported with an amicus brief, the Court ruled that the Department must provide a religious diet for a Muslim inmate.

Becket, which has successfully represented or supported religious prisoners in Georgia, Texas, Indiana, and in past Florida cases, has never lost a case concerning a prison system’s denial of religious diets. In 2015, it won a landmark, 9-0 ruling in favor of prisoners at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Islamic Center of Murfreesboro v. Rutherford County

A faithful congregation outgrows its mosque

For 30 years, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro offered worship services, religious education, and community service in Rutherford County, Tennessee. As its congregation grew, the mosque’s 2,100 square foot space became too small for the hundreds of families and local college students it served. In 2010, the congregation obtained county approval to begin building a larger community center for religious ceremonies and other events.

Religious hostility and a heated lawsuit

After construction began, the congregation faced vocal protests from local residents who claimed, among other things, that Islam is not a religion, and that the First Amendment doesn’t protect Muslims. Unfortunately, these hostile words were also backed by acts of violence—including vandalism, arson, and even a bomb threat that ended in a federal indictment.

Hostility to the mosque culminated in a lawsuit led by local residents. Although the mosque was approved at a typical meeting of the county planning commission in 2010—the same way the county had approved the last twenty local churches—the judge ruled that the mosque should be subject to a heightened legal standard, due to “tremendous public interest.”

Becket defends the Muslim community’s right to build a house of worship  

The case was urgent—the congregation wanted to be allowed to use its mosque in time to celebrate Ramadan, the holiest time in the Muslim calendar.

So Becket filed a federal lawsuit seeking an emergency order allowing the congregation to use its mosque. We argued that subjecting the mosque to a higher legal standard than a Christian church violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

In July 2012, Chief Judge Todd Campbell of the Nashville federal district court ruled in our favor, saying that Rutherford County, Tennessee, must allow the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro to complete the inspection process so it can use its mosque building in time for the religious holiday of Ramadan. Finally, in August 2012, members of the Islamic Center used their newly built mosque for prayer services for the first time. And in June 2014, the Supreme Court rejected the mosque opponents’ final appeal, preserving Becket’s victory and ensuring that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is free to continue worshipping at its newly built mosque.

No religion is an island. When the rights of one faith are threatened, the rights of all faiths are threatened. All religious communities must be free to gather together in worship.

To hear the full story and learn more about this case, listen to Becket’s Stream of Conscience Podcast episode, “Permits and Prejudice”.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Property Rights: When it comes to property rights, religious communities—especially minority religious groups—often face discrimination from local governments or their communities. Becket defends the right of all faiths the practice their religion, which includes the crucial ability to build and gather in a house of worship.
  • Religious Communities: Religious communities have the right to operate according to their religious beliefs even if the wider community around them disagrees with those beliefs.

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Weber (Big Mountain Jesus)

A mountain memorial to honor fallen soldiers

Since 1954, a statue of Jesus has stood atop a Montana ski slope as a monument to soldiers who died in World War II.

After World War II, soldiers from the Army’s 10th Mountain Division returning to Montana sought to commemorate their fallen comrades with a monument that evoked memories of the shrines and statues they had seen in their battles through the mountains of Europe. To honor these soldiers who had sacrificed so much for their country, the Knights of Columbus (Kalispell Council No. 1328) commissioned the statue of Jesus and applied to the United States Forest Service for a permit to place it on Big Mountain. Since 1954, the statue has stood on a 25’ x 25’ plot of Forest Service land, near the top of Whitefish Mountain Resort—which also leases the plot and the surrounding land from the Forest Service for its ski slopes.

Atheists seek to scrub religion from our history

The Knights’ permit had been renewed every ten years without incident until 2010. Then, the Wisconsin-based FFRF threatened to sue the Forest Service for offending its supposed right to be free from seeing anything religious—even across the country in Montana. The Forest Service, buckling under pressure, initially denied the permit. Amidst the public outcry that followed, it eventually recognized the statue’s historical and cultural significance to the local community. In February 2012, FFRF sued to have the statue permanently removed.

Becket defends “Big Mountain Jesus”

Just after Memorial Day in May 2012, Becket joined the lawsuit to represent the Knights of Columbus and several individuals who had voluntarily maintained the statue for more than sixty years. Becket argued that religious symbols should be treated on fair grounds with other commercial, historical, and cultural symbols that abound on public land.

In June 2013, the district court ruled in Becket’s favor and dismissed the case. FFRF appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument in July 2015. In August 2015, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Becket that “Big Mountain Jesus” can remain standing.

FFRF’s deadline to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision passed in February 2016, protecting the war memorial in place for good.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Public Square: Because religious exercise is natural to human culture, it has a natural place in the public square. Religious symbols should not be treated as dangerous expression, scrubbed from society. Instead, the government can and should recognize the important role of religion in our history and culture.

For the in-depth story, listen to Becket’s Stream of Conscience podcast episode about this case, “Slopes and Statues.”

Sindicatul “Pastorul cel bun” v. Romania

The stakes could not be higher for European churches. Sindicatul v. Romania concerns a group of priests of the Romanian Orthodox Church who sought to form a trade union against the wishes of their ecclesiastical leaders.

The Romanian courts and the Romanian government found that the establishment of such a “rogue” union would violate the church’s religious freedom, in that it would permit the government to meddle in the employment decisions of a church. However, the priests appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and a small panel ruled that the priests’ right to unionize trumped the church’s religious liberty. The Romanian government appealed to the ECHR’s Grand Chamber, which is the highest panel within the European human rights system.

Becket and other civil society groups publicly urged the Grand Chamber to take up the case and undo the smaller panel decision. To that end, Becket published an article in a Romanian law review, Revista de Drept Social, and presented remarks regarding the case at the Council of Europe in June 2012.

A month later, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR decided to take the case. The Grand Chamber then permitted Becket to file a third-party brief, along with the International Center for Law and Religion Studies, headed by BYU law professor Cole Durham, and Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell. The brief argued that churches, synagogues and other religious organizations have a right to order their internal affairs without government interference.

In July 2013, the ECHR made its groundbreaking 11-6 decision affecting the rights of religious groups in Europe. The Grand Chamber ruled that the Romanian Orthodox Church’s right of religious autonomy trumped the right of dissident Romanian Orthodox priests to create a trade union.

Why is it important for churches to have autonomy in managing the ministers who communicate their faith? Becket’s brief provides a simple answer to this question: Just as the conscience of a person – how he or she decides what to believe – is absolutely protected from government interference, so are the processes by which a church decides what it believes, namely, its ability to order its relationships with employees who teach and communicate the faith. Therefore, government officials should not have power to invade the interior life of the church by imposing outside decisions on the church. This non-interference principle is essential in any pluralistic, democratic society — especially as Europe and America become increasingly religiously diverse.

Notably, Becket argued a similar church autonomy case, Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. The Court unanimously decided in favor of religious freedom, ruling that religious organizations have special rights when it comes to hiring people who communicate their doctrine and minister to their congregants.

Romeike v. Holder

In January 2010, the Romeikes were presented with a choice no parents should have to make: abandon their religious beliefs, or lose custody of their children.

The Romeike family is from the German state of Baden-Württemberg, and chose to educate their children at home in order to follow their Evangelical Christian beliefs. However, state authorities refused to accept this and sent police to march the Romeike children to the local public school, invoking the Schulpflichtgesetz, or School Duty Law. The family fled from their homeland to Tennessee, and sought asylum in the United States.

In July 2010, Becket submitted an amicus brief to the United States Board of Immigration Appeals. It described the disturbing Nazi-era background of the School Duty Law, and explained that the original purpose of the law was to suppress “the development of religiously and philosophically motivated parallel societies.” The Romeikes were not evading their duty to educate their children, only the state’s attempt to indoctrinate their children against their religious beliefs.

An immigration judge granted the Romeikes’ request for asylum, but the federal government appealed that decision, and in May 2013 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled against the Romeikes.

Watch Becket’s Daniel Blomberg discuss the religious liberty implications of this case at FRC University (starts at 22:00 min).

daniel

 

Watch Becket’s Luke Goodrich debate Does Germany’s Ban on Homeschooling Count as Religious Persecution? at the University of St. Thomas.

http://www.frc.org/eventregistration/should-the-state-raise-your-kids

Gaylor v. Mnuchin

Pastor Chris Butler serves communities in South Side, Chicago

The leader of a predominantly African-American congregation, Pastor Chris Butler devotes his life to serving communities in Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods. Pastor Chris spends countless hours leading his church’s community ministries, including the Chicago Peace Campaign, which has been successful in bringing peace to areas devastated by violence; the Journeymen program that mentors at-risk youth; and a homeless ministry focused on feeding the hungry and providing blankets and toiletry kits.

The church can’t afford to pay Pastor Chris a salary, but it offers him a small housing allowance so he can afford to live just minutes from his church and the community he serves.

FFRF’s lawsuit harms Pastor Chris’s church and other underserved communities

For over 60 years, federal law has recognized that housing allowances like Pastor Chris’s shouldn’t be taxed as income. This helps ensure that pastors, rabbis, imams, and other faith leaders—who often use their homes for their ministries—are able to live close to the communities they serve. The law is based on the same tax principle that allows employers to reimburse travel and overseas housing costs and provide tax-free housing allowances to teachers, business leaders, military service members, and thousands of other employees who use their homes for their jobs.

But in 2011, the atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS to eliminate the tax exemption for housing allowances—putting communities, like the ones Pastor Chris serves, at risk.

Becket defends all faith leaders from discrimination

In 2011, a federal court ruled that the tax exemption for housing allowances was unconstitutional. After the Seventh Circuit threw out that ruling on technical grounds, FFRF sued again in 2016. In January 2017, the court allowed Becket to intervene in the case on behalf of Pastor Chris Butler and Bishop Edward Peecher of Chicago Embassy Church, Father Patrick Malone of Holy Cross Anglican Church, and the Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. In October 2017, the district court again struck down the tax exemption for housing allowances.

In February 2018, Becket appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the churches, which agreed to hear the case. Oral argument took place on October 24, 2018.

On March 15, 2019, the Seventh Circuit unanimously ruled that the parsonage allowance is constitutional, stating it “is simply one of many per se rules” that “allow hundreds of thousands of employees (including ministers) to receive tax-exempt housing every year,” and that it is consistent with the nation’s “lengthy tradition of tax exemptions for religion, particularly for church-owned properties.”

In June 2019, FFRF decided not appeal the Seventh Circuit’s decision, definitively securing a victory for the parsonage allowance and houses of worship across the country.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Establishment Clause: The longstanding tax exemption for housing allowances ensures that ministers are treated the same way as teachers, business leaders, military service members and hundreds of thousands of other workers who receive tax-free housing for their jobs. Equal treatment doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause.

Jenks v. Spry

Related to previous Oklahoma Blaine cases: Jenks v. Spry & Kimery v. Broken Arrow Public Schools 

Stephanie and Russell Spry’s disabled son will be able to get the best education from a school specially designed for his needs.  After a five-year battle with school bureaucrats from a handful of public schools, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Lindsey Nicole Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities is constitutional and that religious organizations and individuals have the right to access generally available state aid on equal footing with everyone else.

The State of Oklahoma enacted the program in August 2010 to give students with learning disabilities scholarships based on the cost of their education to help them attend  a private school of their choice that could help them with their specific learning disability. The vast majority of the state’s 541 school districts immediately complied with the law by issuing scholarship checks to eligible students. But four school districts decided on their own that complying with the law would somehow violate the state’s Blaine Amendment, an archaic provision in the state constitution that targets “sectarian” groups.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that these provisions were “born of bigotry” in an era of widespread anti-Catholicism, these four districts unilaterally asserted the Oklahoma Blaine Amendment to deny students their state aid on the purported ground that allowing them to direct their own education might aid religiously-affiliated schools. Conveniently, of course, this allowed those school districts to keep the funds for themselves. After Becket sued to defend the students’ rights, the legislature learned of their plight and changed the law so the scholarships would issue directly from the State Board of Education, bypassing the renegade school districts.

Adding insult to injury, two of the school districts—Jenks and Union Public Schools—turned around and sued the Sprys, along with parents of three other children with learning disabilities, for accepting their scholarships! Again Becket defended the students’ rights, this time all the way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which eventually dismissed the lawsuit, chastising the school districts for going after their own students.

Despite the ruling from the high court, the school districts recruited allies to again renew the lawsuit, this time against the State Board of Education. In 2014, a lower court upheld the scholarship program, but only for students attending schools that were secular or religious “in name only.” On appeal, Becket again represented the student and their families, arguing that this bizarre ruling would have required the state to examine the beliefs of every religious school and decide which ones were too religious to accept the students’ scholarships. We made what should be an obvious point: when the state makes benefits generally available to its citizens, it can’t discriminate against some of them just because they are religious.

On February 16, 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court once again ruled in our favor, finally upholding the Lindsey Nicole Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities. Now the Spry’s son and other Oklahoma children with learning disabilities are free to use their share of the state’s education funds for an education best suited to their individual needs. After five years of fighting, they can focus on their schooling, without fear that they will be denied the same opportunity as other students, just because of their religion.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that the government is not allowed to create a Goldilocks scenario of deciding which religious beliefs are ”just right.” The First Amendment requires that public programs be administered neutrally, without regard to religious belief.

The road to this victory was long, but—with the help of Becket—the students and their families are finally able to participate in Oklahoma’s scholarship program on equal footing with everyone else.

Becket was co-counsel in this case along with Lester, Loving, & Davies, P.C. (Andrew Lester, Carrie Vaughn, D. Matt Hopkins).

American Atheists v. Port Authority of New Jersey and New York

Two days after the September 11 attacks, a recovery worker discovered something in the rubble: a steel cross beam shaped like a Latin cross. It was a comforting sign for many Americans who saw it as a symbol of hope and healing as they cleared debris in search for survivors.

The 17-foot cross was to be displayed as a historical artifact in the National September 11 Museum as part of an exhibit called “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero,” which portrayed how rescue workers at Ground Zero struggled to deal with their harrowing circumstances. But in 2011, angry members of the American Atheists, Inc. sued the Museum and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, arguing that displaying the cross would offend them as citizens and taxpayers, in violation the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Though the Museum is a private foundation making a private decision, the American Atheists argued that no religious symbol should ever be allowed on property leased by the government.

Over and over again groups like the American Atheists have tried removing all traces of religion from the public square. Now they wanted to go so far as scrubbing it from our nation’s history.

Thankfully, the federal district judge ruled in favor of the cross, saying that it helps tell the 9/11 story. The American Atheists then appealed in August 2013. In February 2014, Becket filed an amicus brief stating that as a historical artifact, the cross rightfully belongs in a historical museum. For the first time in the case, we also pointed out that the American Atheists had no right to sue in the first place, since taking personal offense over the role that religion actually plays in American life is not grounds for suing.

Separating church and state does not mean separating religion from public life. By removing the cross from the Museum, the American Atheists would deny future generations what was spiritually significant to many Americans during those terrible days. No matter how hard they try, they cannot write religion out of our nation’s history.

In July 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the effort by American Atheists, Inc. to force the National 9/11 Museum to remove the Ground Zero Cross from its display or to include a plaque honoring atheists alongside the cross. The museum was represented by Paul, Weiss of Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Kimery v. Broken Arrow Public Schools

Related to previous Oklahoma Blaine cases: Jenks v. Spry & Oliver v. Hofmeister

Stephanie and Russell Spry’s disabled son will be able to get the best education from a school specially designed for his needs.  After a five-year battle with school bureaucrats from a handful of public schools, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Lindsey Nicole Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities is constitutional and that religious organizations and individuals have the right to access generally available state aid on equal footing with everyone else.

The State of Oklahoma enacted the program in August 2010 to give students with learning disabilities scholarships based on the cost of their education to help them attend a private school of their choice that could help them with their specific learning disability. The vast majority of the state’s 541 school districts immediately complied with the law by issuing scholarship checks to eligible students. But four school districts decided on their own that complying with the law would somehow violate the state’s Blaine Amendment, an archaic provision in the state constitution that targets “sectarian” groups.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that these provisions were “born of bigotry” in an era of widespread anti-Catholicism, these four districts unilaterally asserted the Oklahoma Blaine Amendment to deny students their state aid on the purported ground that allowing them to direct their own education might aid religiously-affiliated schools. Conveniently, of course, this allowed those school districts to keep the funds for themselves. After the Becket Fund sued to defend the students’ rights, the legislature learned of their plight and changed the law so the scholarships would issue directly from the State Board of Education, bypassing the renegade school districts.

Adding insult to injury, two of the school districts—Jenks and Union Public Schools—turned around and sued the Sprys, along with parents of three other children with learning disabilities, for accepting their scholarships! Again the Becket Fund defended the students’ rights, this time all the way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which eventually dismissed the lawsuit, chastising the school districts for going after their own students.

Despite the ruling from the high court, the school districts recruited allies to again renew the lawsuit, this time against the State Board of Education. In 2014, a lower court upheld the scholarship program, but only for students attending schools that were secular or religious “in name only.” On appeal, the Becket Fund again represented the student and their families, arguing that this bizarre ruling would have required the state to examine the beliefs of every religious school and decide which ones were too religious to accept the students’ scholarships. We made what should be an obvious point: when the state makes benefits generally available to its citizens, it can’t discriminate against some of them just because they are religious.

On February 16, 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court once again ruled in our favor, finally upholding the Lindsey Nicole Scholarship Program for Children with Disabilities. Now the Spry’s son and other Oklahoma children with learning disabilities are free to use their share of the state’s education funds for an education best suited to their individual needs. After five years of fighting, they can focus on their schooling, without fear that they will be denied the same opportunity as other students, just because of their religion.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that the government is not allowed to create a Goldilocks scenario of deciding which religious beliefs are ”just right.” The First Amendment requires that public programs be administered neutrally, without regard to religious belief.

The road to this victory was long, but—with the help of the Becket Fund— the students and their families are finally able to participate in Oklahoma’s scholarship program on equal footing with everyone else.

Ahlquist v. City of Cranston

The Becket Fund is defended the School Committee of the City of Cranston, Rhode Island against a lawsuit from the ACLU of Rhode Island. The ACLU sued the School Committee over a historic mural designed by students that has existed in Cranston High School West’s auditorium for almost 50 years. According to the Committee, the lawsuit is a misguided attempt to rid public buildings of historic references to religion.

The Supreme Court has made clear that displays on public property, like the one at Cranston West, can contain some historically significant references to religion because the government can promote history and art without promoting religion. That hasn’t stopped the ACLU from attempting to scrub the historic mural off the walls of Cranston West High School.

The federal district court in Rhode Island ruled against the School Committee of the City of Cranston on January 11, 2012.

Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District

For over a decade, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has successfully defended the words “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why? Because the phrase “under God” answers one of the most important questions any community can ask: Where do our rights come from?

Although it may seem abstract, that question is one of great practical importance in law and politics, because your answer explains how you will treat the rights of others. Kings and emperors throughout history answered the question by claiming that individual rights were theirs to give and theirs to take away. If you offended the emperor, you could be executed on the spot, no matter who you were.

In more recent history, totalitarian systems such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union said that they had the ability to take away human rights from “enemies of the State”. They could even reclassify some people as “unpersons” without any rights at all. The State gives, and the State takes away.

But the American tradition—and the English system it descends from—has always been different. In England, titans of legal history like Sir Edward Coke and William Blackstone asserted that no king could take away the rights of an Englishman because those rights did not come from the king: they come, instead, from the laws of nature and nature’s God. That same idea inspired American revolutionaries to defend their rights against the ever-encroaching powers of a tyrannical king.

That’s why it is so important to defend the Pledge of Allegiance. People in power tend to abuse the rights of the very citizens they are supposed to protect. By grounding human rights in a source higher than the State, every American’s rights are secured; those in power are checked and restrained; and we have a justifiable reason to stand up for people who are oppressed by dehumanizing, unjust laws.

Courts across the country agree. Many recognize that the phrase “under God,” instead of acting like a prayer or religious creed, communicates timeless American values:

  • On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Pledge, holding that the plaintiff, atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow, did not have proper standing to challenge the Pledge.
  • On March 11, 2010, a second challenge from Dr. Newdow in California was rebuffed by the federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit, which held “that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism.”
  • On November 12, 2010, a third challenge by Dr. Newdow, this time in New Hampshire, was flatly rejected by the federal appeals court for the 1st Circuit because “both the choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not to do so are entirely voluntary.”
  • On May 9, 2014, Massachusetts’ highest state court unanimously rejected the American Humanist Association’s attack on the Pledge, finding that “the pledge, notwithstanding its reference to God, is a fundamentally patriotic exercise, not a religious one.”
  • And on February 4, 2015, a New Jersey teenager and her family successfully protected the right of all her fellow students to continue reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety from the American Humanist Association’s latest effort to take “under God” out of the Pledge.

The courts are on right side of history. American history is filled with references to “God,” “Creator,” “Author,” and “Nature’s God;” such references honor America’s values and religious heritage.

Congress first officially adopted the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, during World War II, to encourage patriotism. In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, first began the practice of saying “one nation under God” as a part of the Pledge. They encouraged many others including Congress to follow the same practice. In 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed an amendment adding the words “under God” to the Pledge.

One of Congress’s reasons for adding “under God” to the Pledge was to explain America’s disagreement with the Soviet Union about the nature of human rights. The Soviets claimed that people receive their rights from the State, and therefore the State can take those rights away.

In contrast, Congress said it was using the phrase “under God” to make clear that basic human rights are beyond the reach of the State.

In so doing, it was following a centuries-old tradition:

  1. Washington’s General Orders to his troops (July 2, 1776): “The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army.
  2. The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
  3. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (November 19, 1863): “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

To avoid saying the “offensive” word “God,” as the secularists attacking the Pledge want, teachers would have to remain silent about the values embraced by the American Revolutionaries, the Constitution, abolitionism, and the civil rights movement.

References to “God,” which remind every American that their rights cannot be seized by the State, are the cherished legacy of a free society; each reminds future generations that their rights come not from the State, but a Source beyond the State’s control.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said when signing the amendment adding “under God” to the Pledge on Flag Day, June 14, 1954:

“[The words under God] will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”

Rich v. Buss

A prisoner’s choice: Faith or food

What if you had to choose between practicing your faith and receiving adequate nutrition? That choice confronted Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jewish prisoner. The reason? Mr. Rich is a Florida inmate, and Florida was one of the last remaining states in the country to deny kosher diets to Jewish prisoners.

Mr. Rich has kept kosher his entire adult life. In prison, he observes the Sabbath and is seen as a rabbi to other Jewish prisoners, teaching the Torah and serving as cantor during religious services. Mr. Rich believes that keeping a kosher diet is not a voluntary endeavor, but a fundamental tenet of his faith. Because he was denied a kosher diet, on two different occasions Mr. Rich was forced to go without regular meals for over a month. Mr. Rich sued in 2010 in federal district court, which ruled against him in 2012.

Becket defends religious liberty behind bars

In 2012, Becket filed an appeal on behalf of Mr. Rich, arguing that denial of a kosher diet violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)—a landmark civil rights law designed to protect religious freedom in prison. Congress enacted RLUIPA unanimously in 2000, finding that, “[w]hether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources, some institutions restrict religious liberty in egregious and unnecessary ways.”

