WASHINGTON – A group of Christian parents and schools filed a lawsuit today challenging an amendment to Minnesota law that strips some religious universities of their ability to offer free on-campus college credits to high school students. In Loe v. Walz, two Christian families want to use funding from Minnesota’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program for their kids to attend two colleges of their choice in the state to get a head start in higher education. They are unable to do so, however, because Minnesota has removed religious schools’ eligibility in the program if they require a statement of faith from students. 

Minnesota created the PSEO program nearly 40 years ago to encourage and enable high school juniors and seniors to earn college credit without having to take on additional debt. Students are able to attend any eligible institution that aligns with what they want for an educational experience. Melinda and Mark Loe and Dawn Erickson are parents in Minnesota. Their older children have used their PSEO funds at two outstanding Christian schools—the University of Northwestern – St. Paul and Crown College—that uphold their religious values. Their current high-school aged children are now being barred from the schools of their choice because of Minnesota’s new ban on colleges with statements of faith.  

Today, Minnesota governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law that amends the law governing PSEO to exclude religious schools like Northwestern and Crown from participating because they require a statement of faith from those students who chose to attend their on-campus programs. The statements simply ask students to affirm the schools’ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding their Christian communities. Other schools are free to create the campus environment they want to attract students with shared values and interests.  Minnesota’s sudden change to the law hurts students who want to attend schools that uphold their religious values–schools that have attracted thousands of Minnesota high school students over the past three and a half decades.  

With the help of Becket, these families and schools asked a federal court to strike down this new discriminatory law. Minnesota cannot deny religious students the learning environments they prefer just because they are religious, nor can they exclude schools from participating in the program because of the schools’ religious practice. The Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed that public benefits that are open to private secular organizations must also be open to religious ones.  

Statements for media use: 

Mark and Melinda Loe:
“The PSEO program guarantees all students equal opportunity to pursue excellent academics at a school of their choice. It gave our older children a head start on college in Christ-centered communities at Northwestern and Crown. All we want is for the rest of our children to have the same opportunity to be educated in an environment consistent with their religious beliefs. Rather than discriminating against people of faith, Minnesota should be looking for ways to help all students find a school that best fits their interests and values.” 

Corbin Hoornbeek, president at the University of Northwestern-St. Paul:  

“Northwestern exists to provide Christ-centered education, equipping students to grow intellectually and spiritually, to serve effectively in their professions, and to give God-honoring leadership in the home, church, community, and world. As the largest PSEO provider in Minnesota, Northwestern desires to continue helping on-campus PSEO students flourish in preparation for the next chapter of their academic journey. We’re hopeful that the court will uphold our ability to do so, just like any other Minnesota school is permitted to do.” 

Andrew Denton, president of Crown College: 

“For over 100 years, Crown College has remained a boldly Christian college dedicated to our mission to provide a biblically based education.  The First Amendment protects our current and future PSEO students’ right to participate in PSEO without abandoning our faith.  Even in the face of legislation designed to hinder students who want the education we provide, we remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting our mission and our community’s deeply held religious beliefs” 

Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket: 

“Minnesota politicians just slammed the door on thousands of kids in their state who want to get a head start on college, all because the schools they want to attend share their religious beliefs. That decision is not only patently anti-religious; it is also against the law. We are confident this ban will not stand for long.”  

Photo courtesy of Fotofilm Studios LLC.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.  

WASHINGTON – Professor Michael W. McConnell, Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a former federal judge, has been named Becket’s 2023 Canterbury Medalist for his decades-long commitment to the cause of religious liberty. The Canterbury Medal, religious liberty’s highest honor, recognizes an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment to defending religious freedom in America and around the globe. As a professor, scholar, advocate, and public servant, Professor McConnell’s career has provided a strong and unfailing defense of religious liberty for all. Becket will honor Professor McConnell with the 2023 Canterbury Medal at its annual Gala in New York on Thursday, May 25. 