In response to Mr. Rich’s lawsuit, Florida claimed that denying a kosher diet was necessary to control costs and maintain security. But at the time, 35 other states and the federal government already provided kosher diets without problems of cost or security. And from 2004 to 2007, Florida itself provided a Jewish dietary program that cost only a fraction of one percent of its annual food budget and did not result in any security problems.

Unanimous victory for Jewish inmates

In May 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in Mr. Rich’s favor, finding that “the evidence submitted by [Florida] … is insubstantial.” The court said that Florida made only “meager efforts to explain why Florida’s prisons are so different from the penal institutions that now provide kosher meals.” It then sent the case back to the district court.

Shortly after, a district court in a separate case, relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, ordered Florida to begin providing a kosher diet to all observant Jewish inmates, including Mr. Rich, no later than July 1, 2014. In response to this victory, Mr. Rich voluntarily withdrew his lawsuit.

In addition to winning Mr. Rich’s appeal at the Eleventh Circuit, Becket has won previous kosher diet cases against Florida, Georgia, and Texas, and assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. In fact, Becket has never lost a kosher diet case against a prison system.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Individual freedom: Individual religious freedom encompasses more than just thought or contemplation—it involves action. Individuals must be free to follow their religious convictions into practice, including when they are incarcerated.
  • RLUIPA: Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was passed with bipartisan support. RLUIPA ensures religious liberty in two areas where it is most vulnerable: land use and prisons.

Atheists of Florida v. City of Lakeland

The Atheists of Florida hauled the City of Lakeland into court for opening their meetings with Christian prayer – a practice that dated back more than 60 years. After the city commission opened the invocation to all faiths, the district court ruled that the legislative prayer practice was permissible. The Atheists of Florida then appealed the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where they argued that some prayers contained language that was “too” Christian.

The city’s formal policy was elaborately developed to ensure that all faiths have an opportunity to participate and no favorites were picked. In fact, the city developed an exhaustive list of congregations in the county to invite to give the invocation. They created a list of more than 600 diverse religious organizations, spending approximately $1,500 a year to ensure that the net was cast as wide as possible.

Nevertheless, the Atheists still wanted all “sectarian” references stripped from the prayers. In other words, don’t say “Jesus.”

But Supreme Court precedent is clear that legislative prayer – which traces its roots to the Continental Congress in 1774 – is constitutional as long as the prayer is not used to proselytize, advance one faith, or disparage another. So, groups that want to put an end to this American tradition are trying a new tactic. They’re saying that legislative prayer is okay as long as it is stripped of any specific religious references.

GrayRobinson, P.A. represented the City of Lakeland. Becket filed an amicus brief providing the Eleventh Circuit with a thorough historical analysis of legislative prayer. The brief noted that the Atheists essentially wanted to hollow out Supreme Court precedents “to exclude prayers that reflect the faith of the person praying” and that their approach would actually “invite courts to engage in amateur theological inquiry that could itself violate the Establishment Clause.” The court reached a similar conclusion and upheld Lakeland’s policy.

Sac and Fox Nation v. Borough of Jim Thorpe

Jim Thorpe, a living legend

Arguably one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century, Jim Thorpe won two Olympic gold medals and played three different professional sports – football, track and field, and baseball. In the course of his career, he was inducted to ten Halls of Fame and in 1950 the Associated Press called him the “greatest American football player” and the “greatest overall male athlete.”

Jim Thorpe’s athletic prowess undoubtedly has something to do with the Sac and Fox Nation Indian blood that ran through his veins. Born with the Indian name Wa-Tho-Huk or “Bright Path,” Jim Thorpe carried the spirit and customs of his tribe until his death in 1953.

A violation of Native American customs

Thorpe’s remaining two sons, along with the Oklahoma-based Sac and Fox Nation, have been fighting since his death to return his remains to the family grave site on sacred Sac and Fox land in Stroud, Oklahoma. The struggle began after a family dispute cut short the burial ceremony.

Thorpe’s body was taken and auctioned off to the highest bidder—a small Pennsylvania town he’d never even visited. Jim Thorpe has been buried there ever since; not next to family, not on sacred Native American land, but commercially on display in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, where his remains have been mocked, vandalized, and desecrated.

Now his sons—themselves now elderly—want to bring him home, burying him near his parents and other family members in Oklahoma. Conner & Winters, LLP and Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic represented them. But the town refused, envisioning major tourist attractions that would come from the deal – an Olympic stadium, football shrine, a Jim Thorpe themed sporting goods store, and even a hotel named “Jim Thorpe’s Teepees.”

The relocation of Thorpe’s remains to Pennsylvania violates the Sac and Fox Nation’s beliefs that a sacred burial ceremony must take place to allow a body’s spirit to successfully complete its spirit journey. It also violates the federal Native American Graves Protections and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which was specifically passed to defend Native American religious beliefs and help these communities reclaim sacred items and remains that were unjustifiably taken from them.

However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the sons’ request, saying the protections in the statute would lead to “absurd outcome.” This is a dangerous precedent putting courts in the business of deciding what religious beliefs are valid and which are not.

Becket defends the Sac & Fox Nation’s religious freedom

In our country, courts should not be in the business of rejecting religious protections simply because they think protecting those beliefs is “absurd.” Given the history of mistreatment of Native Americans by government officials, they take special care to protect the Native Americans’ religious practices.

In July 2015 Becket led a diverse coalition of religious groups to the Supreme Court, filing a friend-of-the-court brief to help honor the religious beliefs and final wishes of Jim Thorpe and his remaining family. Members of the coalition included Becket, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the National Council of Churches, and the Queens Federation of Churches. The coalition was represented at the Supreme Court by Becket, along with attorneys Troy Eid and Harriet McConnell of prominent international law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, which has a nationally-renowned Indian Law practice.

However, in October 2015 the Supreme Court denied to hear the case, thus ending the battle to bring Jim Thorpe’s body back to Oklahoma.

Big Sky Colony v. Montana Department of Labor and Industry

The Hutterites are a peaceful and industrious people who have lived every aspect of their lives in religious communities for almost 500 years—eating meals in a communal dining hall, educating their children in a communal school, wearing the same homemade clothing, and working together on a communal farm.

All Hutterite members take a vow of poverty, renounce private property, and hold all their possessions in common. They devote all of their time, labor, and energy to the community as an act of service and religious devotion. They also pledge to resolve any disputes among themselves without using secular courts. They have been successfully living by these religious principles for almost 500 years.

In 2009, however, powerful labor unions and construction lobbyists in Montana complained that Hutterites receive a supposed “competitive advantage” because they do not pay wages to their members, and therefore are not required to provide workers’ compensation insurance. In response, the state passed a new law forcing the Hutterites to provide workers’ compensation insurance for their members. The new law would force the community to violate its 500-year-old commitment to holding all possessions in common, working without expectation of compensation, and refusing to assert legal claims against each other.

The new law is also pointless, because the Hutterites already provide expensive, comprehensive medical care to all of their members, regardless of the reason for their illness or injury. Thus, the workers’ compensation requirement does nothing to protect the health of Hutterite workers; it only forces the community to violate its religious beliefs. Unfortunately, because Hutterites shun politics and do not vote, the legislature never consulted them before passing the new law, and was unaware that the law would serve no purpose.

When the colony discovered that they would be forced to violate their religious beliefs, they petitioned the Montana state courts for relief. A district court decided that the law violated the First Amendment because it was “drafted with such care to apply only to Hutterites,” and because it imposed “property rights concepts [that are] forbidden by the fundamental communal living and community of goods doctrine upon which the [community] is founded.” In a sharply divided 5-4 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court reversed that decision.

The Hutterites then asked Becket to appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, but Becket ultimately helped the Hutterites work out a solution with the Montana legislature. Today, the Hutterites continue to live in accordance with their religious beliefs without legal persecution.

New Zealand Kosher Ban

We filed an amicus brief in favor of New Zealand’s Jewish community, arguing that New Zealand’s ban on kosher slaughter of chicken violated New Zealand’s international legal commitments.

As cited in Becket’s brief, “The Code infringes on the right of New Zealand’s Jews to manifest their religious beliefs because it makes it impossible for them to eat meat on the Sabbath and certain holidays.” Becket’s brief pointed out that the ban on kosher slaughter violated New Zealand’s international human rights treaty obligations and that it put New Zealand in a class with the anti-Semitic governments of 1930s Europe that passed almost identical bans.

Becket also explained that many democratic governments, including the United States government, have determined that kosher slaughter is entirely humane for the slaughtered animal.

Shortly after Becket filed its brief, the New Zealand government agreed to revoke the law.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

Meet Samantha Elauf   

Samantha Elauf is a fashion blogger who takes her faith seriously. When she was 17, she sought a job at her local mall’s Abercrombie & Fitch. She knew the company dress code prohibited hats but had previously hired a Jewish employee who wore a yarmulke, so she never imagined that her headscarf might be an issue.

The store manager who interviewed Samantha liked her and recommended that she be hired. But when the district manager learned about Samantha’s headscarf, he made the store manager lower Samantha’s scores so she would appear unqualified.

Blatant Discrimination

Abercrombie does have a policy that prohibits employees from wearing hats, but they’ve made religious accommodations numerous times in the past. But rather than acknowledge that their district manager erred in refusing to accommodate Samantha, Abercrombie claims she should not be protected by the Civil Rights Act—which prohibits employment discrimination on the grounds of race, national origin, sex, and religion—because she never “explicitly” confirmed in her interview that she wore the scarf for religious reasons. In short, Abercrombie refused to hire Samantha because of her Muslim faith, and now they want a free pass for discrimination.

But anti-discrimination laws have been on the books for over fifty years. These are the same laws championed by Martin Luther King, Jr. that protect our civil rights from discrimination to this day. Abercrombie blatantly denied Samantha Elauf a job on the basis of her religion, and that should not go unchallenged.

In 2011, a federal district court judge ruled in Samantha’s favor, but in October 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. On October 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Samantha’s case.

Protecting Religious Diversity

Becket became involved in this lawsuit for the first time at the Supreme Court. Becket champions religious diversity and defends Samantha’s right to bring her religious identity into her workplace. Religious expression is invaluable and inseparable from the human experience. No American should be forced to leave their faith at the door when they enter the workplace, especially when their religious activity has no impact on their employer’s business. Society will only benefit from protecting religious diversity everywhere, even at the mall.

On December 11, 2014, Becket filed an amicus brief in this case. On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case.

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of religious job seekers. The Court held that a job seeker suing for religious discrimination only has to show that their need for a religious accommodation–such as wearing a headscarf–was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision not to hire. Even if the employer is not certain the applicant needs a religious accommodation, they can be liable if they suspect there is a need for religious accommodation and reject the job applicant for that reason. This Supreme Court ruling requires that employers be mindful of the potential religious needs of job applicants and not let the possible need for a religious accommodation influence their employment decisions.

The Solicitor General and Department of Justice represented Samantha.

 

Moss v. Spartanburg County School District No. 7

In 2006, South Carolina passed legislation to allow public school students to take outside religious classes and receive elective credits. Thousands of public school children across the nation receive religious education through released-time classes, and the Supreme Court has allowed it since 1952.

The classes are provided off-campus by third parties unaffiliated with the public schools. South Carolina’s Released Time Credit Act (RTCA) made it easier for public schools to accommodate the religious interests of their students. In 2007, Spartanburg County School District No. 7 passed its own policy permitting released-time programs in compliance with state law.

In 2009, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the School District, claiming that the school’s policy violates the Establishment Clause. Becket successfully defended the school district in district court and in appeal, where the Fourth Circuit unanimously upheld the program saying, “[T]he program properly accommodates religion without establishing it, in accordance with the First Amendment.”

In November 2012, the Supreme Court denied FFRF’s final appeal. “This is a big win for public school students and for religious education,” said Lori Windham, Senior Counsel at Becket, who argued the case at the Fourth Circuit. “The Supreme Court’s rejection of this case is a blow against anti-religious legal theories that would treat religion with suspicion.”

The court’s decision has implications for released-time programs across South Carolina and throughout the country. It also affirms that private schools and public schools can work with each other for their students’ benefit.

 

 

Elmbrook School District v. Doe

The Question

Where would you rather attend your high school graduation: In a hot, sweaty gym? Or in a state-of-the-art church auditorium? For the Elmbrook School District, the question was a no-brainer: It chose the auditorium.

The school gym was hot, cramped, and sweaty in the month of June—with no air conditioning, inadequate parking, poor handicapped facilities, and only folding chairs or bleachers for seating. So the senior class proposed moving graduation to a local church auditorium.

The auditorium had more space, more parking, better handicapped facilities, and better seating. It had large video screens for close-up viewing. It had air conditioning. And it cost the same as the school gym.

The District happily moved graduation to the auditorium, and for the next decade, the students were delighted.

The Lawsuit

Then came the lawsuit. A secularist organization claimed that certain students were “offended” and “angry” at the use of the church auditorium. They admitted that the graduation events were entirely secular, and that no prayers or religious references had ever been made. But they disliked the fact that there was a cross at the front of the auditorium, Bibles and hymnals in the pews, and church brochures in the lobby.

A federal district court quickly rejected their lawsuit. But surprisingly, the Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that renting the church auditorium was unconstitutional. It said that the “religious environment” of the auditorium created a risk that graduating students would “perceive the state as endorsing a set of religious beliefs.”

The Supreme Court Appeal

That’s when the School District turned to Becket. We knew that the case was important:  Hundreds of school districts hold graduations in religious venues, because those venues are often the best and cheapest available. The Constitution does not require school districts to treat religion like a toxic subject that must be avoided.

But we also knew that the odds were against us: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear only about 1% of cases that are appealed to it.

On December 20, 2012, we appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. After a year-long delay, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. But in a strong show of support, Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing that the lower court had failed to apply the proper legal standards.

Becket remains ready to defend the principle that religion is a vital part of human culture—not a toxic subject to be avoided.

 

Ward v. Wilbanks

Julea Ward was kicked out of Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program after she declined to counsel a student against her religious beliefs. Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Ward lost in the lower courts, but in January 2012 the Sixth Circuit issued a major victory for the rights of individuals with religious beliefs. The court ruled that Eastern Michigan University may have violated the Constitution by expelling Ward based on her religious beliefs, and sent the case back to the district court. In December 2012, Eastern Michigan University quietly settled the lawsuit.

Ward was expelled for trying to use a patient referral mechanism that other student counselors were allowed to use. Her sin?  She wanted to refer patients for religious reasons; she felt she could not provide good-faith relationship advice to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. The university allowed student counselors to refer patients for all sorts of other reasons, and Ward violated no written university policy; Ward was simply being targeted.

The university earned a rebuke from the Sixth Circuit, which ruled that the university was “permitting secular exemptions but not religious ones” and “failing to apply the policy in an even-handed, much less a faith-neutral, manner to Ward.” This reasoning echoed Becket’s amicus brief in the appeal.

Ward v. Wilbanks is another example of government officials using their power to force ideological conformity onto those who dissent from academic pieties. The university’s decision to give up, pay Ward, and issue her a clean academic record indicates that the First Amendment is still a bulwark against the bureaucratic urge to squelch diversity of ideas – but it is a bulwark that still requires defenders.

Becket submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, making arguments that the court ultimately adopted under the Free Exercise Clause. Becket also assisted with Ms. Ward’s primary brief.

*Photo Courtesy of ADF

Yoder v. Morristown

An Amish community’s centuries-old practice threatened

The Swartzentruber Amish community of Morristown, New York believe in living a simple life, separate from modern worldly customs. They exercise this belief by not using electricity in their homes, driving horse drawn carriages rather than cars or other gasoline-powered vehicles, and wearing simple and modest clothing, among other practices. The home is a central part of their faith because it is where the community gathers to meet and worship. And the way they build their homes is essential to their religious tradition, since they use construction plans handed down from generation to generation.

The Amish community have been living peacefully in Morristown for decades. They never had trouble obtaining building permits or legally maintaining their property—until 2006, when they began receiving tickets for building code violations.

Becket defends the Amish community’s right to live by their faith

The Amish community’s traditional building methods require that they do not install battery-powered smoke detectors, use certified architectural plans, or install hurricane tie-downs. But under a new local law enforced by a newly appointed town official, the Amish were suddenly barred from obtaining building permits while following this religious practice. The Amish feared that if the town’s actions continued, their entire community would be forced to either leave Morristown because they would be unable to live according to their religious beliefs or face government fines. In 2009, Becket and the New York-based Proskauer Rose LLP represented twelve Amish individuals in a lawsuit to end Morristown’s continued violation of the Amish community’s rights under the United States and New York constitutions.

Cooperation and compromise: a win-win for religious liberty and local government

With Becket’s help, the Amish proved that their homes were structurally sound and just as good as what is required under the law. In 2012, the Amish and Morristown signed a settlement agreement which dismissed all criminal charges against the Amish and allowed them to continue to practice their traditional building methods. The town inspected the Amish homes and deemed them compliant with the state building code.

For the in-depth story and more about Amish American communities, listen to our Stream of Conscience podcast episode, Codes and Communities.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom means having the freedom to live out one’s faith in all aspects of life. Just because a religious belief is unusual—like building homes according to centuries-old religious practices, as the Amish do—does not mean the government can trample on that belief.
  • Religious communities: Religious communities that stand out from the rest of society are often vulnerable to religious liberty violations from governments, sometimes as a result of misunderstandings or ignorance. Government and religious communities must work together to come up with solutions that allow the government to do its job, while accommodating religious exercise.
  • Minority religions: Minority religions are particularly at risk of religious liberty violations, but government has no right to selectively target minority faith practices because they are unusual or unpopular. Protecting minority religious beliefs and practices is critical for strengthening the fundamental principle of religious freedom: that all human beings must be free to seek the truth and live out their convictions.

Tagore v. Department of Homeland Security

In April 2005, Kawal Tagore reported to her IRS job, as she always did. But that day was different: her supervisor sent her away from the office and told her not to return.

Ms. Tagore had recently been formally initiated into the Sikh faith and thus begun carrying a kirpan, one of the five articles of faith that Sikhs are required to carry. A kirpan resembles small, blunt knife – symbol meant to remind Sikh believers of their commitment to a just and humane society.

Even though she went through security without a problem, and even though the building contained sharper, more dangerous blades than Ms. Tagore’s kirpan—scissors, box cutters and cake knives—Ms. Tagore was banned from the federal building. She worked from home for about nine months before she was fired altogether.

Becket defended Ms. Tagore’s right to wear her kirpan. In November 2014, the federal government agreed to settle the case and change its nationwide policies to accommodate Sikh federal employees – a victory for Sikh Americans and religious freedom.

 

Elijah Group v. City of Leon Valley

Houses of worship in Texas must be treated fairly, thanks to Becket. Becket stepped in when the City of Leon Valley, Texas refused to allow a church, the Elijah Group, use its building for worship.

The city enacted a new zoning ordinance with a retail corridor intended to boost tax revenues for the city. The ordinance prohibited churches from the corridor while allowing nonreligious assemblies like theaters, auditoriums and private clubs. The Elijah Group, a small congregation looking to relocate near its old location, bought a former church building which was poorly suited for any other use but which was located within the retail corridor.  Although Leon Valley allowed the Elijah Group to move its daycare and administrative offices to its new home, it prohibited them from gathering there for worship.  The Elijah Group sought a zoning change to allow it to worship in its new church, which the city denied.

The Elijah Group sued the city, arguing that the city’s code was unenforceable under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), because the city was not treating the church the same as secular assemblies. The district court sided with the city, but after Becket joined the case on appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the city had indeed violated RLUIPA.  Specifically, the Fifth Circuit recognized that RLUIPA requires churches to be treated the same as the non-religious assemblies like private clubs.

 

Third Church of Christ, Scientist v. District of Columbia

After years of litigation, Washington DC’s Third Church of Christ, Scientist finally won its battle with DC preservationists, and will soon enjoy a new church building. Its previous building was an eyesore with the dubious honor of being a landmark of the “Brutalist” style, a 1960s French school that emphasizes large expanses of windowless raw concrete. The previous bunker-like structure had blighted a corner just a few blocks north of the White House for forty years, and was often mistaken by unwitting tourists for a fallout shelter.

Originally an architectural “experiment”, the church building was first designed without the local congregation’s input into the architect’s ‘artistic vision.’ The Brutalist structure thus never met the church’s needs and in fact sent a message counter to the church’s. Instead of welcoming visitors and newcomers and portraying the church as a positive contribution to the neighborhood, the imposing concrete building had few windows, an entrance that was difficult to find, and a stifling atmosphere. It was frequently compared to a “concrete straitjacket.”

When the congregation first decided that it could no longer suffer the Brutalist structure and attempted to replace it, the DC Historic Preservation Review Board retaliated by designating the building as a landmark—forcing the church to preserve a building that was unwelcoming and unstable. That’s when Becket stepped in to defend the church.

The church argued that the preservation board was interfering with its First Amendment right to exercise its religion. The building’s imposing architecture hampered the church’s message and its ministry. Religious liberty required that the church be able to decide how best to use its property in accordance with its faith.

Finally, in 2014, after several years of litigation, the Church prevailed. It demolished the old Brutalist bunker and began the process of building a new, light-filled building. It has hired world-renowned architect Robert A.M. Stern to design a new building that meets the needs of a downtown church while also contributing to the beauty of the surrounding area. Now the church can move forward in its mission, celebrating a hard-fought victory for both beauty and religious liberty.

*Photo Credit: Third Church of Christ Scientist (APK, creative commons)

Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries

A ministry with a Christian mission: serving those in need

What if a Christian homeless shelter were forbidden from holding a Christian chapel service? That almost happened to the Boise Rescue Mission, a ministry that had served the needy in Boise, Idaho for over 50 years.

The Mission serves the homeless by offering addiction recovery programs, a Veterans Ministry program, holiday meals, job searches, counseling, and after-school activities for children. From 2012 to 2013 alone, it welcomed nearly 5,000 new guests, served about 700,000 meals, and provided 250,000 beds. Hundreds have graduated from its recovery program and have moved on to build productive, successful lives. The Boise Rescue Mission has never turned away a person in need.

The Rescue Mission is a Christian ministry, one that provides a Bible-based curriculum and chapel services to those in need. Its commitment to the Word of God inspires it to welcome the homeless and needy with open arms.

A lawsuit threatens the ministry’s vital work

But in 2008, its faith-based programs and the people it serves were threatened when a federally funded fair housing group in Idaho sued the Rescue Mission under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit claimed that the Rescue Mission discriminated on the basis of religion by encouraging guests at the homeless shelter to attend chapel services and by requiring members of the Christian discipleship program to participate in religious activities. This is despite the fact that participation in the Rescue Mission’s programs is voluntary and free of charge, and the Rescue Mission receives no government funding.

In response to the lawsuit, the Rescue Mission argued that the FHA protected the right of the homeless shelter to conduct chapel services, and that forcing the Rescue Mission to accept members of the discipleship program who reject its core beliefs would violate the First Amendment.

Court victory for religious ministries and the communities they serve

The federal district court in Idaho ruled in favor of the Rescue Mission, and the fair housing group appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2011, Becket attorney Luke Goodrich argued the case in the Ninth Circuit.

In September 2011, Becket won a resounding victory when the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous opinion in favor of the Boise Rescue Mission. The court victory enshrined the right of religious groups to minister to the poor and needy in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Learn more about this case by listening to our Podcast episode, “Religion and Recovery.”

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Religious Communities – Religious communities have the right to build and lead their ministries according to their beliefs free from governmental interference or discrimination.

Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County

Bethel World Outreach Church is a Christian church located in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is made up of people from more than 45 nations and cultures, and it has grown so much that it has been forced to turn people away from services in its current facilities. Eight years ago, Bethel bought land in Montgomery County, Maryland, with plans to build a church home large enough to accommodate its growing congregation.

But Montgomery County had other plans.  Although churches were permitted on Bethel’s land, the county held up what should have been a routine water and sewer hookup application, then passed a new law that made it impossible for Bethel to get those permits.  So Bethel did what the county wanted, and submitted a new application for a smaller church that would comply with the new water regulations.  What did the county do?  Again, it held up the church’s application, and again, it passed a new law that made it impossible for Bethel to build a church on its own land.

Represented by Storzer & Greene, PLLC, Bethel sued the county for violations of the state and federal constitutions, and violations of RLUIPA.  A lower court sided with the county, so the church appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Becket submitted a brief in support of Bethel, joined by several other churches and ministries who wish to see churches treated fairly.  Becket’s brief highlighted the special problems faced by new and minority-dominated churches, problems that RLUIPA was designed to fix. The Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the church, setting a strong precedent in favor of religious freedom for houses of worship.

 

Town of Greece v. Galloway

A diverse town practices a cherished tradition

In the town of Greece, New York, volunteers from any religious faith may commence legislative meetings with a prayer. The town has had a wide variety of volunteers—from Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, to leaders from the Bahá’í and Wiccan traditions. This practice of legislative prayer can be traced back to the time of the Founding Fathers, who did not see it as a forbidden “establishment of religion” but rather as a powerful reminder of their own limited political authority and the divine source of the people’s inalienable rights.

It is a practice as old as this nation, but thanks to a court decision, it soon became a forbidden practice.

Becket defends legislative prayer as our Founders saw it

In August 2013, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Second Court Circuit of Appeals and restore the Establishment Clause to its original, founding-era meaning.

The brief explains that the Founders understood establishment of religion as consisting of four key elements: (1) government financial support of the church, (2) government control of the doctrine and personnel of the church, (3) government coercion of religious beliefs and practices, and (4) government assignment of important civil functions to the church – all linked by an underlying concern about state coercion to participate in religious activity. Because legislative prayer does not meet any of these conditions, it is not an establishment of religion.

The brief also explains how the Founders “viewed legislative prayer as a natural outflow of their political philosophy of limited government and inalienable, God-given rights.” By hearing prayer before a government meeting, elected officials are reminded of the limits of their powers, as well as the source of the inalienable rights of those they are elected to serve.

A Supreme Court victory for religious freedom

Oral arguments were heard in November 2013. In May 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s opinion, protecting legislative prayer in a great victory for religious freedom. For the first time in decades, the Court addressed the constitutionality of legislative prayer and helpfully began clarifying how lower courts should interpret the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Alliance Defending Freedom and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP were counsel in this case.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Public square: Because religious exercise is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. Religious expression, including legislative prayer, should not be treated as dangerous or scrubbed from our public discourse.

McCullen v. Coakley

Meet Eleanor McCullen, who ministers to women in crisis

Since 2000, Eleanor McCullen has knitted baby hats and lovingly counseled women outside of abortion clinics near her home in Massachusetts. Driven by her faith, Eleanor aspires to see mothers become parents and to see families flourish by supporting an expectant mother’s decision to say yes to life. As a sidewalk counselor, Eleanor ensures struggling women she meets outside the clinic do not feel alone in their journey, and that, while it may not seem like it, they have a choice. She also directs expectant mothers to important resources such as housing, medical care, sonograms, and food supplies. She even hosts baby showers.

But starting in 2000, the State of Massachusetts passed a series of laws that threatened free speech—and Eleanor’s ability to give women the support they willingly accepted.

Massachusetts “buffer zone” restricts free speech

By 2007, Massachusetts had imposed a 35-foot buffer zone around every abortion clinic in the state. The law made it illegal for Eleanor to have conversations with women who wanted her help on the sidewalks in front of abortion clinics.  Instead, Eleanor was forced off the sidewalk, away from the clinic, and at times into the streets

The buffer zone not only restricted Eleanor’s freedom of speech, but also religious freedom. Eleanor is motivated by her faith to help women in need. A Catholic priest, who joined Eleanor in her lawsuit, wanted to provide religious counseling to women in need.  Another individual simply wanted to stand silently on the sidewalk and pray. Yet the Massachusetts’s law banned all of these peaceful activities. By stopping religious people from offering help to women in need, the law also harmed countless women by depriving them peaceful and often welcomed offers of help.  [There is a heartbreaking brief by women who WISH they’d had such help outside of abortion clinics.

In January 2008, Becket President Mark Rienzi, co-counsel Michael DePrimo, and lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom represented Eleanor in federal court. The court ruled against Eleanor in August 2008. In July 2009, Eleanor lost again on appeal at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court ruling protects free speech and religious liberty 

Central to the First Amendment is the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas, which requires an individual’s ability to have personal conversations and distribute literature in public places. Under the new law it would have been a crime punishable with jail time if Eleanor so much as uttered, “Good morning, Jesus loves you,” to a passerby.

In January 2014, Becket President Mark Rienzi argued the case before the Supreme Court. On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Massachusetts buffer zone law violated the First Amendment because it overly interfered with people’s rights to converse and interact with others.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other.
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom includes the freedom to practice one’s faith in all areas of life, both public and private, free of government interference.

Calvary Assembly of God, Wisconsin

For more than 50 years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has used an extremely broad interpretation of the tax code to censor and intimidate religious leaders of every faith. In short, they occasionally come out of the shadows and threaten a house of worship with losing its religious tax exemption if its religious leaders speak too openly about political issues. Such threats often coincide with heated political races where moral issues are of high importance. And the IRS is often put up to it by hyperseparationist groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

So Becket decided to take the challenge right back to the IRS.

On January 16, 2008, Becket publicly dared the IRS to investigate the Calvary Assembly of God in Algoma, Wisconsin, after its pastor, Kenneth Taylor, used his pulpit to preach about the moral implications of a number of different campaigns going on at the time. We made sure the IRS wouldn’t miss the challenge and printed it as an open letter in Wall Street Journal, knowing that if they pressed forward with the threat, the public would be outraged, and if they backed away, they would essentially concede that you cannot muzzle religious speech in the name of the tax code.

Pastor Taylor has yet to hear from the IRS. Paper tiger?

Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District

The year was 2007, the night—Halloween, but trick-or-treaters dressed as ghosts and hobgoblins weren’t the only ones stirring up fanciful fears in New England. No, Dr. Michael Newdow, an atheist and ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, along with the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), filed suit to silence the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools across New Hampshire. Why? They found the phrase “under God” spooky.

Representing three New Hampshire families and the Knights of Columbus, Becket intervened, urging the federal district court to dismiss Newdow’s third suit attacking the Pledge in less than 7 years.

After losing at the district court, Newdow appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Founder and now President Emeritus of Becket, Seamus Hasson, personally defended the Pledge as the quintessential expression of American political philosophy. “The Constitution doesn’t ban the word God from public discourse, in California or New Hampshire, in the Pledge or anywhere else,” Hasson declared.

Mr. Hasson demonstrated that historic appeals to “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address are not primarily religious. Instead, such phrases embody our Founder’s political philosophy. By adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (reaffirmed in 2002), Congress not only contrasted the mutually exclusive conceptions of human rights envisioned by the United States and the U.S.S.R., but affirmed that our rights come from an authority higher than the State.

In November 2010, the First Circuit joined every other appellate court to rule on the issue by affirming the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court unanimously held that the primary effect of voluntarily reciting the Pledge, in accordance with the New Hampshire School Patriot Act, “is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism through a pledge to the flag as a symbol of the nation.”

The First Circuit flatly rejected FFRF’s assumption that children who decline to participate in the Pledge become “outsiders based on their beliefs about religion” for one simple reason: “Under the New Hampshire Act, both the choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not to do so are entirely voluntary.”

Dr. Newdow appealed to the Supreme Court. In June 2011, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Perhaps it’s time for Newdow to find a different haunt.

EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School

“The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.” – Chief Justice Roberts, Supreme Court Opinion

A church dispute

In 2007, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan found itself in a surprising position: a commissioned minister and teacher was suing them. Cheryl Perich, a commissioned minister in the church, taught fourth grade, taught religion, and led worship services. The church school had dismissed her for insubordination, disruptive conduct, and threatening to sue the church—all in violation of church teachings. The Church and its denomination have long taught that disputes over fitness for ministry must be resolved within the denomination.

But in September 2007, Perich sued in federal court, joined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that the school retaliated against her for threatening to file a discrimination claim.

Can government force a church to retain a minister who violates church teachings?

The church argued that forcing it to retain Perich as a commissioned minister and teacher against its will was an unconstitutional restriction on its right to choose its own religious leaders – a concept known as “ministerial exception.” The federal trial court agreed, applying the ministerial exception, and ruled for the church in October 2008. But after Perich and the EEOC appealed the decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the church in March 2010, ruling that Perich was not a minister but merely a teacher. Becket stepped in to represent Hosanna-Tabor as it appealed to the US. Supreme Court.

Because of the difference of opinion among the federal courts of appeals concerning which church employees count as ministers, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral argument was held in October 2011.

At the Supreme Court, Perich and the EEOC escalated their arguments, arguing that there should be no ministerial exception at all and that any minister—including a priest, a rabbi, or a pastor of a congregation—should be able to sue the church that employs him. Becket’s arguments rejected this extreme perspective on church-state relations, instead explaining that the ministerial exception is a constitutionally protected right, one that avoids unnecessary entanglement between government and churches and allows religious groups the autonomy they need to operate freely.

Supreme Court rules 9-0: churches are free to choose their own leaders

On January 11, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Hosanna-Tabor, a decision the Wall Street Journal called one of the “most important religious liberty cases in a half century.” The decision adopted Becket’s arguments, saying that religious groups should be free from government interference when they choose their leaders.

The court rejected the government’s narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable,” and “remarkable.” The decision stated: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

For the in-depth story and more about this case, listen to our Stream of Conscience podcast episode, Synods and Statutes.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Freedom of religious groups to choose their own leaders: This case set an important precedent, confirming the principle of “ministerial exception” that ensures religious groups have the right to choose their own leaders.
  • Freedom of religious groups from state intrusion on religious affairs: Both church and state are better off when the government isn’t meddling in the internal religious affairs of a religious ministry, including a religious school.

Vermont Department of Corrections

In August 2007, the Vermont Department of Corrections proposed a measure that would impose lengthy new regulations on religious practices. Becket stood up against the proposed Directive 380.01, warning Vermont that the proposed regulations might violate the constitutional rights of inmates under federal statutes and the First Amendment.

Among other things, the proposed Directive required mandatory registration of an inmate’s religious identity, an imposed one-year waiting period before changing religious affiliation, and prohibition of attendance to interfaith religious services without first applying for a permit. It also denied inmates the right to lead religious services—even if they are ordained clergy—and prohibit inmates from “demonstrative prayer” and prayer with others.

Not long after receiving Becket’s letter, the head of the Vermont Department of Corrections called Becket’s attorneys and told them he would change the proposed rules to accommodate religious exercise: A win for religious freedom in the Green Mountain State.

 

 

Stormans v. Wiesman

Your job or your conscience: It’s a choice no American should have to make. But it’s a choice that led faithful family pharmacists all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Family behind the Pharmacy 

Margo Thelen, Rhonda Mesler, and the Stormans family have worked in the pharmacy profession for over 60 years. Because of their beliefs, they cannot sell the morning-after or week-after pills—both of which can potentially cause an abortion.

Instead, when a customer asks for one of these drugs, the pharmacists refer them to one of over 30 pharmacies within a five-mile radius that willingly offer these drugs. This referral process is approved by the American Pharmacists Association and has long been legal in all 50 states.

Government Coercion 

But in 2005, abortion-rights activists rewrote the rules in Washington state. Although the state pharmacy commission had long supported the right of conscience, Governor Christine Gregoire opposed conscience rights. She publicly threatened to disband the commission, appointed several new members recommended by abortion rights activists, and asked those activists to write a new regulation. Buckling under pressure, the commission adopted a new regulation requiring pharmacies to sell the morning-after and week-after pills in violation of their religious beliefs.

The new regulation allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of business, economic, and convenience reasons—such as a when a drug is unprofitable, attracts an undesirable clientele, or falls outside the pharmacy’s chosen business niche. But it forbids referral for one—and only one—reason: conscience. The commission adopted the regulation even though it admitted that no one in the state has ever been denied timely access to any drug because of a conscience-based referral.

Defending Conscience 

Because of the regulation, Margo was fired from her pharmacy, Rhonda was threatened with firing, and the Stormans family was placed under investigation and threatened with the loss of their pharmacy license. In July 2007, Margo, Rhonda, and the Stormans family sued to stop the regulation. In February 2012, after a 12-day trial, a federal court ruled the regulation unconstitutional. The court concluded that the commission’s rules intentionally discriminated against people of faith like Margo, Rhonda, and the Stormans’.

The State appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in July 2015 ruled against the pharmacists’ right of conscience. Then came the Supreme Court appeal. Represented by Becket, Alliance Defending Freedom, and leading scholar Michael McConnell, the pharmacists needed the votes of four Justices to hear their case. Yet just weeks after they appealed, Justice Scalia died, leaving the Court short one member. Their appeal received three votes—one shy of what was needed.

Although the missing vote ended the case, the three dissenting Justices noted that the pharmacists can still challenge the discriminatory regulations again in the future, if the state attempts to punish them. Margo, Rhonda, and the Stormans family remain committed to their faith, and Becket remains ready to defend them.

Center for Inquiry v. Jones


Meet Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries

Addiction is a major problem and cause of criminal recidivism in the United States. To help break this vicious cycle, the state of Florida works with private organizations like Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries to help those recently released from prison assimilate back into society.

For as little as $14 a day from the state, the groups help men find transportation, medical services, job training and whatever basic services they need to find work, stay sober, and make a successful transition back into society. The groups also provide, at no cost to the state, substance abuse treatment modeled on Alcoholics Anonymous. The entire program is voluntary—individuals can choose to participate, choose which sessions best fits their needs, and also choose to join in optional religious discussions if they find them helpful.

Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries’ success rate is nearly three times the national average, and Prisoners of Christ alone has helped over 2,300 people get back on their feet. Although the state only covers a fraction of their costs, they serve at a financial loss because their faith calls them to serve.

The atheists who wanted them gone

The Center for Inquiry—an atheist group affiliated with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science—sued the state of Florida and the ministries in an attempt to shut down the partnerships. The atheist group claimed that state funds should never go to “pervasively sectarian” groups—even when those groups provide valuable services like room, board, and job training assistance. Even though the services are provided at a bargain price. Even though no state money goes to religious activities. Even though the program works.

Becket defends religious ministries who do valuable work for society

Becket represented Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries together with prominent Florida firm Ausley McMullen. The state of Florida also defended the program.

The issue was a provision of the Florida constitution enacted more than a century ago during a wave of anti-Catholic sentiment that barred state aid to “sectarian” institutions. Many states enacted laws during that time period that barred state funds for “sectarian,” or Catholic organizations. Today, these archaic laws, known as Blaine Amendments, are often dredged up and used against public-private partnerships with a wide variety of faith groups.

In January 2016, a Tallahassee court ruled in favor of Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God ministries. The court rejected the atheist group’s argument as “discriminatory” and stated that its extreme view of the law could stop the state from partnering with Florida’s large Baptist and Catholic hospital systems to serve the poor. The atheist group chose not to appeal the ruling, meaning the case is over and the ministries may continue their valuable service to society.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Dismantling discriminatory state laws: While anti-religious laws from the mid-19th century remain in place, people of all faiths are at risk of facing discrimination. Faith-based ministries have the right to partner with the state to provide a valuable service to society.

Tommy DeForest, Alabama

Tommy DeForest was a Sikh high school student in Alabama who wanted to wear a patka, the headcovering required by the Sikh faith. Good Hope High School barred him from attending school with his patka, citing its “no hats” policy. Becket sent a letter to the superintendent and argued that forcing a student to chose between his religious convictions and receiving a public education violates the right to free exercise of religion. We pointed to the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to Alabama’s constitution, which says that the “[g]overnment shall not burden a person’s freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” While the reasoning behind a no hats policy in public schools may be fine, it should not restrict the religious freedom of students, be they Jewish, Sikh, or something else. The school backed down, and Tommy was able to return to school and continue practicing his faith.

McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Jewell

What would you do if an undercover federal agent came into your church service, confiscated your communion wine, and threatened you with criminal prosecution? Sound crazy? Not if you are Native American.

Meet Pastor Robert Soto of the Lipan Apache tribe

Robert Soto is an award-winning feather dancer and Lipan Apache religious leader. In 2006, he attended a powwow – a Native American religious ceremony involving drumming, dancing, and ceremonial dress. But an undercover federal agent infiltrated the powwow and cut the celebration short when he noticed that Pastor Soto and others possessed eagle feathers.

Threatened for worshiping with eagle feathers

Click to view full size infographic

The agent interrogated Soto and other powwow participants, confiscated their feathers, and threatened them with criminal prosecution unless they signed papers abandoning their feathers. The agent claimed to be enforcing the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits possession of eagle feathers without a permit. Under the law, permits are available for museums, scientists, zoos, farmers, and “other interests” – such as power companies, which kill hundreds of eagles every year. They are also available for Native Americans – but only for federally recognized tribes.

Pastor Soto is a member of the Lipan Apache Tribe, which is recognized by historians, sociologists, and the state of Texas – but not by the federal government. Thus, while millions of other Americans are allowed to possess eagle feathers, Pastor Soto – a renowned feather dancer and ordained religious leader – was not.

Becket defends Pastor Soto’s religious freedom

With the help of Becket, Pastor Soto challenged this arbitrary law in federal court, arguing that it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Pastor Soto in 2014, stating that the federal government failed to adequately justify this restriction on religious freedom.

Soon after, the federal government entered a historic settlement agreement with Pastor Soto and over 400 members of his congregation. The agreement recognizes their right to freely use eagle feathers in observance of their Native American faith and promises that the government will reconsider its policies for enforcing feather restrictions in the future.

In April 2019, in response to Pastor Soto’s legal victory, the Department of the Interior published a petition for rulemaking from Becket to end the criminalization of eagle feather possession and expand existing protections for federally-recognized Native American tribes to cover members of state-recognized tribes as well. The public was able to comment on the petition through July 16, 2019. Becket analyzed the submitted public comments and found that there was significant support for the rule change from the general public and tribes.

For over a decade, Becket has actively defended the religious freedom of Native Americans. We currently represent members of the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakima Nation in a case that calls government bureaucrats to account for the desecration of sacred burial grounds. We have urged government officials to protect the right of Native Americans to wear long hair or a symbolic headband in accordance with their faith. We have also filed legal briefs defending the right of Native American tribes to practice centuries-old religious ceremonies at sacred sites like the Medicine Wheel and Devil’s Tower National Monument in Wyoming.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Individual Freedom: Religious liberty encompasses more than just freedom of thought or worship—it involves the right to practice one’s faith visibly and publicly. The government must respect the right of all people to practice their faith, and it must be especially careful to protect religious minorities who are at risk of discrimination by the government.
  • RFRA: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act ensures that the government cannot burden the religious exercise of individuals or groups to violate their deeply held beliefs without compelling interest or when there are reasonable alternatives to doing so.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Everyone is welcome at Good News Community Church.

Services are held Sundays. The Church encourages Christian fellowship through Bible study, religious song, and prayer. Its mission is outreach, inviting everyone into its community. As a fledgling congregation with limited financial means and no permanent location, the Church depends on sidewalk signs to spread word of events.

But in 2005, the town of Gilbert, Arizona, imposed strict regulations on the church’s signs, demanding they be no larger than six square feet and stand for no more than fourteen hours. Claiming safety and aesthetic concerns, the code threatens violators with fines and even jail time. Yet political, ideological, and other noncommercial signs can be up to thirty-two square feet in size and can stand for many months—sometimes indefinitely.

Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Church Pastor Clyde Reed sued challenging the town’s discriminatory ordinance, but the Ninth Circuit ruled in the town’s favor, deeming political and ideological speech more valuable than the church’s religious speech.

Becket filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, supporting the Church and urging reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Local governments should not be permitted to impose regulations that favor some kinds of speech, while discriminating against religious speech. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case in January 2015.

In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 9-0 in favor of Pastor Reed of Good News Community Church. The Court agreed with Becket’s argument, ruling that Gilbert’s sign ordinance violated the First Amendment because it showed no reason to justify discriminating against a church’s speech. This landmark ruling means that the government must treat religious speech the same as political speech and cities can’t treat churches as second-class citizens.

Meredith v. Daniels

In 2011, Indiana enacted a school choice program called the Choice Scholarship Program. The law help families of lesser means send their children to private schools of their choice and avoid failing public schools. But teachers’ unions are fighting a furious rearguard action against it, using 19th Century anti-Catholic laws (called Blaine Amendments) to argue that the program violates the Indiana Constitution by providing “aid” to religious schools.

The plaintiffs lost in trial court and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

In April 2012, Becket filed an amicus brief in the Indiana Supreme Court arguing that Indiana’s constitution should not be interpreted to shut down the Choice Scholarship Program. The Blaine Amendments were adopted in a time of anti-Catholic agitation, just before the notoriously anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party came to power in the Indiana Legislature. The amendment was therefore custom-designed to promote Protestant “common schools” and keep out Catholics, Jews, and others. Because of its bigoted origins, the Blaine Amendment is tainted law and cannot be used to shut down the Choice Scholarship Program. Becket filed the brief with co-counsel Kevin Koons of Kroger, Gardis & Regas in Indianapolis.

“Apparently it isn’t enough that the teachers’ unions want to deny a future to the children of Indiana, they also want to take us back to the bad old days when anti-Catholics ran the Indiana public schools,” says Becket Deputy General Counsel Eric Rassbach. “Kids who attend religious schools should be able to apply for state scholarships on the same terms as everyone else, not sent to the back of the bus. These discriminatory laws must be stopped. If they don’t end in Indiana, a terrible precedent will be set for the entire nation.”

Indiana’s Office of the Attorney General defended the state’s program.

Jasvir Singh v. France, Bikramjit Singh v. France

“In France, the idea of “school uniform” has been turned into “school uniformity,” much to the detriment of religious minorities.

On September 2, 2004, France’s loi sur laïcité (law on secularism) took effect, banning religious attire in all state schools. This law reads:

Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit.

In public [primary and secondary schools], the wearing of symbols or clothing through which the pupils ostensibly manifest a religious appearance is prohibited.