In his distinguished career, Professor McConnell has played a key role in advancing the principle of religious freedom for all people. As an advocate, Professor McConnell has argued many religious liberty cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. Following his unanimous confirmation by the Senate, Professor McConnell served as federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002-2009. He also played a central role in founding the first religious liberty law clinic at Stanford Law School, where he continues to teach courses on constitutional law, the First Amendment, and constitutional history.   

“The bedrock of a free and just society is the ability of citizens to follow their faith without fear of punishment—that is why the Founders enshrined religious liberty as our first freedom,” said Professor Michael W. McConnell. “I am honored to receive the Canterbury Medal, and to stand with others in the defense of religious liberty.”  

Professor McConnell has previously held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has honorary degrees from both Notre Dame and Michigan State and was the 2000 winner of Christian Legal Society’s William Bentley Ball Award for Life and Religious Liberty Defense. His new book, “Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience,” will be published this year. 

“Few individuals have done more to protect religious freedom in principle and in practice than Professor McConnell,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “His work as a scholar, judge, and advocate has strengthened religious liberty in America and will continue to do so into the future. We are thrilled to recognize his outstanding achievements with the Canterbury Medal, religious liberty’s highest honor.” 

The Canterbury Medal draws its name from one of history’s most dramatic religious liberty stand-offs, which occurred between Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket, the law firm’s namesake, and King Henry II of England. The annual Canterbury Gala honors the award recipient in a black-tie event at the Pierre Hotel in New York and is attended by the world’s most distinguished religious leaders and religious liberty advocates. 

Past medalists include the late Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel; Cuban poet and former political prisoner Armando Valladares; Orthodox rabbi of the oldest Jewish congregation in the U.S., Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik; First Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dallin H. Oaks; and 62nd Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, Chaplain Barry C. Black.

At every Canterbury Medal Gala, Becket also bestows an individual with the Legal Service Award, thanking them for their efforts to advance the cause of religious liberty for all. This year’s award will be given to Dean G. Marcus Cole, dean of Notre Dame Law School, for his trailblazing work launching Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Initiative.

WASHINGTON – A group of parents filed a federal lawsuit last night against the Montgomery County Board of Education for mandating storybooks that push extreme ideology regarding gender identity and sexuality. Maryland law and the School Board’s own policies require parental notice and opportunity to opt out of any instruction concerning “family life and human sexuality.” But after mandating new books that advocate pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for kids, the Board announced it would no longer follow the law: parental notice will not be provided, and opt-outs will not be tolerated. Becket represents Muslim and Christian parents who simply want their kids to have alternatives to storybooks that are age-inappropriate or inconsistent with their religious beliefs and sound science.

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through eighth grade. But rather than focusing on basic principles of civility and kindness, the books promote controversial ideology around transgenderism and focus excessively on children’s romantic feelings. For example, one book tasks 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 book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense”; teachers are instructed to add that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The learning guide to another book about a playground same-sex romance invites school kids to share with classmates how they feel when they “don’t just ‘like’ but … ‘like like’” someone.

“Children are entitled to guidance from their own parents, who know and love them best, regarding how they’ll be introduced to complex issues concerning gender identity, transgenderism, and human sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket.“Forced, ideological discussions during story hour won’t cut it, and excluding parents will only hinder, not help inclusivity.”

When the School Board first went public with the “pride” storybooks, it assured hundreds of concerned parents they would be notified when the books were read and could opt their children out. It repeated that assurance to parents as recently as March 22, 2023. But the very next day, everything changed. After announcing that the books would be mandatory for all elementary school students, one School Board member accused concerned parents that opting out their child “is just telling that kid, ‘[h]ere’s another reason to hate another person.’”

Soon after the School Board announced its intent to flout Maryland’s opt-out law, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and others, began pushing back. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the new storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for kids and inconsistent with their religious beliefs and sound science. The lawsuit seeks to restore their ability to help their own children on such complex and sensitive issues.