The ban on all symbols or clothing that create a “religious appearance” means that students cannot wear yarmulkes, large crucifixes, Sikh turbans, or of course Islamic headscarves, the actual target of the legislation. The word “ostensibly,” however, allows pupils to continue the traditional French practice of wearing small Christian crucifixes.

Since the law came into effect, at least 639 problematic cases have arisen. Of these, 550 have been “resolved,” as the Education Ministry puts it, in most cases by female Muslim pupils ultimately agreeing not to wear bandanas or Islamic headscarves while in school.

But not all students acquiesce to checking their religion at the door. At least 48 children have been expelled from school, mostly Muslim girls who have refused to take off their headscarves, along with 3 Sikh boys who refused to remove their turbans.

As is typical for this sort of law, the enforcement has had far wider scope than the actual text of the law demands. Many schools and teachers who misunderstand the scope of the “secularism law” have prohibited teachers who are members of the clergy from wearing religious garb such as cassocks that they have worn for centuries. One school initially banned a Christmas tree (though it is unclear how pupils might wear it), until it decided that the tree was a pagan rather than a Christian symbol.

Perhaps the worst example of the law’s chilling effects on speech came when teachers at a school in northern France returned 1300 boxes of St. Nicholas Day chocolates to the mayor of the town who had, in accordance with long tradition, sent them to the pupils. The reason? The chocolates’ foil wrappers had tiny crosses on them.

The secularism law strikes at the heart of public religious expression because it does not allow students to identify themselves as believers in a certain faith. Because many students are required by their religion to identify themselves through symbols or clothing, the prohibition forces them to violate their most closely held beliefs. Moreover, by banning religious speech while allowing similar non-religious speech (for example, students are still able to wear clothing that reflects their political beliefs), the state has determined that religious speech is inferior to all other speech. The law also discriminates against religious believers and religious speech because it allows non-believers to wear bandanas or beards, while forbidding religious pupils from doing the same things.

The secularism law clearly violates France’s obligations under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of these international covenants protect the right of every human being to “manifest [his or her] religion or belief” “in public or private”–something the secularism law explicitly forbids.

The Becket Fund collaborated with the Sikh human rights group United Sikhs and European human rights lawyers in advising the three French Sikh boys who have been expelled from school for wearing the turban their religion requires. In December 2007, France’s highest court, the Conseil d’Etat, ruled that the ban on Sikh turbans in French schools was legal because it was not “excessive” and because the ban promoted secularism. In 2009, the European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s decision in the case of Jasvir Singh and Ranjit Singh.

Merced v. Kasson

“Ask not why I defend goat sacrifice. Ask me how you can too.”  
-Eric Rassbach, Vice President & Senior Counsel at Becket 

An ancient religion carries out a unique tradition 

Jose Merced is a priest in the Santeria faith, an Afro-Caribbean religion with roots that go back centuries in West Africa, and later evolving into new forms in Cuba and the Americas. Central to the Santeria religion is the passing on of rituals and beliefs from generation to generation. One of these sacred rituals includes animal sacrifice, which is performed humanely and privately for worship, healing, or the initiation of new priests.

As a Santeria priest, Mr. Merced regularly carried out these sacred religious rituals within his home in Euless, Texas. But in 2006, city officials tried to stop him from practicing his religion, threatening the very existence of the Santeria faith.

Religious liberty means protecting people of all faiths—including minority faiths 

In 2006, officers from the City of Euless, Texas appeared at Mr. Merced’s home and informed him he could not perform his religious rituals in his own home, claiming that his practices violated city ordinances.

Becket stepped in, with Douglas Laycock (Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law), to represent Mr. Merced at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Although the government argued two reasons for forbidding the practice—public health and animal treatment— Becket pointed out that the city had never enforced their ordinances against Mr. Merced in 16 years, and that the city had broad secular exemptions to these ordinances, such as hunting, fishing, meat production, pest control, and veterinary euthanasia. In fact, the city was selectively enforcing its ordinances against Mr. Merced because of his religion.

Fifth Circuit rules for Santeria priest 

On July 31, 2009, a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit sided with Becket. The court said that city ordinances forbidding the slaughter of certain animals prevented the Santeria priest from performing ceremonies essential to his faith, which was a substantial burden on his religious exercise. The court pointed out that Mr. Merced had conducted these rituals for 16 years without incident, and that the government had other ways to protect public health and animal treatment without forbidding Mr. Merced from practicing his religion in his home.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling was an important ruling under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, protecting the right to worship freely in one’s own home.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom includes the freedom to practice one’s faith in all areas of life, both public and private, free of government interference.  
  • Minority religions: Minority religions are particularly at risk of religious liberty violations, but government has no right to selectively target minority faith practices because they are unusual or unpopular. Protecting minority religious beliefs and practices is critical for strengthening the fundamental principle of religious freedom: that all human beings must be free to seek the truth and live out their convictions.  

Matter of Congregation Kol Shofar

Congregation Kol Shofar is a Conservative Jewish synagogue in Tiburon, California, just north of San Francisco. In 2006, the Tiburon Planning Commission denied the synagogue’s plan to make much-needed improvements to its existing sanctuary, despite the Congregation’s stated willingness to accept reasonable conditions.

That’s when the synagogue turned to the Becket Fund. In a series of legal opinion letters to Tiburon’s elected officials, the Becket Fund warned that the denial of building permits violated both state and federal law.

The Becket Fund noted that denying Kol Shofar the ability to make improvements to its facilities resulted in a substantial burden on the Congregation’s religious activities. Space constraints would force synagogue services—particularly on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur—to be held at times incompatible with Jewish ceremonial requirements, and limited the synagogue’s ability to host community religious events. The Becket Fund further observed that Kol Shofar was the only Jewish congregation in Tiburon, and that churches in the area had been permitted to expand their facilities without bureaucratic obstruction. The town had previously claimed that permitting Kol Shofar to build would result in “incompatibility” with the surrounding neighborhood: a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

As a result, Tiburon compromised and allowed Kol Shofar to expand its sanctuary, allowing the Jewish congregation to practice their faith in peace.

“I am writing to express our synagogue’s profound appreciation for the critically important work of The Becket Fund. It was a delight and an honor to work with you. We are grateful that you agreed to take us on as a client – we fearlessly predicted we would add to the mettle of the Becket Fund!” — Kol Shofar Congregation

*Photo of Kol Shofar synagogue. Photo credit: Michael Loeb Photography.  Used by Permission.

Darling v. Bakersfield School District

Danielle and Alexandra Darling are students in the Bakersfield City School District and observant Episcopalians. In March 2006, their mother Nona Darling followed school policy and contacted her daughters’ school to be excused at noontime in order to attend Ash Wednesday services. Following their beliefs, the Darling sisters fasted in the morning and planned to break their fast at the noon Ash Wednesday service at their church.

Instead of being allowed to miss part of the day like one would typically be excused for a dentist appointment or sick day, the school refused to grant the Darlings an excused absence and punished them for observing this important religious holiday. The school even went so far as to treat the siblings as if they were skipping school or did something illicit—even sending them a truancy letter.

The school district conveyed a message to the Darlings, and the other students, that it is wrong to honor their God according to their beliefs. This was unacceptable and unconstitutional, as students of faith should not be punished for adhering to their faith by attending church on important religious holidays.

After Becket stepped in on behalf of the Darling family, the school district backed down and not only excused Danielle and Alexandra, but also rewrote their existing excused absence policy to accommodate students of faith.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

In 2006 New Jersey police officer Jeffrey Heffernan was spotted picking up a campaign sign for the candidate opposing the mayor of Paterson. Officer Heffernan didn’t live in the city and was picking up the sign for his bed-ridden mother. And in any case, the Constitution protects nonpolitical employees who decide to get involved in elections. None of that mattered to the chief of police, who demoted Officer Heffernan from detective to patrol officer as punishment for opposing the sitting mayor. Officer Heffernan sued the city, the mayor, and the police chief of Paterson, New Jersey for violating his freedom of speech and association. Becket joined his fight in a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court explaining how important it is to protect freedom of assembly, and citing scholars such as Washington University School of Law Professor John Inazu, who advocate that approach. Officer Heffernan was represented by Mark B. Frost & Associates, UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

 

Albanian Associated Fund v. Township of Wayne

For years, the Township of Wayne, New Jersey blocked the Albanian Associated Fund (AAF), a Muslim congregation, from building a mosque. The congregation’s efforts were opposed by a so-called “Property Protection Group” in the community, who labeled the mosque a “public nuisance.” Instead of protecting the First Amendment rights of the congregation, Wayne Township suddenly decided that it needed to seize the future home of the mosque for “open space.”

In July 2006, Becket, along with Roman P. Storzer of Storzer & Greene, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of AAF against the Township of Wayne, for violating the Constitution as well as the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey district court, was filed to stop the Township from using eminent domain to seize AAF’s property. A federal judge sided with Becket, preventing the Township from seizing the property, and protecting the mosque’s right to build.

“This is a great victory in the battle for the rights of religious organizations of all faiths,” said Kevin ‘Seamus’ Hasson, Founder of Becket, “However, the greater war will continue until local governments learn that the Constitution prohibits this type of eminent domain abuse.”

“It is wonderful to see the courts in this country protect religious freedom,” said Atmi Kurtishi, president of the Albanian Associated Fund. “But we couldn’t have done it without Roman Storzer and Becket.”

Guzzi v. Thompson

Rosario Guzzi is a prison inmate in Massachusetts who requested kosher meals based upon his “Orthodox Catholic” beliefs. The state denied his request and when he sued, the federal district court upheld the denial based on the judge’s declaration that the tenets of Catholicism do not require believers to keep kosher.

Representing himself, Guzzi appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. That Court, presumably concerned about the district court’s decision to interpret and apply the content of Catholic doctrine, invited Eric Rassbach, the Becket Fund’s National Litigation Director, to brief and argue the case as a friend of the court in support of neither party. Rassbach told the court that, “governments should not be deciding whether a religious belief is orthodox.” The Becket Fund further argued that such out-of-the-ordinary requests must be judged by the inmate’s sincerity and truthfulness (a factual test common in many areas of law), not by a state-created list detailing which religious practices belong to which religion. Otherwise the state would back into the role of deciding what religious beliefs are allowed and which are not, a censorship role that would harm all religious believers. Rassbach suggested that the district court should first have decided whether Guzzi was really telling the truth about what he believed or was simply trying to provoke the prison administration with an insincere claim.

After oral argument but before the First Circuit issued its decision, Massachusetts tried to end the case prematurely by suddenly ordering a kosher diet for Guzzi. This would have left in place the district court’s decision giving Massachusetts a right to define orthodoxy in religion. The Becket Fund immediately asked the First Circuit to vacate the lower court’s decision, getting rid of the district court’s “theology police” opinion. The First Circuit ruled in favor of the Becket Fund.

It was a victory for all who believe that government officials should not be in the business of theological interpretation.

Centennial Baptist Church, Oklahoma

The city of Sand Springs, Oklahoma needed a new property to build a new commercial development complex, and it had eyes on the Centennial Baptist Church property. The city offered to purchase Church property and had indicated that it would invoke eminent domain to seize it if necessary. The church officially rejected the offer, refusing to leave the home that its small, but vibrant African-American congregation had worshiped in for decades.

In March 2006, Becket sent a letter to the City of Sand Springs, Oklahoma on behalf of Centennial Baptist Church, demanding that the city immediately end further attempts to seize the church’s property in violation of the Constitution.

“To put it simply,” the letter stated, “the church property is not for sale, and any attempt by the City to seize the Church’s property through eminent domain will be challenged by immediate legal action.”

The letter further cautioned the city that “the Church’s right to engage in religious exercise on its property, free from government burden and interference, is fully protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.”

Rather than face Becket in court, the city immediately dropped its plans to use eminent domain to seize the property, and the people of Centennial Baptist Church were able to continue worshiping in their house of worship as they had for decades.

Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Boulder County


In 2004, Rocky Mountain Christian Church was growing. The nondenominational church and school in Niwot, Colorado applied for the routine permits needed to expand its sanctuary and school buildings.

In a classic case of discriminatory zoning, Boulder County commissioners rejected the church’s application despite allowing a secular school just a mile away to do exactly what the church wanted to do. As a result, the church had to conduct classes in the hallway. Becket stepped in to represent the church.

Becket argued that denying the permit not only treated the church unequally, but substantially burdened the church’s ability to function and dissuaded other houses of worship from locating in the County. (The County had also told a local synagogue it could have only 100 seats because the county did not want any more “mega churches.”)

After a multi-week trial in federal district court, a jury ruled in the church’s favor on all three of its RLUIPA claims. The county then appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where its appeal was rejected. Intent on discriminating against the church, the county appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally put an end to it all by refusing to hear the case. This left intact the ruling that Boulder County had unfairly discriminated against the church in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) – a lesson that overly zealous and anti-religious zoning boards should take to heart.

Negusie v. Mukasey

Daniel Negusie, an Eritrean Christian, was imprisoned in inhumane conditions for his refusal to serve in his country’s military. While in prison, he was punished and threatened with death for his conversion to Christianity.  After two years of imprisonment, he was made a guard and threatened with more punishment if he did not carry out his duties as a guard.  However, Negusie disobeyed orders to inflict violent punishment on prisoners, allowed prisoners to take showers, and sneaked basic amenities to prisoners. After two more years, he was able to flee the prison and the country, hiding in a container on a ship bound for the United States.

However, upon arriving at a U.S. port, he was denied asylum because, as a prison guard, he “assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of others.” The U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals agreed, saying “the fact that [Negusie] was compelled to participate as a prison guard, and may not have actively tortured or mistreated anyone, is immaterial.”

The case went before the Fifth Circuit Court in Louisiana and ultimately the Supreme Court, where Becket created and led a coalition of religious and human rights organizations which filed an amicus brief in his support. The brief argued that Mr. Negusie should not be punished for acting as a guard, since he was forced to do so as a part of his punishment. This was a crime committed against Negusie, not by Negusie. Becket argued that it is common for thug regimes to set believers against one another and alienate the religious from their consciences, a form of persecution the U.S. must condemn.

The Supreme Court sided with Becket and Mr. Negusie, ordering the lower court to rethink its decision.

Becket’s brief was co-signed by a range of human rights organizations that included the American Islamic Congress, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), China Aid Association, the Dalit Freedom Network, the Hindu American Foundation, the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, Human Dignity International, the Institute for Global Engagement, The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Jubilee Campaign, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, Open Doors USA, the Queens Federation of Churches, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and United Sikhs.

Negusie was represented by Mayer Brown LLP; Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic.

 

Norwood v. Gamble

Two Ohio residents were being forcibly evicted by Norwood City so that commercial developers could improve the land and generate more tax revenue.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief to the Ohio Supreme Court urging that the Court reject the Kelo rule in interpreting the state takings clause. We argued that affirming the lower court’s bad decision would both declare open season on the taking of religious institutions of all faiths and functions (houses of worship, schools, hospitals and soup kitchens, to name just a few). Since religious institutions do not pay taxes, they are especially vulnerable to Kelo-style land grabs.  Allowing this taking to go forward would turn the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against takings for private use on its head.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed that economic motives alone cannot justify taking private property from its owners, and that cities must demonstrate they have a genuine public use for the land. This decision protects religious institutions throughout Ohio. Institute for Justice was counsel in this case.

American Atheists v. Duncan

*Now known as Davenport v. American Atheists.

William J. Antoniewicz, a 27-year-old Utah state trooper, was shot to death on December 8, 1974 while making a routine traffic stop near the Utah-Wyoming border. Many years later, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, a private group dedicated to supporting the state troopers, decided to erect a 12-foot memorial cross with a biographical plaque near the site of his death. The patrol association has since erected 13 more crosses in Utah commemorating all of its fallen patrolmen. In every case the trooper’s family has agreed to have a memorial cross set up.

In December 2005, American Atheists, a Texas-based organization, sued in federal court, seeking to have the crosses removed. American Atheists claimed that Utah violated the Establishment Clause simply by allowing the patrol association to erect the privately owned, designed and erected memorial crosses on public property. In 2008 the Utah federal district court ruled in favor of the state, and American Atheists appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Becket filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit Circuit on behalf of the States of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, arguing that the memorial crosses do not violate the Establishment Clause because they constitute private speech, not government speech. In February 2009, the states and Becket were granted their request to participate in oral argument before the Tenth CIrcuit. Becket attorney Luke Goodrich was designated Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Colorado to argue the appeal for the amici, and presented argument in early March 2009. Sadly, the Tenth Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision.The full panel decided not to grant a rehearing before the full court.

But what was remarkable is that the court’s decision focused in large part on Becket’s arguments, which were the strongest ones before the Court.

Becket filed an amicus brief in support of Utah’s appeal to the Supreme Court in May of 2011. Although the Supreme Court denied review of this case, Justice Thomas believed review should be granted (see dissent here). Utah was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, National Legal Foundation, Mylar Law, and Colorado’s Office of the Attorney General.

Richardson Independent School District, Texas

Schoolchildren should never be forced to choose between respectfully practicing their religion and obeying the law. Yet in 2005, that was the dilemma that confronted a group of Muslim high school students in Richardson, Texas, who were threatened with expulsion for saying their midday prayers.

At the beginning of the school year, several Muslim students approached administrators to make sure they would be able to continue their daily midday prayers, as they had been allowed to do in the past. School administrators granted such permission, and arranged for them to use an empty lecture hall for the prayer. For two weeks, the students prayed peacefully for three minutes each day, causing no disruptions or inconveniences. Two teachers noticed and complained, and several days later two assistant principals and a police officer confronted the students when they went to pray. The students were told that school policy prohibited them from praying anywhere on campus.

A few days after that, the school slightly modified its ban. Under the new policy, some observant Muslim students would be forced to choose between eating lunch or praying during the lunch period. The daily prayer only lasts three minutes, and the lunch period is half an hour – yet if a student chose to pray, he or she would not be allowed to eat lunch and would be forced to go hungry for the day. Other observant students were still not permitted to pray within the time frame set by their faith because of their assigned lunch period.

Becket intervened on behalf of the students, and Richardson Independent School District eventually revised its policy to allow students of all faiths to pray on school grounds, resulting in a victory for all students of faith in that district.

Islamic Council of Victoria v. Catch the Fire Ministries, Inc.

In some parts of the world, leading a peaceful religious discussion may come at a frighteningly high cost. Pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah learned that Australia was one of those parts of the world after facing the threat of jail time for their involvement in seminars and publications about Islam from a Christian perspective.

And what exactly was their crime? The pastors had explained their interpretation of the basic tenets of Islam, how Christians could dialogue with Muslims, and particularly taught that while they did not agree with or believe to be true the teachings of Islam, Christians are called to love, and not hate, Muslims. Yet they were convicted of doing just the opposite: a court concluded that they were “inciting hatred” with their “unreasonable” and “unbalanced” teachings.

The ensuing ordeal was the result of a bill that had good intentions but disastrous effects. In 2001 the Australian province of Victoria passed the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (“Act”), which prohibits conduct that incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule of a person or group of people based on religious belief. However, instead of protecting religion and public harmony, the Act as applied has created social division and the censorship of sincerely held religious beliefs by force of law. Neighbor spies upon neighbor looking for offense in one another’s speech.

On December 17, 2004, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determined that Pastors Scot and Nalliah violated the Act. The Tribunal not only found the pastors in breach of the Act but also ordered the pastors publicly to apologize for their sincerely-held beliefs and promise never to repeat those beliefs.
These actions were in direct violation of international law. Australia is obliged by international conventions to protect rights of conscience, freedom of expression, and equal protection under the law as Australia has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and its enforcement mechanism, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The free speech, belief, and religious exercise provisions of Articles 18, 19, and 26 in the ICCPR protect the right freely to preach about and analyze religious truth-claims of competing religions.

Contrary to these laws, the Act empowers the secular government to censor religious expression based on its own determination of the correctness of a believer’s religious views. In other words, the Victorian courts have become sermon review boards; serving as the arbiters of orthodoxy by determining the boundaries of “valid” religious belief for each faith community.

From April to August 2005, the Becket Fund, joined by a diverse coalition of organizations, exchanged letters with the Attorney General of Australia, urging the government to intervene before the Tribunal issued penalties that would jeopardize Australia’s laudable human rights record and commitment to international law.

On August 14, Australian attorneys, with the assistance of The Becket Fund on international law arguments, submitted appeals papers to the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne. The Court upheld the appeal and ruled in favor of Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, vacating the original ruling and ordering the trial to be heard again in front of a different judge. Pastors Scot and Nalliah no longer face the threat of jail, and are free to preach as they see fit–without apologizing.

Pleasant Grove v. Summum

The city of Pleasant Grove, Utah included a Ten Commandments monument —along with other monuments—in its city park. A small religious group wanted to include its own religious monument in the same park, but was denied the permission to do so. Defending the city’s right to exclude the additional monument, Becket’s amicus brief argued that the city park displays were government—not private—speech, which meant that the city could legitimately decide which monuments to include and which to exclude.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and its majority opinion relied on similar reasoning: such government speech was not subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

American Center for Law and Justice and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP were counsel in this case.

Ake Green

In the summer of 2003, Pastor Ake Green preached a sermon to his congregation about marital conduct based on his interpretation of the Bible. The sermon was later printed in a local newspaper, and soon after, Green was prosecuted for violating Sweden’s hate speech law. He was convicted and sentenced to one month in prison, and he appealed.

In January 2005, Becket filed an amicus brief with the intermediate court of appeals in Sweden to remind the court of its international treaty obligations under Articles 18, 19, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protect Green’s right to religious exercise, religious expression, and equal protection of the laws, respectively. Sweden is a signatory to the ICCPR.

In February 2005, the court of appeals overturned Green’s conviction under domestic law, citing free speech considerations. The prosecutor requested an appeal to the Supreme Court of Sweden and that request was granted.

Becket then filed a second amicus brief in this case, before the Supreme Court of Sweden, calling for the Court to affirm the reversal Green’s conviction. The Court unanimously overturned his conviction.

Green was represented by Percy Bratt, a Swedish human rights lawyer.

Photo Credit: Sonja Palm 

Kelo v. City of New London

The Supreme Court held that the city’s use of eminent domain power to take private property for the purpose of furthering its economic development plan did not run afoul of the constitutional “public use” requirement. In her dissenting opinion, Justice O’Connor (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas) cited Becket’s amicus brief to highlight the uniquely burdensome effect an expansive view and overuse of eminent domain poses to houses of worship, church schools, and religious social service organizations like soup kitchens. The Institute for Justice was counsel in this case.

Hinrichs v. Bosma

For 188 years, the Indiana House of Representatives had a long-standing tradition of opening each day of legislative business with a prayer. These prayers were offered by local chaplains and clergymen from a variety of faiths. In 2005, several Indiana taxpayers filed suit against the legislature claiming that allowing “overtly sectarian prayers” was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. The district court ruled in their favor.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court to the Seventh Circuit criticizing the lower court’s decision that the Establishment Clause prohibits “sectarian” prayer at the Indiana legislature, but allows “non-sectarian” prayer. Our brief demonstrated to the judges the historical pedigree of the term “sectarian” to help realign its definition with its original connotation.

The Seventh Circuit then overturned the lower court’s decision.

Winston & Strawn LLP represented the Indiana legislature.