“Like states nationwide, Maryland has long recognized that parents have the right to opt their children out of school activities that conflict with their religious beliefs or push sham science,” said Baxter. “When it comes to kids, it’s still ‘mom and dad know best.’ Schools can best help kids learn kindness by teaming up with parents, not cutting them out of the picture.”

Becket will ask the Court to immediately block the Board’s “no notice, no opt-out” policy.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – A group of Jewish parents and schools asked a Los Angeles federal court today to immediately halt a California law that excludes religious parents and schools from using special education funding to serve children with disabilities. In Loffman v. California Department of Education, a group of Orthodox Jewish parents want to send their children to Orthodox Jewish schools, and two Orthodox Jewish schools wish to explore serving such children. But they cannot do so because California politicians block federal and state special education funding from being used at religious private schools, even though those funds can be used at secular private schools. Becket, with the support of the Orthodox Union, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, is helping these parents and schools fight to stop California from arbitrarily punishing children with disabilities. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal law ensuring that all children with disabilities in America can receive a free appropriate public education that meets their needs. This funding is offered to states to help pay for the cost of staff training, special education programs, assistive technology, and other services. IDEA ensures that children with disabilities can receive a free and appropriate public education in private schools when public schools cannot meet their needs. 

But in California, the Legislature has decided that only secular private schools may participate in this benefits program and categorically excludes religious schools from participation. There is no good reason to deprive Orthodox Jewish children of a religious education merely to access special-education services. Indeed, according to Dr. Ronald Nagel, a prominent pediatrician in the Los Angeles area who filed a declaration in support of the preliminary injunction, when Orthodox Jewish children must attend public schools to obtain special-education services, that can lead to psychological issues, as it is more difficult for those children to integrate into their families and religious communities. Becket and the Orthodox Union are therefore working together to ensure that religious parents, their children with disabilities, and religious schools are treated equally under the law, a result that most Californians would like to see, according to a recent poll. 

“It’s already outrageous enough that California legislators are denying special education benefits to Jewish kids with disabilities,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “But even worse, they’re denying benefits specifically because these kids want to go to a Jewish school. We’re asking the court to put a stop to this discriminatory law and let these kids get the benefits and services they need.” 

Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Orthodox Jewish parents who want their children with disabilities to go to schools that provide an education that allows them to reach their full potential as well as one centered around Jewish religious beliefs and practices. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Orthodox Jewish schools in Los Angeles that provide excellent dual-curriculum education and seek to explore serving the needs of children with disabilities. However, politicians in Sacramento are making that impossible by denying religious schools the right to access publicly available funding to help children with disabilities.  

A recent Supreme Court decision, Carson v. Makin struck down a Maine law that attempted to do precisely what the California law does here—allow private secular schools and families to access public funding but exclude religious schools and families from the same access. Carson builds on a long line of cases holding that religious people cannot be excluded from government benefits programs just because they are religious. 

“How many Jewish kids have to suffer because California legislators are excluding them?” asked Rassbach. “The court should step in, block this discriminatory law, and ensure that access to essential benefits isn’t cut off from families and schools just because they are religious.” 

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, has been supporting Becket’s effort to protect religious parents, their children, and religious schools’ right to access special education funding in the state of California. Orthodox Union is organizing a petition on this issue, which can be viewed here: teachcoalition.org. 

 For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The federal government has hastily abandoned its attempt to force a Catholic hospital in Oklahoma to either blow out a small candle or stop serving elderly, disabled, and low-income patients. Saint Francis Health System, which includes the largest hospital in Oklahoma and twelfth largest in the nation, keeps, with many prudent safeguards, a sacred candle always lit inside its hospital chapels in accordance with its Catholic faith. After a hospital inspection earlier this year, the government said a single candle in the chapel was too dangerous and threatened to strip the hospital of the ability to care for patients who rely on Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP—unless it snuffed out the eternal flame. Becket sent a letter to the Biden administration reminding it that the law protects Saint Francis’ religious freedom and telling the feds to expect legal action. Today, the government surrendered the fight, allowing Saint Francis to keep its living flame.