*Photo: First Prayer in Congress, September 1774, by: H.B. Hall.  Used by permission. 

Christ Church New Jersey v. Rockaway Township

Cramped—that’s how members of Christ Church felt after an exhausting seven year search for a new house of worship. In less than twenty years, a home Bible study of eight people had grown to a church of more than 5000 members. Their 800-person sanctuary was bursting at the seams; it couldn’t keep pace with the needs of a rapidly expanding congregation.

In April 2003, the Church signed a contract to purchase a large property from a bio-tech firm in Rockaway Township, New Jersey. It seemed like a perfect fit. Conveniently located just 21 miles away from the Church’s primary campus in Montclair, the new facility could seat over 2,500 people, every service. But when Christ Church requested approval for its site plan from the Rockaway Township Planning Board, local officials actively sought to block construction. Although couched in terms of concerns about traffic and congestion, there were also indications that some of the resistance came from the fact that Christ Church’s membership was diverse, and its Senior Pastor, Rev. David Ireland, was African-American.

Becket stepped in to advise Christ Church and counter the city’s attempts to drag out the approval process. City bureaucrats sought to foment local opposition, and even went as far as to question whether Christ Church was, legitimately, a “church” as defined by city regulations. Rockaway Township, observed Derek L. Gaubatz, Becket’s former director of litigation, tried “to hunker down and throw sand in the gears at every step of the process.” In a private meeting with Rev. Ireland, the Mayor of Rockaway said “we don’t want you here,” and threatened to seize the property by force of eminent domain.

On April 15, 2005, Christ Church filed suit against Rockaway Township officials for placing unconstitutional, discriminatory burdens upon its right to pursue its religious mission.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the federal statute that supplied the core of Christ Church’s claims, shields religious institutions from the imposition of land use regulations which place them “on less than equal terms” with nonreligious assemblies. Local officials did just that. Rockaway Township did everything it could to create an antagonistically unequal playing field for Christ Church.

After two years of litigation, the Rockaway Township Planning Board relented, settled out of court, and in October 2007, granted Christ Church approval for the construction of its interim sanctuary. The church celebrated receiving its final Certificate of Occupancy on June 1, 2009, six years after buying the property.

Amandeep Singh v. Greenburgh Central School District

Amandeep Singh, a ninth-grade honor student in New York, was reprimanded and suspended indefinitely for wearing a kirpan—a ceremonial religious item worn by members of the Sikh faith—to school.

Meet Amandeep Singh, a high school honor student and a faithful Sikh

Amandeep Singh became a baptized Sikh at age eight, requiring him, like 20 million other Sikhs worldwide, to follow the five Sikh articles of faith. The best known of these is the requirement to wear hair uncut in a turban. Another lesser known requirement is to wear a kirpan, an item shaped like a sword that reminds Sikhs of their duty to speak out against injustice and stand up for the defenseless. In deference to school security concerns, school-age children like Amandeep typically wear a very small, blunt kirpan that is completely harmless.

For over seven years, Amandeep attended local public schools and continuously observed all five articles of his faith, including the wearing of the kirpan, without any incident. Many of his teachers were aware of his kirpan and specifically commended him for his dedication to his faith. None ever told him that his kirpan–which was duller than a butter knife and secured underneath his clothes–posed any sort of danger.

School officials ban a Sikh article of faith

Without explanation, school officials suddenly reversed course in February 2005 and declared Amandeep’s kirpan to be a prohibited “weapon.” Moreover, they refused to allow him to set foot on school grounds unless he abandoned his article of faith.

Becket intervened on Amandeep’s behalf, meeting with school district officials to explain the kirpan’s religious significance and Amandeep’s rights under the First Amendment. The district quickly changed course, agreeing to allow Amandeep to continue his education without compromising his faith.

This was a victory not only for Amandeep and other Sikhs, but also for students of all faiths to freely exercise religion in public schools.

Living Faith Ministries v. Camden County Improvement Authority

Living Faith Ministries, a 6,000-member, 20-year-old New Jersey church, filed suit in federal court on February 15, 2005. Living Faith charges that Pennsauken Township, Camden County, and the Camden County Improvement Authority are violating the United States and New Jersey Constitutions and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by attempting to seize the church by eminent domain.

The vibrant, predominantly African-American religious community has been growing at a rate of 30% annually. In 2002, Living Faith bought the South Jersey Expo Center property after a two-year search that turned up no other suitable alternatives.

The complaint remarks that the Authority “seeks to seize Living Faith’s Church to demolish it and transfer the property to a private developer for the purpose of building private residential units.” This is not a “public use,” such as a park or highway, so the taking would violate the Fifth Amendment. The Pennsauken Township has already acknowledged that the church would be a beneficial use to the community, with no negative impact on the neighborhood or surrounding businesses.

“Living Faith’s outreach to the community is provided through 27 specialized ministries that are dedicated to improving the lives of all within the larger community in accordance with the vision of the Church,” the complaint says. Living Faith holds several weekly religious services, fellowship programs, Bible study, and youth ministries, and a television show titled “Faith Speaks.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joined the team of lawyers representing Living Faith Ministries in this suit, and successfully secured a favorable outcome for the church.

Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District

“This is about a lot more than just how school kids start their day. It’s about where the next generation thinks its rights come from – the Creator or the State.”
—Seamus Hasson, Becket’s Founder

Atheist activist continues attack on “under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

Just a year after his procedural defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court, atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow made another attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance—this time in California. In May 2005, Becket intervened on behalf of public school parents whose children sought to continue voluntarily reciting the Pledge in school.

After the federal district court sided with Dr. Newdow, Becket appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which previously issued what the L.A. Times called one of its “most controversial opinions,” that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. In December 2007, the Ninth Circuit heard a lively argument in a packed courtroom that included several of Dr. Newdow’s boisterous supporters.

In the hearing, Becket founder Seamus Hasson argued that the phrase “under God” in American history protects rights, not violates them. Mr. Hasson demonstrated that historic appeals to “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address are not primarily religious but instead embody our Founding Fathers’ political philosophy. By adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Congress not only contrasted mutually exclusive conceptions of human rights envisioned by the United States and the Soviet Union, but affirmed that our rights come from an authority higher than the state.

Ninth Circuit changes its mind—thanks to Becket

After considering the case for almost two and a half years, in March 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed itself, affirming the constitutionality of the words “under God.” Remarkably, the same court that in 2002 ruled that saying “under God” was like saying a prayer, adopted Becket’s position that the Pledge is a statement of political philosophy.

Dr. Newdow has since made similar attempts in other states to alter the Pledge of Allegiance as well as to scrub the national motto “In God we trust” from U.S. currency. Becket continues to defend religion in the public square, arguing that “God” is not a dirty word that needs to be scrubbed from society.

To learn more about the case, listen to Becket’s Stream of Conscience podcast episode, Rights and Recitations.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Public Square: Because religious exercise is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. It can, and should, have a place in the public square. Becket fights to assure free religious expression in public schools, including the right of students to voluntarily say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich

Americans who work in the healthcare field often do so out of concern for their fellow citizens – their careers allow them to make a living and make a difference in the lives of those who need their help. Unfortunately, healthcare workers are increasingly being told by the government that they have to make a choice—abandon their religious beliefs or abandon their careers. Under the First Amendment, that is a choice no American should have to make.

Consider the policy Illinois imposed in 2005 to force pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives, including “morning after” and “week after” pills. For Luke Vander Bleek and Glenn Kosirog, this requirement was troublesome because their religious beliefs prohibited them from selling these products.

The aim of the rule was clear from the outset. Governor Rod Blagojevich announced that its purpose was to stop religion from “stand[ing] in the way” of dispensing drugs, and to force pharmacies to “fill prescriptions without making moral judgments.” Governor Blagojevich announced that pharmacists with religious beliefs about these drugs should “find another profession.” VanderBleek and Kosirog had each spent more than twenty-five years building pharmacy careers. Being told to “find another profession” at mid-life because they had the wrong religious beliefs was an unwelcome mandate.

At trial, Illinois was totally unable to support its new rule. The state had no evidence of any person who had been unable to get the drugs in question. In fact, evidence showed that there were many neighboring pharmacies willing to sell the products, which were also available over the internet. Worse, the government admitted that pharmacies could avoid this rule for “common sense business” reasons, but not for religious reasons. Refusing to sell the drugs because you want to make more money was allowed; refusing to sell because of religion was not.

The pharmacists were represented in this fight for nearly seven years by Becket attorney Mark Rienzi. Ultimately the Circuit Court ruled the law was invalid for violating two state laws designed to protect religious liberty, as well as unconstitutional for violating the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the First Amendment.

In December 2012, Illinois declined to appeal, delivering a final victory for the pharmacists.

Even for those who disagree with the religious persuasion of the pharmacists, it is important to protect minority rights and honor America’s tradition of diverse opinions by upholding their right to Free Exercise.

*Becket handled the case on appeal, along with attorneys from ACLJ and WilmerHale, LLP.

Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. and Pong Me v. Town of Newton Planning and Zoning Commission

When the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut bought 10 acres of land to build the state’s first Buddhist Temple, they were unpleasantly surprised.

The Town of Newtown’s Planning & Zoning Commission denied them permission to build their proposed temple, citing the temple’s Asian architecture and the volume of cars and noise the temple could potentially cause.  Represented by Murtha Cullina LLP, the Cambodian Buddhist Society sued under RLUIPA and a Connecticut law guaranteeing religious freedom.

The case went all the way to the state supreme court, where Becket filed an amicus brief arguing that the Cambodian Buddhist Society was entitled to build its temple.  Sadly, the justices sided with Newtown, saying officials had acted on “neutral concerns” about public safety rather than religious bias.  Their decision was out of step with other state and federal courts, which recognize that RLUIPA and state religious freedom laws apply even when bias cannot be definitely proved.

Becket believes that the 500 million Buddhists around the world have a right to build proper facilities in which to practice their faith, whether they are in Cambodia or Connecticut. Apparently, the state of Connecticut disagrees.

 

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a Christian student group was denied official recognition by a public law school because the group insisted that its voting members and leaders accept and adhere to a statement of faith.  UC Hastings College of Law, located in San Francisco, decided that the Christian Legal Society (CLS) policies violated the school nondiscrimination policy. CLS limited voting membership and leadership to Christians who agreed with the group’s statement of faith, including its teachings on sexual morality. Becket filed an friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Sikh groups, arguing that religious groups have the constitutional right to determine the requirements of membership in their organizations. Mike McConnell, Christian Legal Society, Alliance Defending Freedom were counsel in this case.

In April 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of UC Hastings, calling into question the associational rights of student groups across the nation. Four justices filed a strong dissent, calling the decision “deeply disappointing” and “serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.” That dissent relied in part on the arguments made by Becket.

Hindu Temple Society of North America v. New York Supreme Court

Venigalla v. Nori

In New York City, it’s common to hear about a hostile takeover of a corporation. What you don’t hear about every day is a hostile takeover of a Hindu Temple.

The Hindu Temple Society of North America is the nation’s oldest and most influential Hindu temple. But in 2004, it was the target of a hostile takeover attempt by six insurgents, some of whom rarely, if ever, attended the Temple. The insurgents filed suit in New York state court seeking an order putting them in charge of the Temple’s religious activities.

The New York state court system’s response to the takeover attempt was a forced restructuring of the Temple. Instead of allowing the Temple to govern itself in the traditional Hindu religious manner—which does not include a concept of “membership”—the New York courts tried to force the Temple to adopt a congregational structure similar to that of a Baptist church, where members elect leadership. In fact, since the Temple had no membership rolls, the state courts asked everyone who had signed the Temple’s visitor book if they wanted to be “members.”

To defend the Temple against this unprecedented invasion of its religious autonomy, Becket intervened in 2004, defending both the state court lawsuit and filing a lawsuit on behalf of the Temple, its Trustees, and several ordinary devotees of the Temple who wanted to keep the government out of the Temple’s affairs.

Becket argued in both lawsuits that the presiding judges had taken control of the Temple, stopped its devotees from worshiping the way they want, censored the Temple’s speech, and imposed a voting membership requirement, including the definition of who is a Hindu. If the state had gotten its way, it would have had the authority to decides which priests will be hired and what gods will be worshiped.

However, after four years of litigation, New York’s highest court—the Court of Appeals—ruled in favor of the Temple and against the idea that a Temple could be treated as if it were a congregation of believers.

In a twist of irony, this victory for religious freedom came in a place where that freedom was first invoked in North America. The Temple is located in Flushing, Queens, the birthplace of religious freedom in North America. The Flushing Remonstrance of 1657 is an important precursor to the First Amendment and one of the oldest expressions of religious freedom in the world. It reproved the Dutch colonial Governor Peter Stuyvesant for his attempts to ban Quakers, a reviled religious minority at the time. Bowne Street, on which the Temple stands, is named after John Bowne, the English resident of New Amsterdam whom Governor Stuyvesant banished from the colony for allowing Quakers to hold religious services in his home.

*Photo of Hindu Temple Society of North America.  Credit WikiCommons.

 

Conaway v. Deane

Nine same-sex couples in Maryland sued when they were denied marriage licenses, due to a Maryland law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  Becket filed an amicus brief addressing the impact that a wholesale change to the laws defining marriage would have on religious liberty.  Maryland’s highest court—the Court of Appeals—ruled that the marriage law was constitutional, and the definition of marriage in Maryland remained unchanged. Maryland’s Office of the Attorney General defended the law.

Living Water Church of God (Okemos Christian Center) v. Township of Meridian

One of the fundamental principles underlying “freedom exercise of religion” is the right to establish church facilities of sufficient size to meet a congregation’s needs.

For several years, Meridian Township, Michigan has blocked the Living Water Church of God from expanding its facility to carry out vital ministries of the Church. In August 2005, a federal district court held that the Township’s actions violated RLUIPA and stopped the Township from taking any further actions to prevent the Church from expanding its facility in order to accommodate its growing congregation and operate a Christian school.   The township appealed.

Becket lead the appeal at the Sixth Circuit, but unfortunately, the Court ruled that the township’s denial did not place a substantial burden on Living Water.

“At the heart of the matter is the right of any religious organization to practice its beliefs without government interference,” said Becket attorney Derek Gaubatz. “That includes protection from laws that unfairly stop church members from gathering together for basic activities like worship and religious teaching.”

 

Juma Mosque Congregation of Baku v. Azerbaijan

This is a case about church autonomy – the right of religious groups to organize themselves as they see fit. This right includes the right of houses of worship to choose their leaders without government interference.

During the Soviet Union, the oldest Mosque in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan – called the Juma Mosque—was turned into a carpet museum. Most other mosques were torn down.

In 1991, right after Azerbaijan had gained its independence from the Soviet Union, then-President Elchibey decreed that all former mosques, churches, and other houses of worship should be restored to their original, religious functions. A group of Muslim believers began worshipping in the Juma Mosque at that time and registered themselves as a “religious organization” under the law, once with the Baku city government, and once with the Ministry of Justice. Then, for 10 years, the members of the Juma Mosque Congregation were allowed to worship in peace.

However, in 2001, a new more authoritarian government began asserting control over the mosque, attempting to install its own imam (preaching minister) instead of the one that already led the mosque, democracy and human rights activist Ilgar Allahverdiev. The mosque congregation rejected the government’s demand that it submit to control by the Caucasus Muslims Board, an organization once headed by Joseph Stalin.

The mosque successfully resisted until 2004, when the government sent troops into the mosque during prayer services and forcibly removed everyone. The mosque was then surrounded by a fence and “closed for repairs.”

After suing for relief in the government-controlled Azerbaijan courts and finding no success, in 2004 the mosque asked Becket to represent it in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The Juma Mosque Congregation case represents an important church autonomy case for all religious groups and all of Europe. If the government can force a mosque or a church or a rabbi to accept a government-appointed minister, then the mosque has become a prisoner of the state. The European Court of Human Rights should vindicate this important, and basic principle of human rights.

Michele Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Academy

When Michele Curay-Cramer, an English and religion teacher at the private, Catholic school Ursuline Academy in Wilmington, Delaware, came out publicly in favor in abortion, she was immediately terminated from her position teaching Catholic doctrine. More specifically, on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in January 2003, Curay-Cramer signed onto a full-page ad in the Wilmington News Journal praising the Roe decision and declaring her pro-choice position. Adding to the irony, that same day her employer sponsored a field trip for students to travel to Washington, DC to protest the Roe decision and declare the school’s pro-life position.

The ad conflicted with fundamental Catholic teaching on abortion, and when the school confronted Curay-Cramer with the ad, she declined to recant her views and was subsequently fired.

But she soon sued the school, and the case went first to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, federal district court in Delaware, and eventually the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Becket represented the school and the Diocese successfully getting Curay-Cramer’s claims soundly dismissed on First Amendment grounds in 2006.

In dismissing Ms. Curay-Cramer’s complaint, Judge Kent Jordan of the Delaware federal district court was unequivocally clear on the religious rights of the school and the Diocese, saying:

“Short of a declaration that the Pope should pass draft encyclicals through the courts for approval, it is hard to conceive of a more obvious violation of the free exercise rights of the Catholic Church or a clearer case of inappropriate entanglement of church and state … It is not the place of this or any other court to say what system of beliefs constitutes ‘true’ Catholicism or makes for a ‘good’ Catholic. Ours is a system which, wonderfully, forbids any intrusion of the sort.”

Tong v. Chicago Park District

Chicago bureaucrats would have smothered religious speech in a display of privately funded messages in a neighborhood park if Becket had not secured an important victory for free religious speech.

A park fundraiser overseen by the Chicago Park District invited the community to purchase bricks engraved with an inscription chosen by the donor to be included in a neighborhood park walkway.  Becket’s clients wanted to engrave the message “Jesus is the cornerstone” on their brick, but the proposed message was rejected because of its religious content.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed with Becket that rejecting the proposed engraving violated the First Amendment.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries

Imagine thanking one of the most successful prisoner rehabilitation programs in the nation with a $1.5 million dollar plus fine. But a federal judge in Iowa, acting at the behest of the hyperseparationist group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, did just that.

The Iowa InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) is a comprehensive, faith-based pre-release rehabilitation program for prisoners that was designed by Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries. It has an exemplary record of successfully rehabilitating hardened criminals into contributing members of society. The program presents viable, cost-saving solutions for helping prisoners, something with which state and local governments often struggle. However, in 2006, after a lawsuit was brought by the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an Iowa federal judge ordered that the IFI program in Iowa be shut down, and that IFI and its affiliate, Prison Fellowship Ministries, repay the state of Iowa the more than $1.5 million which IFI had received for services over the previous six years.

The reasoning? According to the court, IFI is “pervasively sectarian,” and therefore simply cannot interact with the state. This discredited doctrine had already been rejected by the federal courts, making the ruling even more preposterous. After losing in trial court, Prison Fellowship contacted Becket and asked us to take on the appeal before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2007, we argued the case before an Eight Circuit panel that included former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

In a huge win for all faith-based programs, the Eighth Circuit reversed the most damaging part of the district court’s judgment, rejecting the idea that Prison Fellowship had to repay the amounts they had earned for providing rehabilitation services. Although political changes in Iowa resulted in an end to the program there, the result in this case ensured that Prison Fellowship could continue its ministries in many other state prison systems and continue to help many prisoners repent and rebuild their lives.

Benning v. Georgia

Ralph Benning is a Torah observant Jew who eats kosher food, wear a yarmulke, observes his faith’s specific holy days and performs religious rituals. He was an inmate in the Georgia prison system.

Benning asked a number of state and prison officials to provide him with a kosher diet and permit him to wear a yarmulke. When prison officials denied Benning’s requests, he had no choice but to file suit. Georgia moved to dismiss, arguing that the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was unconstitutional because (Georgia claimed) it exceeded the authority of Congress under the Spending and Commerce Clauses, and violated the Tenth Amendment and the Establishment Clause.

The district court dismissed some of Benning’s claims and concluded that RLUIPA was constitutional, but allowed that issue to be appealed. On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Pryor, writing for a unanimous panel held that “RLUIPA was validly enacted under the Spending Clause and does not violate either the Tenth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

After the case went back to district court, Georgia settled the case by creating a kosher dietary program for all observant Jewish prisoners, including Ralph Benning.

Gallart v. City of Frederick and Frederick Presbyterian Church

In 1998, members of a Frederick, Maryland church decided to build an addition to their church building. A new 180-square-foot lobby area would provide handicapped access to the church, an elevator, improved bathrooms and a wider stairwell. When the church’s attorney met with the city zoning administrator to determine what approvals were needed, he was told that the church did not conform to current zoning requirements mandating that on-site parking be provided. Although the existing church was grandfathered from the regulation, the construction of an addition would trigger the parking requirement. Because it was physically impossible, due to size constraints, to build a parking lot meeting the city’s zoning requirements on the church’s property (the church was built in 1825, well before invention of the automobile), Dean was told that the church would need a variance for the existing sanctuary if they wished to proceed with construction of the addition.

Multiple hearings were conducted followed by a rejection of the variance application.

A few months later, in the fall of 2000, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was signed into law, and the church asked the office of the City Attorney for an opinion on how the new law would affect Frederick Presbyterian ‘s ongoing effort to win approval of the new addition.

On January 30, 2001 Becket wrote a letter to the city attorney, noting that Frederick’s “zoning regulations place a substantial burden on the church’s use of the property for religious exercise,” and that “imposing the parking requirements on the church would violate RLUIPA.” The city agreed, and the Zoning Administrator and Historic District Commission unanimously approved the addition.

In the meantime, a disgruntled neighbor appealed the city’s decision. Becket stepped in to defend the church in court.

*Image Credit: Fredrick Presbyterian Church

Cotton v. Florida Department of Corrections

Alan J. Cotton was a prisoner in Florida’s Everglades Correctional Institution who tried for several years to get the state Department of Corrections to provide him with kosher meals. Cotton was born and raised in the Jewish faith, and was a “sincere adherent of Orthodox Judaism” who “believes he is required to keep a kosher diet” in order to “conform to the divine will of God as expressed in the Torah.”

Such requests for a special diet are not unusual, and federal prisons in Florida routinely accommodate requests for kosher food. Cotton began his battle for a kosher diet in October 2000. Several requests were denied, and a subsequent appeal was rejected.

In September 2002, Becket filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Corrections, charging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998.

In October 2003, the Florida Department of Corrections finally settled, allowing Cotton to receive kosher meals according to his Orthodox Jewish faith.

Lt. Ryan Berry v. U.S. Air Force

Lt. Ryan Berry, 26, is a West Point graduate who followed in his father’s footsteps and joined the Air Force to become a nuclear missileer. Berry morally objected to sex-integrated silo duty where each missile silo had one bed and toilet facilities shielded only by a retractable curtain — rendering privacy minimal. Berry sought counsel from the base Catholic chaplain who agreed that mixing of the sexes among silo crews was improper and a likely occasion of sin.

From May 1997 to December 1998, Berry’s religious waiver was honored and he worked silo duty exclusively with men. He received excellent job performance evaluations. Then several squadron members complained about “preferential” treatment, and the new wing commander, Col. Ronald Haeckel, refused to continue Berry’s religious accommodation.

In an April job performance review, Haeckel blasted Berry for “unacceptable professionalism.” He wrote that Berry “refuses to accept personal responsibilities … (and) will not perform duties with fully qualified female crew members.” Berry was then decertified from working with nuclear missiles and assigned to a desk job.

Recognizing a violation of Lt. Berry’s religious liberty, Becket stepped in to negotiate a favorable settlement for Berry with the U.S. Air Force.

Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter

The Guru Nanak Sikh Society began its effort to build a Sikh temple when it applied for a conditional use permit for a property it owned  in Yuba City, California. The site was located in a residential zone designated for large lot single family homes, where the zoning ordinance permits churches and other religious institutions only with a conditional use permit.

County staff found that the project would be consistent with the county’s general plan and recommended approval of the application with conditions that would minimize potential conflicts with residences in the area. But on April 4, 2001 the County Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the CUP application, responding to complaints from neighbors regarding “noise and traffic.”

So the Guru Nanak Sikh Society began searching for a different property. In 2002 they bought property in an area of the county zoned for agricultural land. The  Society applied for a conditional use permit seeking approval for expansion and use of an existing house as a Sikh temple. As with the previous application, the Society stipulated that no more than 75 people would occupy the facility at any one time.

Once again, the county staff found the proposed use consistent with the county’s general plan and recommended approval of the application. But once again, neighbors complained, citing traffic and property value concerns. This time, however, the Planning Commission approved the CUP on a vote of 4-3.

The complaining neighbors now appealed the Planning Commission decision to the County Board of Supervisors. County staff recommended that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a CUP. But following a public hearing the Board voted unanimously to deny the use permit.

On August 19, 2002, represented by Michael Barrette, the Guru Nanak Sikh Society filed suit against the county and members of the County Board in U.S. District Court, alleging more than 20 violations of state and federal law, including RLUIPA. On November 19, 2003, Senior Judge Lawrence Karlton issued a 47 page decision in which he found that the County has violated RLUIPA, and upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA’s land use provisions.

“There can be no doubt that plaintiff’s challenge concerns ‘religious exercise’ within the meaning of RLUIPA,” Judge Karlton wrote. “Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden because it ‘does not identify a single religious belief mandated by its faith that is inhibited (much less, substantially burdened) on account of the use permit denial. . . . This argument flies in the face of both the record and common sense. Plaintiff’s permit application itself details the ways in which the temple is required to facilitate Sikh religious practices. . . . Congress’s decision to enact RLUIPA necessarily recognizes the fact that religious assembly buildings are needed to facilitate religious practice, and the possibility that local governments may use zoning regulations to prevent religious groups from using land for such purposes. It is for this reason that challenges of zoning ordinances are expressly contemplated by the statute. The use of the land does not have to be a ‘core religious practice.'”

On December 12, 2003, Sutter County filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 9, 2004, Becket filed an amicus curiae brief with the Ninth Circuit. The brief stated that the denial by Sutter County’s Board of Commissioners to issue a building permit to the Sikhs violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) because it “substantially burdened” the free exercise of religion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed Becket’s argument, holding that the Guru Nanak Sikh society had the right to build a place of worship in their neighborhood.

“This resounding victory for the Sikh group has nationwide implications for a wide range of cases dealing with religious land interests,” said Jared N. Leland, spokesman for Becket, “and it will echo especially loudly in California.”

Calvary Chapel O’Hare v. Village of Franklin Park

Calvary Chapel O’Hare was founded in 1996 in a former real estate office. By 2000, the church had doubled in size to 200 members, and its 2500 square foot facility was no longer adequate for its congregation.

So in 2002, Calvary Chapel signed a contract with a bowling alley that suited the church’s needs. The following month, however, city officials informed Pastor Jeff Deane that the church was in a zone that did not allow churches, even with a conditional permit. Though many other assembly and institutional uses were allowed in that zone, the church could not use its building as a place of worship.

Represented by Becket and local attorney Timothy P. Dwyer, Calvary Chapel O’Hare sued the Village of Franklin Park, charging violations of the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

In July 2002, in a great victory for the church, the Village changed its Zoning Code to allow churches to apply for conditional uses in commercial zones, ensuring that all forms of assembly, religious and non-religious, were treated equally. In January 2003, Franklin Park approved the permit, the church formally purchased the property. Today Calvary Chapel O’Hare continues to worship freely in its bowling alley.

Greenwood Community Church v. City of Greenwood Village

Greenwood Community Church was organized in 1991, when it took over property that had been owned by the Belleview/Holly Baptist Church at a major city intersection (Belleview Avenue and Holly St.). The city had given zoning approval for construction of the church facility in 1985. It consists of just under 32,000 square feet of space, including a 600 seat sanctuary. (The original city permit allowed a 1,135 seat sanctuary, but it was later reduced somewhat in size so that a 125 child day care center could be built. The city issued a permit for day care use in 1988.)

The church has grown considerably in recent years, and the present building is no longer larger enough to accommodate all of its activities – worship services, youth group meetings, adult bible studies and other religious meetings and events – and so in the spring of 2000, it applied for an amendment of its Special Use Permit to expand both the building and associated parking spaces.

A member of the congregation had donated an additional four and a half acres of land immediately adjacent to the original 9 acre property in 1997, and the application proposed using the additional vacant property for the expansion. The expanded facility would occupy up to 61,485 square feet, roughly doubling available floor space and including an expanded sanctuary (at 900 seats, still 75 seats fewer than authorized under the original CUP), chapel, music room, classrooms and community area.

The church was meticulous about meeting city requirements for the proposal. A required (and noticed) neighborhood input meeting was held on July 26, 2000. Other than church and city representatives, only one area resident attended, and testified that the church does not cause traffic problems on Sunday mornings. The church spent some $250,000 on engineering, planning and architectural fees and expenses, and to prepare its application plans and respond to city requests.

On November 6, 2001, the city Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the application, and in response to newly raised concerns expressed at the meeting, the church agreed to drop its proposed day care use of the property. A month later, the Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the City Council approve the application. In January, 2002, the city’s planning staff sent a memo to the Council stating that the application met all applicable standards, codes and criteria, and recommended approval.

The City Council held a public hearing on the application on January 28, and then took no action on it. Forty-nine days later, on March 18, 2002, the Council abruptly adopted “Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order,” denying the application unconditionally, without proposing any changes or conditions for approval. Among the Council’s “findings” was that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was unconstitutional, and that it would therefore ignore the law’s requirements.

On May 6, 2002, Greenwood Community Church filed suit against the City of Greenwood Village in Arapahoe County District Court, charging that the City’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.” It alleges violations of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions and RLUIPA, and asks the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the city, as well as an order directing the city to “issue all permits and authorizations necessary” for the expansion project.

On June 7, 2002, Becket joined the lawsuit on behalf of Greenwood Community Church.

In September 2002, the church and the city agreed to explore resolution of the case. After several months of talks, The Greenwood City Council met to reconsider the application at its meeting on December 2, 2002. On a vote of 6-2, the Council reversed its earlier decision and approved the church’s expansion plans.

In addition to compromises agreed to earlier, the church will accept a reconfiguration of its expanded parking area, more than doubling the setback from its eastern boundary, as well as a further reduction in square footage of the new, larger building.

 

Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Lady Cage-Barile

Lady Cage-Barile was a member of the congregation of Church of Christ in Hollywood, California, who disagreed with how Dr. Rodriguez, the church leader, and other leaders guided the church. Cage-Barile engaged in disruptive conduct on church premises, sometimes entering the church and following certain members, shouting that they were adulterers, agents of Satan, and demon-worshipers. She shouted at Dr. Rodriguez and church leaders, calling them Satan’s agents because they allow divorced and remarried persons to participate in church ministries.

Dr. Rodriguez then asked Cage-Barile to attend services at a different church — one where she would respect the leadership. In February 2002, he wrote a letter to Cage-Barile, informing her that her membership was terminated, that she could no longer participate in church activities or enter church premises, and that if she did enter the church she would be considered a trespasser.

But when Cage-Barile continued to disrupt worship services, the church filed for a temporary restraining order.

The trial court found that Cage-Barile had a constitutional right of free speech and if the court forced her exclusion it would entangle the court in an ecclesiastical dispute. Becket appealed the case and in May 2002, the court concluded that the church, like any nonreligious property owner, may decide whom to allow on its premises.

Cottonwood Christian Center v. City of Cypress

A growing church seeks a new home

Cottonwood, a large non-denominational church in Orange County, California, was established in 1983 with a membership of just 50 people. Over the years, it grew rapidly, hosting 4,000 adults at worship services, and another 1,200 children at Sunday school each week. Its existing facility had a seating capacity of only 700, and it had to hold hold two services on Saturday and four on Sunday to accommodate its members. Yet it still had to turn away new worshipers because of limited space.

Church members began raising funds to purchase a 17.9 acre property for $13 million in a redevelopment area that had been vacant for decades. They drew up plans for a 300,000 square foot worship center with seating for more than 4,700, as well as a youth center, daycare, gymnasium, and other facilities to serve the congregation.

A city that chooses Costco over a church

In October 2000, Cottonwood filed an extensive application for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”), that went well beyond the city’s requirements. But a few weeks later, the city rejected it, citing omission of a Preliminary Design Review, despite the fact that the application itself states that such a review is optional. The following day on a Friday, the city sent the church a letter—by ordinary mail—informing them of a City Council meeting on Monday, at which it would adopt a moratorium on any new permit applications in the redevelopment area.

The moratorium lasted more than a year, during which the Council secured interest from Costco Corporation, the big warehouse retail store chain. The Redevelopment Agency then chose Costco’s proposal despite the fact that it doesn’t own the land, and that the property is not zoned for retail use.

A gross violation of church property rights

In February 2002, represented by Becket and by the firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Cottonwood Christian Center filed a lawsuit against the City of Cypress, charging violations of RLUIPA and the U.S. and California state Constitutions.

In April 2002, the Cypress City Council voted 3-0 to begin eminent domain proceedings to take the land and then sell it to Costco for construction of a new retail warehouse store. Later, after Council member Anna Percy compared the Council members to “parents” who have responsibility to make important decisions, and city residents and church members as “kids” who don’t have all the information to make such decisions, the Council voted 4-0 to take the property.

In June 2002, Cottonwood filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the City of Cypress from taking its property. A judge granted the motion, and held that the church was likely to win, stating: “Preventing a church from building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its ability to practice its religion. Churches are central to the religious exercise of most religions. If Cottonwood could not build a church, it could not exist.”

After months of settlement negotiations, the city and the church dismissed the lawsuits after Cottonwood agreed to build its church on another 29 acre site in the same area.

Images of finished building. Used by permission: Cottonwood Church

Van Orden v. Perry

In an Establishment Clause challenge to a Ten Commandments display on the Texas State Capitol grounds, Becket’s amicus brief argued that such displays are constitutionally protected.  The Supreme Court ruled our way. Texas’s Office of the Attorney General and  Acting Solicitor General (Paul Clement) were counsel in this case.

Castle Hills First Baptist Church v. City of Castle Hills

Castle Hills First Baptist Church was a growing church in San Antonio, Texas that needed a new space to accommodate its 17,000 members. So in the late 1990s it acquired six residential lots for much needed additional parking.

Knowing that the church intended to use the lots for parking, the city allowed it to demolish and remove homes on the lots. However, it then refused to grant a special use permit to begin construction of the parking areas. In the following months, city officials proposed a settlement that would allow the parking lots to be built, only to have the City Council vote them down. They also rejected three other applications to begin construction. A study done by the city’s own traffic engineer showed that development of the church’s new parking lot would actually improve traffic conditions in the area, but the report was ignored. The city also demanded that the church provide and pay for additional reports related to the aesthetics, drainage, air quality and traffic impact of the new parking lots. When the church met all these arbitrary requirements, the city council simply ignored them and denied their request to build.

Finally, after years of fruitless attempts to win city approval, the church sued in the summer of 2001. Becket joined the case in December 2001, and successfully won a victory for the Church in March 2004. Judge W.R. Furgeson’s ruling took the opportunity “to encourage Castle Hills and all other similarly situated communities to engage in thorough and positive debate and negotiation on the issues of zoning of religious organizations and places of worship… Cities must govern the health, safety and welfare of their communities, but in so doing, should consider carefully the positive and supportive role that a place of worship will play in doing so.”

Smith v. Allen

Becket is committed to defending the rights of all religious faiths, even those unknown to most Americans. When an Alabama prison inmate requested to keep an Odinist meditation crystal while in prison, officials denied his request on multiple occasions; Becket intervened on his behalf after the District Court upheld the prison’s decision.

Though the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals elected not to provide the specific prisoner with his meditation crystal (due to some limiting factors unique to the case), it did affirm the general rights of prisoners to religious accommodations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Further, it afforded religious inmates the opportunity to assert this right when a lack of accommodation can be demonstrated to have caused a substantial burden to the inmate. Thus, independent of the specific issue at stake in the case, the religious rights of prisoners were broadly upheld.

This decision laid the groundwork for future religious liberty cases dealing with the freedoms of prisoners, and ensured that individuals who face legitimate burdens on their exercise of faith may seek relief through the judicial system.

Living Waters Bible Church v. Town of Enfield

Becket has joined the battle being waged by the Living Waters Bible Church against the Town of Enfield, New Hampshire over the right to broadcast Christian programming over a 7 watt FM radio station in the area.

Becket, a nonpartisan and nonprofit public interest law firm, represents a number of churches and other religious institutions throughout the United States in cases filed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). Enfield officials relied on their land use regulation authority in denying the church’s request for a zoning variance that would allow it to operate a radio studio. The church’s lawsuit charges the town with violations of RLUIPA and the U.S. and New Hampshire Constitutions.

The Living Waters Bible Church is a small nondenominational church which meets in a modest little house located on a 50 acre property in Enfield. About a year ago, it agreed to work with another group, the Green Mountain Educational Fellowship, to bring Christian radio programs to residents in the area around Enfield. The Federal Communications Commission granted a Construction Permit for the station (WVFA – 90.5 MHz FM) on February 9, 2001.

In June 2001, Pastor Elmer Murray informally approached town officials about his plan to build a very small radio studio on church property (the transmitter and antenna are located miles away, on Shakers Mountain), and was told it was an “accessory use” to the permitted church and residential uses already in place. But in July, the Town Planning Commission decided that a radio studio was not an accessory use, and would require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. The Board, yielding to pressure from a few neighbors, denied the variance and a later motion for rehearing. The church, left with no choice, sued in state court in November.

The Town of Enfield removed the case to federal court on November 30. Becket, which won the first case litigated under RLUIPA just over a year ago, now represents churches and other religious groups in similar suits in half a dozen states stretching from Pennsylvania to Hawaii.

 

Pine Hill Zendo Inc. v. Town of Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals

Few cases better illustrate the arbitrary and even whimsical way in which local zoning boards often reject petitions for special use permits than the case of Pine Hill Zendo v. the Town of Bedford, New York. Pine Hill Zendo is a Buddhist temple, albeit a very small one. It is one of a handful of Rinzai Zen Buddhist temples in North America with a resident teacher, and consists of a meditation room in the home of John and Angela Mortensen. For a few hours four days a week, the zendo’s eleven members gather at the house for silent meditation, brief liturgies and instruction.

DenkoIn the spring of 2001, however, a neighbor complained to the Town Planning Board, and the Mortensens were asked to apply for a special use permit that would allow them to use the home as a “church or other place of worship,” although neither of those terms is defined anywhere in the Town zoning ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals held a hearing on the application on September 5, 2001, and a group of neighbors appeared in opposition. None claimed that they had been harmed or even inconvenienced by Pine Hill Zendo during the previous two years. One resident even testified that other neighbors told her they had never seen or heard anything, and didn’t even realize the Zendo existed. Opponents simply speculated that traffic and parking problems might develop.

The ZBA rejected the application for a special use permit, citing “issues related to traffic and on-street parking,” although on-street parking is permitted in the area at any time except for overnight hours during the winter months. And, incongruously, the Board cited concern over noise, despite the fact that the Zendo’s primary activity is silent meditation.

On November 2, 2001, Becket joined the case. On November 6, 2001, Pine Hill Zendo filed suit against the Bedford ZBA in the Supreme Court for the County of Westchester, New York, seeking reversal of the Board’s decision. The Town of Bedford subsequently settled, resulting in a victory for the Zendo.

Freedom Baptist Church v. Township of Middletown

Becket represented Freedom Baptist Church, a small religious community of about 25 members in Middletown Township in Pennsylvania, just west of Philadelphia.

In the fall of 2000, Pastor Chris Keay began a search for suitable space to hold worship services in Middletown Township. Pastor Keay soon signed a lease on the first floor of an office building below a dentist’s office.

However, the building was in a “no religion” zone. After having worshipped in the space for six months, a Township Zoning Officer came after the church, claiming that it was in a zone in which religious worship was not permitted under any circumstances. The church applied for a variance but was denied. It had no choice but to bring a lawsuit under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

In its defense, Middletown challenged the constitutionality of RLUIPA, but Becket argued in favor of RLIUPA at the district court. Judge Stewart Dalzell issued a ruling issued on May 2002, upheld the law. It was the first time that a federal court had ruled on the constitutionality of RLUIPA’s land use provisions, and the decision has since been cited as precedent in other cases around the country. In November 2002, Judge Dalzell signed an agreement in which Middletown agreed to revise its zoning ordinances to comply with RLUIPA and pay attorney’s fees. Freedom Baptist Church was represented by Becket and by local attorney L. Theodore Hoppe.

*Photos of updated building used by permission: Freedom Baptist Church

 

Bronx Household of Faith v. The Board of Education of the City of New York

The Bronx Household of Faith is an inner-city church serving one of the roughest neighborhoods in New York City. Founded in 1971, it has spread hope in its local community for over forty years—serving local children, working with refugees, sponsoring neighborhood clean-ups, and providing emergency food and clothing.

But finding a church building in New York City isn’t easy. Land is expensive; rentals are scarce. For over a decade, the church had to meet in the pastor’s dining room.

Fortunately, New York City owns almost 1,200 buildings that sit empty on nights and weekends: its public schools. Each year, the City rents out empty schools to tens of thousands of community groups for any meetings that might be of interest to the community: Boy Scouts, drama clubs, taxpayer associations, senior citizen groups, sporting events, merchant associations, labor unions—you name it. In 2011 alone, the City issued over 122,000 permits for using the schools.

So Bronx Household, like tens of thousands of other community groups, applied to rent an empty school. Problem solved, right?

Wrong. City bureaucrats decided that letting a church meet in an empty school would be unconstitutional. So it banned religious worship services—and only religious worship services—from its empty schools. Other groups can still use the schools for singing, teaching, and discussion; but if the singing, teaching, and discussion is “religious worship,” it is banned. Of the fifty largest public school districts in the country, New York City is the only one that bans worship from empty schools.

Thus began a legal battle that has lasted almost 20 years. The church was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Becket supported the church at every level of the federal courts along the way, filing friend-of-the-court briefs in 2002, 2011, 2012, and 2014.

Unfortunately, the New York-based United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the City’s ban, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. But shortly after the case ended, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the City would open its public schools to churches. So for now, the City and the churches have reached a truce. And Becket stands ready to protect churches against government discrimination.

Missionaries of Charity v. City of Los Angeles

Missionaries of Charity is an organization founded by the late Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, which now does sacrificial service in many countries, including the United States.  In addition to founding an organization for nuns, Mother Teresa founded a corresponding male group Brothers of the Missionaries of Charity.

In 1992, in the wake of riots in the area in April of that year, Missionaries of Charity Brothers bought and renovated a large house in a depressed neighborhood a little less than a mile west of the Los Angeles Convention Center. The Brothers used the home to minister to homeless young adults (mostly Hispanic) three days a week.

Between 60 and 85 young adults visited the home, known as “Nuestro Hogar” (“Our Home”), on any given day. In this safe, secure, non-institutional homelike residential setting, visitors find refuge from their lives on the streets, a hot meal (supplied by volunteers from area Catholic churches), and the opportunity to shower and clean their clothes. Priests are present from time to time to hear confessions and say Mass, and the Blessed Sacrament can be received in the home’s small chapel.

For nine years, the Missionaries of Charity Brothers pursued this mission to the homeless without incident or any objection from city officials. But in 2001, at the instigation of neighbors who had moved into homes nearby after the Brothers had established Nuestro Hogar, city officials decided that the Missionaries of Charity would have to apply for a conditional use permit and zone variance for their ministry there. The Brothers filed the application, but it was denied by the city’s assistant zoning administrator in May 2001, and an appeal to the Central Area Planning Commission was denied in August.

The Missionaries of Charity Brothers sued and the Becket Fund served as lead counsel.  The Brothers were able to obtain a stay pending resolution of a similar case. In 2006 the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was constitutional. After that, the City never brought the case back to court.  In 2011, the Brothers moved out of the home and the case became irrelevant.  The Brothers were able to stay in their home and help the homeless as long as they had needed the land.

Hale O Kaula v. County of Maui

They just wanted to worship and till the earth.

A simple beginning to a not so simple story. Hale O Kaula was a small congregation affiliated with the Fellowship of the Living Word that had been worshipping in the small Hawaiian community of Haiku since 1960. As they began to expand, they bought a new, six acre piece of land in 1991 in the Kula area of Maui.

The congregants were thrilled, because the new space was large enough for all of their proposed religious activities, as well as spacious enough to pursue a ministry characteristic of its denomination: agricultural activity drawn from the Old Testament of the Bible.

In 1995, they applied for a permit to build a spacious 8,500 square foot facility which would house a sanctuary, fellowship hall, restrooms, kitchen and offices. But the permit was denied.

So they built a smaller, solely agricultural building a few years later. The next year, they applied for a permit to add a second story to the building for religious worship. Their request was denied again.

Enter the Becket Fund. We filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu, charging the Maui Planning Commission, Maui County, and the State of Hawaii with violating multiple provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as well as depriving the church of rights guaranteed to it under the U.S. and Hawaiian Constitutions. We made sure that the members of the Maui Planning Commission were served with the complaint as they walked in the door for their regular meeting in Wailuku in October, 2001.

The County fired back, arguing that RLUIPA “is patently unconstitutional.”

Enter the U.S. Department of Justice, in defense of the constitutionality of RLUIPA as well as in opposition to Maui’s blatantly discriminatory posture.

What ensued was a legal back and forth that included the congregation erecting tents on their own property and holding worship services, to which the media showed up and to which the County’s attorneys told them that “your past Sunday worship would probably not violate” Hawaiian law “if it is not a ‘regularly conducted church service’”—in other words, you can worship here every now and then, but worshipping every Sunday is out.

Ultimately, after several court rulings in favor of the church, Maui gave in. Hale O Kaula is now able to hold church services on its own property. Every Sunday.

 

Temple B’nai Sholom v. City of Huntsville

Temple B’nai Sholom is a Reform Jewish synagogue with a long history in Huntsville, Alabama. Founded in 1876, it has occupied its present location since 1899. The Temple sanctuary has been designated a Historic Building, and was extensively renovated in the mid-1990s.