Saint Francis Health System is a premier health system with five hospitals in Eastern Oklahoma. The health system cares for nearly 400,000 patients each year, has given away more than $650 million dollars in free medical care in the past five years, and employs more than 11,000 Oklahomans. Saint Francis’ mission is to extend the presence and healing ministry of Christ. In addition to providing compassionate and excellent care to its patients, Saint Francis lives out its religious mission by maintaining multiple chapels throughout its hospitals, all blessed by the local Bishop.  

For over 60 years, the health system has had a sanctuary candle with a living flame as an act of worship. The flame is far from medical equipment and patients, shielded by two glass holders, sits on a brass basin, is affixed to a wall, and has a brass top covering it, with many sprinkler heads above it. For Catholics, the living flame is a sign of the living presence of Jesus. The federal government tried to intimidate Saint Francis into extinguishing the candle by threatening to revoke its ability to care for patients who depend on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. 

“At the heart of Saint Francis’ mission is love for God and man. The living flame of our chapel candle indicates to all who enter our hospitals that we will serve them with religious devotion as Christ commands us,” said Dr. Cliff Robertson, chief executive officer of Saint Francis. “We are grateful for the support of Becket and Yetter Coleman, of the Oklahoma Delegation, and of countless persons all throughout the nation, and we are grateful for The Joint Commission and HHS’s recognition of our Religious Liberties.”

In February, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said one candle posed a threat to hospital safety. Even though the candle has been approved repeatedly by the government and the local fire marshal, Saint Francis was told to extinguish it. If it refused, the government vowed to revoke one of its hospital’s abilities to care for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP patients, cutting off critical healthcare access for thousands of people in Oklahoma. 

With the help of Becket and the law firm Yetter Coleman LLP, Saint Francis sent a letter to HHS explaining how its actions violated federal law. It told the government that it was trampling on the hospital’s religious duty to maintain a flame and was trying to separate Saint Francis’ religious activities from its health care. The letter gently warned that, “if we go to court, you will lose.” Today, the government was able to see the light, allowing Saint Francis’ flame to continue to live on as it has for years without issue. 

“The game was simply not worth the candle for HHS,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “It realized that it would be playing with fire in court if it stood by its absurd demand, so it chose wisely. We are glad Saint Francis can continue to serve those most in need while keeping the faith.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The federal government recently told a Catholic hospital in Oklahoma to either blow out a small candle or stop serving elderly, disabled, and low-income patients. Saint Francis Health System, the twelfth largest hospital in the nation, keeps, with many prudent safeguards, a sacred candle always lit inside its hospital chapels, in accordance with its Catholic faith. After a hospital inspection in February, the government said a single candle was too dangerous and now threatens to strip the hospital of the ability to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP if it does not extinguish the flame. Becket sent a letter to the Biden administration reminding it that Saint Francis has the right to religious freedom and warning federal bureaucrats to leave the candle alone. 

Saint Francis Health System is a premiere health system with five hospitals in Eastern Oklahoma. The health system cares for nearly 400,000 patients each year, has given away more than $650 million dollars in free medical care in the past five years, and employs more than 11,000 Oklahomans. Saint Francis’s mission is to extend the presence and healing ministry of Christ. In addition to providing compassionate and top-notch care to its patients, Saint Francis lives out its religious mission by maintaining multiple chapels throughout its hospitals, each of which has been blessed by the local Bishop.  

Since Saint Francis opened its doors in 1960, the health system has had a sanctuary candle with a living flame as an act of worship. The flame, far removed from medical equipment and patients, is shielded by two glass holders, sits on a brass basin, is affixed to a wall and has a brass top covering it, with many sprinkler heads above it. For Catholics, the living flame is a sign of the living presence of Jesus. The federal government now threatens to tell all patients who rely on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP that they can no longer receive care at Saint Francis—all over a candle. 