In the 1970s, the Temple purchased two adjacent pieces of property in order to have room for future expansion. Each parcel contained a house, neither of which were of historic significance, although the entire area lies within an historic preservation district. One of the houses was demolished many years ago without any objection from the city or the Historic Preservation Commission, and other property owners in the area, including several nearby churches, have been allowed to demolish similar buildings.

On September 15, 2000, city code enforcement officials issued a notice declaring the house at 406 Clinton Avenue unsafe, and ordering the Temple to either “repair or demolish” the structure. Since the Temple intends to use the site for religious activities, including eventual expansion of the sanctuary, it sought permission of the Huntsville Historic Preservation Commission to demolish the house.

On November 20, 2000, the Commission refused, leaving the Temple in an impossible “Catch 22” situation: ordered by one city agency to demolish the house, and prohibited by another from doing so. To add insult to injury, the city then sought a criminal misdemeanor conviction against the Temple for its failure to obey the order to “repair or demolish.”

Finally, on May 8, 2001, Temple B’nai Sholom filed suit in Madison County Circuit Court against the City of Huntsville, the head of the city’s Inspection Department, and the administrator of the city’s Historic Preservation Commission. On June 1, 2001, defendants moved to remove the case from county court and move it instead to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In October 2001, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joined the case, and an amended complaint was filed on October 23, 2001. It charged the city with violations of the Constitutions of Alabama and the United States and RLUIPA. On November 2, 2001, the city moved to strike the amended complaint and renewed their motion to dismiss. On November 6, Judge Smith summarily denied both motions. In February, 2002, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a motion for leave to join the suit on the Temple’s side, to defend the state’s Religious Freedom Amendment. (Temple B’nai Sholom v. City of Huntsville, et al., CV-01-S-1412-NE)

Interestingly, the City of Huntsville itself had burned down a number of houses of approximately the same vintage as the house at 406 Clinton Avenue at about the same time it took action against Temple B’nai Sholom. City Community Development Director Jerry Galloway was quoted in an article in the Huntsville Times as saying, “We have an obligation to the public to get rid of stuff that’s a danger to the public health and safety, and this property was.”

Although the city initially adopted a strategy of challenging the constitutionality of RLUIPA and sought the assistance of the statute’s most vehement critic, law professor Marci Hamilton, in the end it agreed to settle the case “in order to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of litigation.” (Along the way, both the City of Huntsville and the Alabama Preservation Alliance joined in an amicus brief challenging RLUIPA’s constitutionality, written by Hamilton and submitted to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago.)

The settlement, approved by the Huntsville City Council on June 26, 2003, provides that the City of Huntsville will purchase the house at 406 Clinton Avenue for $25,000 and will pay to have the house moved to a vacant lot that the city owns at the corner of Dallas and Walker Streets. The settlement agreement also commits the city’s Historic Preservation Commission to “work with the Temple in good faith toward the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the Plans [for the Temple’s expansion] and the project implementing the Plans within a reasonable and customary time period.”

Having given the Temple everything it sought in the lawsuit, the city nevertheless inserted language at the end of the agreement stating that it still refuses to concede that either RLUIPA or the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment are “valid laws.”

Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore

For twelve years, a church in downtown Lake Elsinore, California, congregated and ran a soup kitchen as a ministry to those in need. In 2000, the church agreed to buy property from a school that had formerly been used as a canned food store and recycling center. When the church applied for a Conditional Use Permit, the city denied the request.

The Becket Fund stepped in and successfully represented the church to defend its right to use its own property. We argued that the city violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and won a victory at the Ninth Circuit.

The ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the only judge in the nation to have ruled unconstitutional the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

“It erases any doubt as to the constitutionality of RLUIPA, at least for the land use portion,” said Becket Fund lawyer Roger Severino.

Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township

Since its founding in 1994, Congregation Kol Ami, a Reform Jewish synagogue, has held worship services and other religious activities at a variety of temporary locations in the greater Philadelphia area.  In 1997, it began searching for a permanent house of worship, and in early 1999, it began negotiations for the purchase of a property owned by a Catholic order of nuns.

In March 2001, the Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board refused to allow the congregation to use the facility for religious purposes, denying permission to continue “the prior nonconforming religious use of the Sisters’ property,” despite the fact that it had granted such permission just five years earlier to a different religious group based on the same set of facts. These modified township zoning laws resulted in an unreasonable burden on religious freedom. Furthermore, during hearings on Congregation Kol Ami’s application, some neighbors objected to the congregation’s move, with one stating flatly, “I don’t want a synagogue in my backyard.”

In April 2001, Becket represented Congregation Kol Ami in a lawsuit against Abington Township for discrimination against Jewish places of worship.

After prevailing in court, Kol Ami was able to settle the case on favorable terms.

Refuge Temple Ministries of Atlanta v. City of Forest Park

On March 14, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Marvin H. Shoob approved a Consent Order under which the City of Forest Park, Georgia retreated completely from its earlier refusal to allow Refuge Temple Ministries to occupy and use a commercial property within its C-2 district. The city conceded that the zoning ordinance used to bar the church, since repealed, “would not have survived review under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.” The Consent Order also declared that “The establishment of a place of worship operated by the Plaintiff, Refuge Temple Ministries, shall be a permitted use within Forest Park’s C-2 District.”

Background:

Refuge Temple Ministries of Atlanta is a small church founded in December, 1997. Its approximately 50 members had been meeting at the home of Pastor Harry Simon and various other buildings, and sought a permanent home for the church. In August, 2000 they negotiated a lease for a property in Forest Park, a suburb on the south side of Atlanta. The building, at 770 Main Street, is located in the city’s C-2 (“central commercial”) district, which permits “churches and other places of worship with attendant education and recreational buildings” as permitted uses. On August 11, they obtained a Zoning Verification from city officials, signed the lease, and prepared to occupy the property. They spent nearly $14,000 on a first-and-last-month deposit, renovations and utilities.

On August 29, city officials notified Pastor Simon that they had approved the zoning application in error, having been unaware that the City Council had adopted a new zoning ordinance just four days earlier. The new law required churches to obtain a Special Land Use Permit in order to occupy property in the C-2 district, although it continues to allow other similar uses – private clubs, lodges, theaters, auditoriums and other places of assembly – without such a permit.

The church proceeded to apply for the special permit on September 8, but although no one appeared in opposition to granting the permit at meetings of the Zoning Board and City Council, on December 18, the Council voted to deny the permit without explanation.

On April 12, 2001, Refuge Temple Ministries filed suit in Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in Atlanta, charging the City of Forest Park with violations of the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions and seeking relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). On June 4, the city council repealed the ordinance. On October 19, 2001, Refuge Temple Ministries moved for partial summary judgment.

After extended negotiations, the city finally agreed to a Consent Order (see above), and also provided a letter of apology to Pastor Harry Simon, declaring that the city “regrets Refuge Temple Ministries’ inability to locate its ministry within Forest Park.” The church, which moved into space outside the city during pendancy of the lawsuit, was invited “to locate within Forest Park some time in the future.”

Refuge Temple Ministries was represented in the lawsuit by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and by local counsel H. Eric Hilton. (Refuge Temple Ministries of Atlanta v. City of Forest Park, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:01-CV-0958-MHS)

Salazar v. Buono

In a case involving the constitutionality of a cross memorial in the Mojave Desert, Becket’s amicus brief argued that the court of appeals should be reversed, because the plaintiff lacked standing and that the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court agreed, with two Justices agreeing that the plaintiff lacked standing, and three Justices agreeing that the court of appeals misapplied the Establishment Clause.

The cross was erected on public land in 1934, and was undisturbed until the ACLU sued for its removal in 2001.  When a federal court ruled that the cross’s presence on federal land was unconstitutional, Congress intervened by passing legislation that directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to give the land where the cross was located to the VFW in exchange for a parcel of equal value.  In 2010, the Supreme Court approved Congress’ action; however, the cross was then stolen by vandals.  On April 25th, 2012, a federal judge approved a settlement agreement for the memorial cross to return to its place in the Mojave Desert.

The Solicitor General of the Department of Justice defended the cross.

Town of Foxfield v. Archdiocese of Denver

In 1998 Monsignor Edward Buelt was designated the first pastor of Our Lady of Loreto parish in the Archdiocese of Denver.  The parish adapted a small separate building, intended for the rectory, for use as a chapel while preparations for building a permanent church across the street were ongoing.  At the urging of a few neighbors living near the rectory, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Foxfield adopted a bizarre ordinance (“Ordinance No. 3”) on March 22, 2001 which makes it unlawful to park more than five motor vehicles for more than fifteen minutes within 1,000 feet of a private residential property on more than two occasions during any thirty day period.

After receiving complaints concerning the church’s parking, the Town filed a lawsuit asking the Arapahoe County District Court to issue a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment against the Archdiocese.  On August 1, 2002, the Archdiocese filed a motion arguing that Ordinance No. 3 violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), Colorado’s “Freedom to Gather for Worship Act,” and the U.S. and Colorado constitutions and is thus void and unenforceable.  The Town filed a cross motion arguing, among other things, that RLUIPA is unconstitutional.

The Archdiocese was represented by the law firm of Rothberger Johnson & Lyons, and in 2002 The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joined the case in an “of counsel” capacity, bringing expertise in constitutional law and RLUIPA.

The trial court rejected the Archdiocese’s RLUIPA defense, and The Becket Fund, along with a diverse coalition of religious and civil rights organizations filed an amicus curiae brief in the Colorado Court of Appeals that sought a reversal and defended the constitutionality of RLUIPA.  In August 2006 the Court of Appeals’ decision handed the Archdiocese a major victory by allowing the church’s RLUIPA claims to go forward, noting that “Ordinance No. 3” was not “neutral and generally applicable”.   In May 2007 the Court of Appeals’ ruling was upheld when the Supreme Court of Colorado denied the Town of Foxfield’s petition for Writ of Certiorari.

 

Lina Joy v. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan

The story of Lina Joy is a poignant illustration of what happens when the government rejects the notion that individual conviction and choice have a role in religious belief.

Lina Joy was born into an ethnic Malay, Muslim family but was led by conscience to convert to Catholicism in 1990. In 1998, she was baptized and married a Catholic man.

Just one thing stood in the way of getting her marriage license: religion. The Civil Marriage provision of the 1976 Law Reform Act prohibits Muslims from solemnizing or registering marriage under civil law. Despite her affirmative declaration that she was a Christian, she was denied a civil marriage registration because her identity card designated her as Muslim. The designation could not be removed until Lina Joy obtained an order from the Sharia court stating that she had become an apostate – legally labeling herself as someone who defies God.

Lina Joy took the matter to the civil courts, but to no avail. Her application was dismissed, partly on the grounds that Malays cannot renounce Islam, because the Malaysian Constitution defines ethnic Malays as Muslim by birth. The civil court affirmed she must first go to the Sharia court.

She refused, arguing that it is not the place of any court to legitimize the convictions of her conscience.

In 2007, despite several appeals in the civil courts with the Becket Fund providing legal counsel, the Federal Court of Malaysia ultimately refused to recognize Lina Joy’s conversion from Islam to Christianity. As a consequence, her marriage is considered invalid by the state.

She was forced into hiding, afraid to start a family, because any children she had would be considered Muslim by the state and could on those grounds be taken away from her Christian mother. Given that the state would view her marriage as invalid, children could also be treated as “evidence of adultery.”

The Malaysian government’s refusal to recognize Lina Joy’s conversion is in direct violation of international law. Freedom of conscience is protected in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The refusal to grant her an identity card that recognizes her conversion or to grant her a civil marriage license on the basis of her religioun are violations of equal treatment clauses of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an United Nations treaty which Malaysia is legally bound to implement by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The lower courts’ refusal of jurisdiction over this case further constitutes a departure from the general principle that administrative law is governed by fundamental constitutional
protections in well-functioning constitutional democracies.

Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson v. City of Jackson

Greater Bible Way Temple is a large church with a commitment to serving the community of Jackson, Michigan. After several years of growth, it purchased some property across the street from its existing church in order to expand its ministries. Because of its religious commitment to the poor and needy of Jackson, it dedicated the land to providing low-cost housing to the disabled, elderly, and others in need. The Church understood from prior conversations with the city that the city was interested in seeing housing on that land; the land is zoned residential and is just a block from a large apartment complex. The church asked the city for a rezoning through a highly discretionary process, and the city denied the request. This prevented the church from proceeding with its ministry.

The Church sued the city of Jackson for violations of RLUIPA. Two lower courts agreed, finding that the city had imposed a substantial burden on the Church’s religious exercise. In a stunning decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed those decisions, ruling that not only was there no substantial burden, but that RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” provision does not even apply to rezoning actions. The Court even went so far as to say that the city’s interests in uniform zoning laws satisfied strict scrutiny, an extremely stringent legal test that requires the government to prove interests so strong that they could justify racial discrimination, content-based speech restrictions, and forced sterilization. The Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion does not explain how, under its rationale, a rezoning action could ever violate RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” provision.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court elected not to hear the Becket Fund’s appeal.

Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron v. City of Fairlawn

For nearly a year, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron was forced to battle the City of Fairlawn, Ohio in federal court in order to build a fellowship hall on property the church has occupied since 1958.

The church was originally established in nearby Akron in 1839. At the time the church moved to the current site, the Village of Fairlawn had not yet been established. In 1993, Fairlawn adopted a new zoning ordinance, and created three municipal zoning districts, with only one district, M-3, permitting churches. Even there, however, they required special authorization for any construction or modification to existing buildings.

So when the Church asked for authorization to build a new fellowship hall and was denied, it filed a lawsuit arguing that Fairlawn’s implementation of its zoning code amounts to a ban on churches and an unreasonable restriction on the completion, restoration, reconstruction, extension or substitution of preexisting churches. Such burdens, they argued, violate the Constitution and RLUIPA.

The Fairlawn City Council buckled and voted 5-1 to approve a settlement with the Church that gave it everything it had asked for, including legal costs. The constitutional rights of the church, and all the other houses of worship the council had zoned out, was affirmed, and the Church now enjoys a bustling fellowship hall for its activities.

 *Photo Credit: Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal

In a case challenging the federal government’s restrictions on a controlled substance— hoasca tea —used in the ceremonies of a religious group, Becket’s amicus brief defended the constitutionality of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that provides accommodations for religious organizations. The Supreme Court held that the government had not shown under RFRA’s standard a sufficiently compelling governmental interest to ban the substance for religious use by this group. Nancy Hollander was counsel to the religious group.

Anonymous Iranian Christian Family

In a number of Middle Eastern countries, conversion to a religion (other than the prevailing strain of Islam) is a crime punishable by death. In countries with such laws, Christians and other religious minority groups are forced to practice their faiths in secret or risk unthinkably severe reprisal.

Tragically, those who manage to escape such authoritarian regimes and reach America aren’t guaranteed safety, thanks to an immigration bureaucracy that frequently overlooks the needs of asylum petitioners.

One such case, dealing with the flight of a Christian family from Iran, was argued and won by Becket. Having fled to the United States in 1999, the family sought the right to remain in America. In 2000, their petition was denied, followed by a second denial in 2003.

In hearings before the relevant immigration authority, Becket demonstrated that the family would be unable to openly practice their Christian faith in Iran and would likely be subject to religiously-motivated persecution. In keeping with U.S. laws and the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Iranian family was allowed to remain in the United States, where they may freely practice their religion in peace.

Thanks to the work of Becket lawyers, these immigrants have now been liberated from the looming threat of deportation and execution in Iran. However, we must keep their identities a secret because of the risk of reprisals.

Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch

The Lighthouse Mission has been battling with the City of Long Branch, New Jersey since 1994, seeking permission to provide social services and conduct worship services in a building at 162 Broadway. The Lighthouse Mission’s Rev. Kevin Brown found that he was unable to persuade city zoning officials to consider granting a variance that would allow the proposed uses in the district in which the building is located. A Baptist congregation had been engaged in similar activity in rented space located directly across the street.

A suit was filed in Monmouth County Superior Court on June 8, 2000, charging the city with violations of the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fair Housing Act. Becket submitted an amicus brief in the case on May 7, 2001.

After a series of appeals to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the two city ordinances in question was held to be constitutional, while the other was not – a partial victory for the Lighthouse Mission.

Haven Shores Community Church v. City of Grand Haven

In a settlement reached on December 20, 2000, the City of Grand Haven, Michigan agreed that a small local storefront church could occupy a storefront after all. It was the first case resolved under the terms of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).

Haven Shores Community Church signed a lease for a storefront property in Grand Haven in May of 1999, but when Rev. David Bailey went to apply for building permit to modify the space, he was told by city officials that religious meetings and worship were not permitted at that location under city zoning laws. Even though Grand Haven’s zoning ordinance for the “B-1 Community Business District” specifically allows for “private clubs,” “fraternal organizations,” “lodge halls,” “funeral homes,” “theaters,” and “assembly halls” or similar places of public assembly,  the church’s claim that it too was a “place of public assembly” was rejected by multiple city offices, including the City Council.

On March 13, 2000, Becket filed suit in federal district court on behalf of the church, charging that the city had violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, due process and equal protection of the laws.

However, when President Clinton signed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) on September 22, 2000, Becket was able to immediately file an amended complaint in the case,seeking relief under RLUIPA.  After the RLUIPA claims were filed, attorneys for Becket and the City of Grand Haven agreed to a consent judgment that settled the case in favor of Haven Shores.  Now there is a church alongside the funeral homes, theaters and assembly halls of Haven Shores.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

In March of 2000, atheist Michael Newdow sued on behalf of his daughter to strip the words “under God” from the Pledge recited by students in California public schools.Terence Cassidy represented the school district.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed that public schools violate the First Amendment by leading their students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge that includes the words “under God.” Although the Supreme Court initially agreed to give full review of the case, in June 2004, the Court opted to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on a technicality: Newdow lacked sufficient custody of his daughter to represent her in federal court.

Becket filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Knights of Columbus, demonstrating that the phrase “under God” is not only constitutionally permissible but philosophically laudable. The brief argues that historical references to the “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God” are not primarily religious. Instead, these phrases embrace our Founder’s political philosophy. When recited in the Pledge, the words “under God” reflect the principle that no government can undermine our rights because they come from a higher source than the state.

By adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Congress starkly contrasted mutually exclusive conceptions of human rights envisioned by the United States and the U.S.S.R.

Although three Justices—Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas—defended the constitutionality of the Pledge, it was disappointing to see the Court sidestep the merits of the case and rule instead on standing. As Becket’s Founder Seamus Hasson said, “You win some, you lose some, and some get rained out. It’s a shame the Court couldn’t unify around the same principle that has been unifying the rest of us since the Declaration of Independence: our rights are secure because they come from a higher authority than the state. Sooner or later, the Court will have to face up to that.”

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn

Arizona set up an innovative system that allows Arizonans to create scholarship pools for students attending private schools. These “school tuition organizations” (STOs) give what amounts to scholarships to students who qualify.

Immediately after this program was enacted, ACLU-supported taxpayers sued the state, arguing that the entire STO program was unconstitutional because many of the funds from STOs would (they claim) go towards scholarships for religious schools. Alliance Defending Freedom represented the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization.

After 13 years of litigation, the case finally made its way to the Supreme Court. Becket wrote a widely-noted brief filed with the Supreme Court, arguing that under current doctrines of “standing,” state taxpayers like the Winn plaintiffs do not have the right to bring the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court ruled our way.

Locke v. Davey

The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington did not violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by forbidding the use of state-funded scholarship money to receive degrees in devotional theology.

Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion took note of Becket’s brief, which highlighted the anti-Catholic bigotry behind state Blaine Amendments.  (State Blaine Amendments prohibit the use of state funds to support religious institutions such as parochial schools.)  The Court concluded that the relevant Washington state constitutional provision (which also forbade the use of tax funds to support ministers) was not sufficiently related to the Blaine Amendment so its anti-religious history was not implicated in this case. American Center for Law and Justice was counsel in this case.

McCreary County v. ACLU

In the same day the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ten Commandments display in Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the Ten Commandments display in a Kentucky courthouse.

Becket filed an amicus brief in both cases arguing such displays are both culturally valuable and constitutionally permissible.

Liberty Counsel was counsel in this case.

 

 

 

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Does Ohio’s school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?  Becket, and the Supreme Court, said “No.”

The Institute for Justice and Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur were counsel in this case.

 

ACLU of New Jersey v. Township of Wall

The Supreme Court has long upheld the right of local governments to display traditional holiday scenes containing both religious and secular symbols. Unfortunately, opposing groups have continued to challenge public holiday displays during the Christmas and Hanukkah season.

In 1998, Wall Township in New Jersey set up a holiday display containing a crèche with traditional figures, a lighted evergreen tree, two decorated urns, and four snowman banners attached to light posts. The ACLU sued on behalf of two clients, claiming that the display was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The following holiday season, the town again exhibited a holiday display. This time including a donated menorah, candy cane banners rather than the less prominent snowman banners, a larger evergreen tree, and two signs reading: “Through this and other displays and events through the year, Wall Township is pleased to celebrate our American cultural traditions, as well as our legacy of diversity and freedom” and “Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah.” Yet such inoffensive messages were still unacceptable to the ACLU and its clients, who requested that the court immediately order the removal of the display.

Luckily for holiday cheer and common sense, the trial court ruled that the display was constitutional and the Third Circuit on appeal rejected the argument that the ACLU’s clients had actually suffered any injury. This was a decisive victory for supporters of the religion in public life and the Constitution alike.

In the words of Becket’s founder Seamus Hasson, communities like Wall Township are now free to continue celebrating the significance of holidays and observances “from Christmas to Hanukkah, St. Patrick’s Day to Ramadan, Columbus Day to Passover, and Independence Day to Molly Pitcher Day.”

Wyoming Sawmills Inc. v. United States Forest Service

Medicine Wheel is a sacred prehistoric stone circle about 80 feet in diameter that was constructed by the aboriginal peoples of North America.  Although the age of the structure is unknown, archaeological evidence indicates that human presence in the area goes back for 7,500 years or more.

Medicine Wheel remains a site of religious and cultural importance to the various Native American tribes in the region, who have gathered there for religious and other purposes for centuries.

In 1996, the Forest Service formulated a Historic Preservation Plan (“HPP”) to preserve the Medicine Wheel landmark and other valuable historic sites in the vicinity and make them accessible to both Native Americans who regard the sites as a sacred part of their culture and to the many interested visitors who travel to the mountain each year.

However, a private sawmill corporation wanting to use the property for commercial purposes, sued the forest Service over the Historic Preservation Plan claiming the accommodation for religious exercise of Native American faiths violated the Establishment Clause.  The sawmill lost at the district court level, then appealed the case to the 10th Circuit.

Enter Becket. Bringing together a vast coalition of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim organization, Becket filed an amicus brief emphasized that it is constitutional—even laudatory—for government to accommodate the religious practices of its people. Additionally, that this is a legitimate secular purpose of civil government.

The 10th Circuit ruled for protecting the sacred Indian sites, dismissing the sawmills claims of First Amendment violations.

The U.S. Forest Service was represented by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Baldwin, Crocker & Rudd and the Association on American Indian Affairs defended Medicine Wheel.

*Photo  Credit: National Register of Historic Places

Ganulin v. U.S.

The Grinch almost stole Christmas through this lawsuit, but thanks to Becket, this federal holiday eluded an Establishment Clause challenge.