“Over 60 years ago, Saint Francis was founded by William K. and Natalie Warren as an act of gratitude and service to God and to the people of Oklahoma. The cornerstone of Saint Francis is love for God and man. To this day, the Saint Francis torch insignia indicates a space of hope: a place where the medical and spiritual stand as one,” said Barry Steichen, the executive vice president and chief operating officer of Saint Francis. “We’re being asked to choose between serving those in need and worshipping God in the chapel, but they go hand in hand. To share a quotation of Saint Francis Xavier that is familiar to many Saint Francis staff, ‘it is not the actual physical exertion that counts towards one’s progress, nor the nature of the task, but by the spirit of faith with which it is undertaken.’ Our work depends upon our faith in the living God, and the sanctuary candle represents this to us.”  

Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), deemed one of these candles too great a threat to hospital safety. Even though the candle is encased in glass and covered on top and has been approved repeatedly by the government and the local fire marshal, Saint Francis was told to snuff it out. If it does not extinguish the flame, the government will revoke Saint Francis’ ability to see Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP patients, cutting off critical healthcare access for thousands of people in Oklahoma.  Saint Francis asked the government four separate times for a waiver, explaining that its sanctuary candle is not a danger to anyone.  

To stop this attack, Becket and the law firm Yetter Coleman LLP sent a letter to HHS explaining how its actions violated federal law. The government is trampling on the hospital’s religious duty to maintain a flame in its chapels and its belief that the candle represents the eternal presence of Jesus. It is also trying to separate Saint Francis’ religious activities from its health care. There are over a dozen similar flames around the hospital kept lit for other reasons—like pilot lights for stoves and ovens, flames in gas water heaters—that the government has made accommodations for. Saint Francis should not be threatened with extreme penalties over its religious candle.  

“The government’s demand is absurd and unlawful—it is targeting Saint Francis’s sincere beliefs without any good reason,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The government has a simple choice: either stop this attack on Saint Francis’s faith or expect a legal firestorm.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – A federal judge today issued an order finding that Colorado’s new abortion pill law—which would have outlawed helping women who change their minds after taking the first abortion pill—has been put on hold.  

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Catholic non-profit medical clinic filed a lawsuit challenging a state law that makes it illegal to offer women progesterone, a natural hormone commonly used to prevent miscarriage, to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. Two weeks ago, immediately after the law was signed, the Court entered a temporary restraining order preventing the government from punishing providers for offering the hormone treatment. That order allowed an anonymous woman to continue abortion pill reversal treatment at Bella, and a second to begin receiving care at Bella soon after. 

The Court’s original order was set to expire tomorrow, April 29. But rather than defend the law, Colorado committed at a hearing on Monday that it will not enforce the law—promising instead to act as if the law “never existed.” The State’s lawyers said they were “disclaiming any enforcement” of the law, and witnesses from the Attorney General’s Office and the State Medical and Nursing Boards gave sworn testimony that they were not aware of any complaints against doctors or nurses about abortion pill reversal. Dede Chism, one of the nurse practitioners who founded Bella and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, reported that both of her current abortion-pill-reversal patients and their babies are continuing to thrive under Bella’s care.  

“I could never turn away these women in need,” said Dede Chism, NP, cofounder and CEO at Bella Health and Wellness. “I know from experience that we can help women who have changed their minds after taking the abortion pill—I’ve held their beautiful babies in my arms, and Bella still treats some of those babies now as toddlers and schoolkids.” 

In today’s ruling, a federal judge held that the State has “agreed to suspend any enforcement that would affect the plaintiffs” and “will not enforce the new Colorado law against any licensee” in the immediate future. The judge emphasized that the State is “treating SB 23-190 as if it were not yet in effect” and that it “will preserve the status quo ante” pending rulemaking by the licensing boards. The judge relied on the State’s “having made it clear to the Court that the plaintiffs’ current and planned activities do not subject them to the threat of enforcement in the imminent future.” 