When an anti-Christmas activist in Ohio sued the federal government claiming that the law making Christmas Day a federal holiday violated the Establishment Clause, Becket intervened on behalf of several federal employees to defend Christmas.

In the spirit of Dr. Seuss, Judge Susan Dlott of the federal district court wrote part of the opinion upholding the Christmas holiday in verse.  The decision accords with precedent holding that, as long as the government can articulate a secular purpose for its actions, it may officially recognize a holiday—even one with religious meaning—for all government employees.

Judge Dlott’s Poem

The Court will address plaintiff’s seasonal confusion
erroneously believing Christmas merely a religious intuition.

Whatever the reason constitutional or other,
Christmas is not an act of Big Brother!

Christmas is about joy and giving and sharing,
it is about the child within us, it is most about caring!

One is never jailed for not having a tree,
for not going to church, for not spreading glee!

The Court will uphold seemingly contradictory causes,
*826 decreeing “the establishment” and “Santa” both worthwhile “Claus(es)!“

We are all better for Santa, the Easter bunny too,
and maybe the great pumpkin, to name just a few!

An extra day off is hardly high treason.
It may be spent as you wish, regardless of reason.

The Court having read the lessons of “Lynch”
refuses to play the role of the Grinch!

There is room in this country and in all our hearts too,
for different convictions and a day off too!

Welch v. Cobb County

At the Cobb County Adult Detention Center, officials singled out the Roman Catholic faith, prohibiting a priest from conducting mass while allowing Protestants to practice their religion freely.

Because weekly Mass is an critical element of the Catholic faith, Rev. John Welch offered to lead a weekly Mass for the prison’s two dozen Catholic inmates, at no cost to the State. Disturbingly, the state-paid chaplain of the prison prohibited Welch from leading Mass at the prison, based on his expressed dislike for Catholics and his belief that Catholics are not Christians.

While the chaplain allowed Welch to lead a non-denominational Christian religious service once or twice a month, he mandated that this service cannot contain those elements of the ceremony that make it a Catholic Mass. Rev. Welch had also been prevented from holding a Bible Study at the prison.

By allowing these unconstitutional roadblocks to Reverend Welch’s volunteer service, the state’s discriminatory action forced Catholic prisoners to violate the dictates of their faith by failing to attend weekly Mass. Recognizing this problem, Becket intervened on behalf of Welch and the Catholic inmates, and secured an out-of-court victory for the free exercise of religion at the detention center.

Boyette v. Galvin

Schoolchildren and parents in Massachusetts sought government funding for parochial education by amending a provision of the Massachusetts Constitution — known as the”Anti-Aid Amendment — that bars any public financial support for private primary or secondary schools.

They sought to amend this provision through a voters’ initiative, but the state Constitution explicitly prohibits initiatives to amend the Anti-Aid Amendment, as well as initiatives that concern “religion, religious practices or religious institutions.”

Becket challenged the two provisions prohibiting voters’ initiatives, arguing that they violate the Free Speech, Free Exercise, Equal Protection, Right to Petition, and Establishment Clause provisions of the federal Constitution.

In 2004 the court ruled against us. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark

Police officers who serve their city and their faith

Faruq Abdul-Aziz and Shakoor Mustafa are devout Sunni Muslims whose faith requires them to grow a beard. For over a decade, they served as police officers in the Newark Police Department while maintaining a beard without incident. In 1999, however, the Chief of Police decided to enforce a 1971 policy requiring officers to be clean-shaven. But this policy exempted those who had medical reasons for not shaving. The policy even permitted mustaches and sideburns, and allowed officers to wear beards when undercover. Yet it did not allow beards for religious reasons, so the department initiated disciplinary actions against the Muslim police officers.

Unanimous victory for people of all faiths

Becket works to ensure that when governments grant accommodations for non-religious reasons, they provide the same accommodations for religious reasons as well. In this case, the City of Newark had no justification for its policy requiring religious police officers be clean-shaven when it allowed officers to have beards for numerous other reasons. Mr. Aziz and Mr. Mustafa were forced to choose between their faith and careers—a choice no American should have to make. So instead, they  went to federal district court seeking protection from this unconstitutional choice, and they won.

Then the city appealed. In June 1998 Becket president Seamus Hasson argued the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, supported by a group of amici including the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League. On March 3, 1999, the Third Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of the officers, stating that the department’s policy violated their religious freedom under the First Amendment. Then-Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, holding that the city’s grooming policy created a “categorical exemption for individuals with a secular objection but not for individuals with a religious objection,” and was thus subject to the highest form of scrutiny, which the city failed to satisfy.

Victorious, the officers were able to continue serving without violating their faith. Their case set an important precedent for people of all faiths who’d might otherwise be forced to choose between their career and their religion.

On October 4, 1999, the Supreme Court denied the city’s petition for certiorari.

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. No American should have to choose between their career and following their religious beliefs, especially those who serve on the police force.
  • Public Square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. It can, and should, have an equal place in the public square.

Cutter v. Wilkinson

Becket’s amicus brief defended the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and its provision protecting prisoners’ religious rights from an Establishment Clause challenge. David Goldberger defended the prisoners. The Supreme Court agreed that RLUIPA provision was constitutional.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School

Becket’s amicus brief defended the right of a Christian children’s club to use public school facilities that were available to non-religious groups.  The Supreme Court agreed. It upheld the club’s free speech right and found no Establishment Clause justification for curbing its religious speech. Thomas Marcelle represented the club.

Rigdon v. Perry

Priests and rabbis must be free to preach

In May 1996, the Catholic Church announced a nationwide pro-life campaign to urge Congress to override the President’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The campaign urged priests to preach about abortion, lead prayer services, and invite parishioners to write to their Congressional representatives.

Father Vincent Rigdon, a Catholic priest of almost 20 years and U.S. Air Force Chaplain, joined the campaign. As a military chaplain, he regularly provided spiritual counseling and celebrated mass for servicemembers and their families. Preaching about abortion, an issue important to the Catholic Church, was no different. Yet in June 1996, the Pentagon issued a gag order forbidding military chaplains of all faiths from preaching freely about legislation on important moral issues.

The act also barred Rabbi David Kaye, a Jewish rabbi and military chaplain, from speaking about abortion to his congregation. Torn between following a moral imperative and a military order, Fr. Rigdon and Rabbi Kaye had no choice but to go to court to defend their freedom to preach.

Becket defends muzzled military chaplains from Pentagon gag order

In September 1996, Becket sued on behalf of Fr. Rigdon, Rabbi Kaye, the Muslim American Military Academy, and several service members arguing that the gag order violated the chaplains’ rights under the First Amendment and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In April 1997, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with Becket that the gag order was an unconstitutional restriction of their free speech and free exercise rights.

Censoring sermons is unconstitutional. Every chaplain must be free to speak as their faith dictates, whether from the pulpit or inside the confessional. Thanks to Becket and the First Amendment, military chaplains are free to preach according to their conscience.

Learn more about this case by listening to our Podcast episode, “Orders and Obedience.”

Importance to Religious Liberty

  • Free Speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when that view is unpopular. Chaplains must be free to preach without government censorship.
  • Individual Freedom: Becket defends the right of all individuals to live according to their consciences without government coercion. In this case, chaplains must be free to exercise their faith by addressing important moral issues.

Hood v. Medford Township Board of Education

The Bible: A first grader’s favorite book to read to his class

In 1996, a 1st grade teacher at Haines Elementary School in Medford Township, New Jersey asked her students to choose a story from a favorite book to read aloud in class. Zachary Hood chose to bring his children’s Bible so he could read “A Big Family,” a story in which two brothers, Jacob and Esau, reunite. The story met all the teacher’s requirements regarding complexity and length. Yet after reviewing the story, the teacher refused to allow Zachary to read it to his classmates because she thought his religious speech should be banned from the classroom.

Becket defends religious speech in the classroom

When the Board of Education defended the teacher’s discrimination and censorship, Zachary’s mother Carol sued the Medford Township Board of Education arguing that the school violated Zachary’s First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty. After a federal district court sided with the Board of Education and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, Becket stepped in and obtained a rehearing. In February 2000, the full Third Circuit heard oral argument, and later the sharply divided court issued a split 6-6 decision, leaving in place the district court’s ruling against Zachary’s right to read his Bible.

When the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Becket continued pursuing Zachary’s lawsuit against the Board of Education on a related issue that had become part of the case: a religious Thanksgiving poster Zachary had made that was taken down from his classroom’s walls. In November 2002, the Township agreed to settle the case and pay an award to Zachary and his mother.

The government upholds students’ rights in the classroom with “Zach’s rules”

In response to our lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Education  unequivocally confirmed that students retain their free speech and religious liberty while in the classroom, , issuing official guidance in February 2003 that “students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.” At Becket, they’re known as “Zach’s Rules.”

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Education: Students don’t lose their First Amendment rights when they enter the classroom. Freedom of conscience includes the right to believe, express beliefs, and live according to one’s conscience in private and in public, at home and in school.
  • Public Square: Because religion is natural to human beings, it is natural to human culture. Religious expression should not be treated as dangerous expression, scrubbed from society. It can, and should, have a place in the public square, including public schools.
  • Free Speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular.

The Pledge of Allegiance Cases

For over a decade, Becket has successfully defended the words “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why? Because the phrase “under God” answers one of the most important questions any community can ask: Where do our rights come from?

Although it may seem abstract, that question is one of great practical importance in law and politics, because your answer explains how you will treat the rights of others. Kings and emperors throughout history answered the question by claiming that individual rights were theirs to give and theirs to take away. If you offended the emperor, you could be executed on the spot, no matter who you were.

In more recent history, totalitarian systems such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union said that they had the ability to take away human rights from “enemies of the State”. They could even reclassify some people as “unpersons” without any rights at all. The State gives, and the State takes away.

But the American tradition—and the English system it descends from—has always been different. In England, titans of legal history like Sir Edward Coke and William Blackstone asserted that no king could take away the rights of an Englishman because those rights did not come from the king: they come, instead, from the laws of nature and nature’s God. That same idea inspired American revolutionaries to defend their rights against the ever-encroaching powers of a tyrannical king.

That’s why it is so important to defend the Pledge of Allegiance. People in power tend to abuse the rights of the very citizens they are supposed to protect. By grounding human rights in a source higher than the State, every American’s rights are secured; those in power are checked and restrained; and we have a justifiable reason to stand up for people who are oppressed by dehumanizing, unjust laws.

Courts across the country agree. Many recognize that the phrase “under God,” instead of acting like a prayer or religious creed, communicates timeless American values:

  • On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Pledge, holding that the plaintiff, atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow, did not have proper standing to challenge the Pledge.
  • On March 11, 2010, a second challenge from Dr. Newdow in California was rebuffed by the federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit, which held “that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism.”
  • On November 12, 2010, a third challenge by Dr. Newdow, this time in New Hampshire, was flatly rejected by the federal appeals court for the First Circuit because “both the choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not to do so are entirely voluntary.”
  • On May 9, 2014, Massachusetts’ highest state court unanimously rejected the American Humanist Association’s attack on the Pledge, finding that “the pledge, notwithstanding its reference to God, is a fundamentally patriotic exercise, not a religious one.”
  • And on February 4, 2015, a New Jersey teenager and her family successfully protected the right of all her fellow students to continue reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety from the American Humanist Association’s latest effort to take “under God” out of the Pledge.

The courts are on right side of history. American history is filled with references to “God,” “Creator,” “Author,” and “Nature’s God;” such references honor America’s values and religious heritage.

Congress first officially adopted the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, during World War II, to encourage patriotism. In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, first began the practice of saying “one nation under God” as a part of the Pledge. They encouraged many others including Congress to follow the same practice. In 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed an amendment adding the words “under God” to the Pledge.

One of Congress’s reasons for adding “under God” to the Pledge was to explain America’s disagreement with the Soviet Union about the nature of human rights. The Soviets claimed that people receive their rights from the State, and therefore the State can take those rights away.

In contrast, Congress said it was using the phrase “under God” to make clear that basic human rights are beyond the reach of the State.

In so doing, it was following a centuries-old tradition:

  1. Washington’s General Orders to his troops (July 2, 1776): “The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army.
  2. The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
  3. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (November 19, 1863): “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

To avoid saying the “offensive” word “God,” as the secularists attacking the Pledge want, teachers would have to remain silent about the values embraced by the American Revolutionaries, the Constitution, abolitionism, and the civil rights movement.

References to “God,” which remind every American that their rights cannot be seized by the State, are the cherished legacy of a free society; each reminds future generations that their rights come not from the State, but a Source beyond the State’s control.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said when signing the amendment adding “under God” to the Pledge on Flag Day, June 14, 1954:

“[The words under God] will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”

***

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Ryan Colby, Communications Director, at [email protected] or call 202.349.7219.

 

Bear Lodge Multiple Use Assocation v. Babbitt and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Several Native American tribes, including the Cheyenne River Sioux of Wyoming, had worked with the National Park Service to make arrangements to practice their ancient Lakota rituals undisturbed every June on sacred grounds at Devil’s Tower National Monument in Wyoming. The area also happens to be quite popular for rock climbers and visitors, so the Park Service implemented a sensible plan that discouraged rock climbing during June, posted signs marking the sacred ground, and started a cultural education program that informed visitors of Native American culture and religion.

But a group of climbing guides sued the Park Service, arguing that the efforts unconstitutionally made the Lakota religion an official state religion in Wyoming. Becket, along with a group of civil liberty and religious organizations, fought back with an amicus brief on behalf of the tribe. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the case, finding that the climbers had failed to identify a personal injury and consequently had no standing to bring the case.

Cases like this are important because it is admirable when governments make a conscientious effort to protect religious minorities. Yet the same arguments used by the climbers, while seemingly absurd, are used to challenge studying religious texts in high school history or English classes, or exhibiting religious elements in local cultural festivals and displays. But the religious aspects in our culture and history are what make our society great.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Steven Emery, Thomas J. Van Norman), the Indian Law Resource Center and the Law Office of John Schumacher, LLC represented the tribes.

Bauchman v. West High School

Can school choirs sing songs that include religious texts? The law says ‘yes’

Richard Torgerson was a music teacher who led choir at West High School in Salt Lake City, Utah. Every year Mr. Torgerson arranged school concerts throughout the year where students would perform a variety of songs that reflected the diversity of the community’s culture and heritage. In addition to secular songs, he often included spiritual songs with a Judeo-Christian origin. Mr. Torgerson made clear that the religious songs were optional to perform, and that nonparticipation would not affect a student’s grade in any way.

But in 1995, a student sued the school, challenging the music director’s decision to include the religious songs in the school Christmas concert. Becket stepped in on behalf of other students and their parents to defend the school’s decision to foster cultural and religious diversity in its musical choices.

In federal court, Becket argued that, given the prevalence of religious themes and text in Western music, it is simply natural for a rich and diverse music curriculum to include music with religious references. Religious freedom, as understood by our nation’s founders, means that religion is a natural part of human culture and occupies a natural and proper place in the public square. Public schools are not required to scrub their curricula of any reference to religion. To do so would be to deny students valuable educational materials.

The courts agree with Becket: including religious songs does not violate the U.S. Constitution

In September 1995, the federal court agreed, ruling in favor of West High School and dismissing the student’s lawsuit. The student appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which again ruled in favor of the high school on December 18, 1997. The court ruled that the student’s allegations were insufficient to support her attack on the song selections, given the obvious secular purposes of the Christmas concert, as well as the fact that the religious songs were completely optional for the students. Furthermore, the court saw no reason to conclude that the selection of religious songs was illegal simply because they contained views different from the student’s own. The Supreme Court declined to take up the student’s case, ensuring that religious music could continue to be part of the public square and to celebrated as part of America’s diverse culture.

Importance to religious liberty

  • Education: Public schools are not required by the U.S. Constitution to scrub their curricula of any reference to religion. To do so would deny students valuable educational materials that reflect our nation’s diverse culture.
  • Public square: Religion is a natural piece of human culture and has a natural place in the public square. Religious references cannot be confined to private spaces just because there are those who disagree with them.

ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler

Every year, Jersey City sponsors celebrations ranging from Ramadan Remembrance Day, Hindu and Buddhist parades, and scores of other parades, festivals, proclamations and displays celebrating the varied cultures and ethnicities of the community, which is one of the most diverse in the United States. Consistent with this tradition of pluralism, during the holidays Jersey City sought to display a menorah, a crèche, a Christmas tree, and a sign stating that this display was part of the broader celebration of diversity by the City held throughout the year.

Following a challenge by the ACLU — and a defense by Becket — the U.S. District Court in Newark ruled that the menorah, tree, crèche, and sign were unconstitutional. However, it held that the display would be constitutional if it included a Santa Claus, a sleigh, and a snowman. So the next year Mayor Bret Schundler erected a display designed to comply with the District Court’s request, adding a Santa with a sleigh and a snowman near the crèche, and putting several Kwanzaa symbols on the evergreen tree. But even this wasn’t good enough for the ACLU, which tried again to take down the revised display.

Following several years of back-and-forth court battles, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals accepted Becket’s argument, ruling that Jersey City’s display was constitutional because it had explanatory signs and secular symbols. The Court also specifically rejected ACLU’s argument that a crèche may never be displayed under any circumstances in front of a seat of government. The decision was a victory for the ability of local governments to recognize the religious aspects of culture in the public square.

Stark v. Independent School District 640

Because Plymouth Brethren object to the use of modern technology in school curriculum, school district officials have traditionally allowed them to leave the classroom whenever the teacher would use a TV, VCR, CD players, and the like. As is standard procedure, when parents—for whatever reason, religious or not—object to a particular feature of the district curriculum, officials will seek to modify the curriculum to meet their objection or else will exempt their children from the curriculum altogether.

In 1992, some Brethren parents approached district officials and asked whether they would be willing to reinstitute a K-6 school in a vacant school building. The owner offered to lease the old school building that he now owned on terms that would make the school financially feasible to the district.

The district said that it would be so willing, so long as the school was open to all children and not just Plymouth Brethren. Several Minnesota citizens utilizing taxpayer standing filed suit against the district, claiming that the creation and operation of the new school would violate the Establishment Clause and the Minnesota Constitution.

The district court agreed. However, on appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court and reasoned: “No religious instruction takes place at the Vesta school, and there is no expenditure of public funds in support of the teaching or promulgating of religious beliefs. Accordingly, we conclude that no violation of the state constitution has occurred.”

Thanks to the Becket Fund’s work, the Plymouth Brethren’s children are free to learn and thrive in an environment conducive to their exercise of religion. This case is further ammunition in the battle to give individual schools and parents the power to craft innovative solutions for educating their young people.

Creatore v. Trumbull

Celebrating the Season on the Green

The public green in the town of Trumbull, Connecticut is used year after year to host a wide variety of events, both religious and secular, including an annual art fair, an international food festival, Veteran’s and Memorial Day commemorations involving religious content and the laying of a wreath, and a National Prayer Day. For many years, a Menorah and a Christmas tree have also stood together on the green during the holiday season.

In November 1993, Donald Creatore and the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, requested permission from town officials to place a nativity display on the public green next to the town hall of Trumbull, Connecticut. Even though there was already a Christmas tree and a Menorah on display, town officials denied their request, claiming that the application was too late.

Wasting no time, Creatore submitted an application to display the nativity scene for the next holiday season in early 1994. This time, he received a letter from town officials granting permission. Creatore and the Knights submitted plans to the Town Building Official for approval, which was approved in August. Creatore and the Knights made eager plans to place the display.

The city censors a Christmas crèche

Three days before the display was set to be placed—and seven months after permission was granted by the town—officials called Creatore to revoke his permission. Creatore was told that he would no longer allow the display because it communicated a religious message, and that he was concerned that other individuals might oppose it.

All the while, the Christmas tree lit up the green.

Becket defends diversity of displays

Becket stepped in and took their case to court. The district court ruled against Creatore and the Knights, and after their appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against them. Finally the U.S. Supreme Court protected their right to display a crèche.

C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago

Many Chicago churches are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or rather, between a zoning official and a small space.

Chicago zoning law allows churches in residential areas, but churches and other houses of worship are allowed in business and commercial zones only if they are granted a special use permit, requiring that they go through a complicated and prohibitively costly process. Yet such permits are often denied because of the opposition of the local alderman or other political factors. And many churches argue that it is “almost impossible to find a parcel of vacant land large enough to build a church in a residential zone” in the city today.

So in 2000, C.L.U.B. (Civil Liberties for Urban Believers), an association of 40 churches in the Chicago area, sued the City of Chicago, arguing that the city’s zoning laws violate the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) because they burdened churches wishing to occupy property in the city. They argued churches had a harder time getting approved than “clubs and lodges,” “meeting halls,” and “recreation buildings and community centers” – none of which need “special use permits.”

Mauck & Baker represented C.L.U.B. In June 2002 Becket filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Calvary Chapel O’Hare, supporting C.L.U.B. The U.S. Justice Department intervened in the case as well, and also defended RLUIPA, which the lower court had rejected as unconstitutional.

In August 2003, in a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit panel agreed with district court, finding no “substantial burden” placed on churches. Apostle Theodore Wilkinson, Chairman of C.L.U.B., released this statement in response:

“The forty (40) churches in C.L.U.B. and certainly people of all faiths throughout Chicago are outraged by the majority opinion which neuters the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act passed unanimously by Congress in 2000. Also alarming is the Court’s conclusion that Chicago’s religious assemblies have no free speech protection from zoning laws. The majority opinion would apparently extend free speech protection to religious assemblies only if they allowed live nude dancing. The freedoms of speech, religion and assembly of all Chicagoans have all been trumped by aldermanic discretion.”

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

When the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a state public accommodations law required the Boy Scouts to readmit a gay leader, Becket filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the First Amendment right of expressive association concerning religious institutions. The Supreme Court did just that, ruling that applying the public accommodation law violated the Boy Scout’s First Amendment right of expressive association. The Boy Scouts were represented by George Davidson of Hughes Hubbard & Reed.

Mitchell v. Helms

In a case challenging the constitutionality of a government school aid program as applied to parochial schools, the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had found that the program violated the Establishment Clause.

Justice Thomas’s plurality opinion (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Kennedy) relied on the Becket Fund’s amicus brief, which described the anti-Catholic animus motivating state Blaine Amendments (forbidding state funds from supporting religious institutions).

In rejecting a method of analyzing an Establishment Clause challenge by asking whether the benefitted institution is “pervasively sectarian,” Justice Thomas’s opinion echoed the sentiments of Becket’s amicus brief: “hostility to aid to pervasively sectarian schools has a shameful pedigree that we do not hesitate to disavow” and “[t]his doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”

Michael McConnell was counsel in this case.

 

Agostini v. Felton

Becket filed an amicus brief urging the reversal of a U.S. Supreme Court 1985 ruling that prevented disadvantaged children in religious schools, but not those in public schools, from receiving federal education funds for supplemental instruction by public school teachers. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious freedom, reversed the 1985 ruling, and decided that allowing public school teachers to instruct on secular subjects at private religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause. New York City Chief Corporation Counsel Paul Crotty represented the New York parochial school board and several students’ parents.