“Colorado’s attorney general ran away from this law once he realized the legislature had shot from the hip,” said Rebekah Ricketts, counsel at Becket. “Now that the state has promised under oath to act as if the law does not exist, women in Colorado will not be forced to undergo abortions they seek to reverse.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – A massive foreign-owned mining corporation has joined forces with the United States government in its ongoing legal battle to destroy Oak Flat, an ancient Apache sacred site in Arizona. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, a coalition of Western Apaches is fighting to stop the federal government from giving Oak Flat to a mining giant that will swallow the site in a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,100-foot-deep crater—ending Apache religious practices forever (Watch this short video to learn more). Today, that mining corporation—Resolution Copper—told a federal court for the first time that the company must be allowed to join the lawsuit on the side of the federal government and oppose the Apache people and their efforts to protect a sacred place.

“The United States and Resolution Copper are not only destroying our holy and sacred place, they are severing native peoples’ spiritual connection from God through our Mother Earth, as they have done to everyone else’s spirit in this country,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “They are also allowing an unacceptable environmental impact study to move forward. Reports clearly show billions of gallons of water will be contaminated with devastating environmental impacts on every level. The impacts are not only against the Apache Stronghold, they are against mankind and Mother Earth—the U.S. Government led by corporate interests (Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto and BHP) to destroy God’s greatest gift to all the people, our Mother Earth.”

Resolution Copper is owned by the world’s two largest mining corporations, Rio Tinto and BHP. Rio Tinto has an abysmal track record of destroying indigenous sacred sites, previously sparking 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, China’s state-owned aluminum producer.

Since time immemorial, Western Apache and other native peoples have gathered at Oak Flat for essential religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else. Oak Flat is on the National Register of Historic Places and has been protected from mining and other harmful practices for decades. Those protections fell by the wayside in 2014, when a last-minute provision was inserted into a must-pass defense bill authorizing the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper. The mining giant plans to turn the sacred site into a two-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater.

During the current lawsuit over Oak Flat, Resolution Copper has opted to sit on the sidelines for over two years. But the case is now under consideration by a full panel of eleven judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with a decision expected within months. Only today did Resolution Copper ask the trial court to allow it to intervene in the case so it can make legal arguments alongside the government. Its sudden about-face signals that the international mining company is concerned about what might happen in the case, as the Supreme Court may have the last word on the protection of Oak Flat.

“There’s a reason Resolution Copper is trying to jump into this case now, after sitting on the sidelines for two years,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “It knows Apache Stronghold has strong legal arguments that could carry the day with the Ninth Circuit or with nine Justices, and it wants to have its say before it’s too late.”

In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael V. Nixon of Portland, Oregon, and Clifford Levenson of Phoenix, Arizona.

A decision by the Ninth Circuit is expected this spring or early summer.

WASHINGTON – The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed yesterday to reconsider a lower court decision saying that Catholic Charities Bureau—which ministers to those in need by feeding the poor, serving the elderly, and caring for the disabled—isn’t sufficiently “religious.” In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industrial Review Commission, a Wisconsin lower court held that Catholic Charities Bureau’s “activities” — including providing assistance to those with disabilities — were secular, not religious. Because of this, the lower court concluded that Catholic Charities Bureau did not qualify for a religious exemption from Wisconsin’s unemployment program. By preventing Catholic Charities Bureau from leaving the state’s program, the government has imposed significant costs on Catholic Charities Bureau—costs that come at the expense of serving those most in need. If allowed to leave the state’s burdensome program, Catholic Charities Bureau would join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s own unemployment assistance program, providing the same benefits with significant cost savings and increased efficiency.

Catholic Charities Bureau is the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. Catholic Charities Bureau helps the disabled, the elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This mandate to serve all those in need comes directly from Catholic Church teaching and advances the Catholic Church’s religious mission by carrying out the corporal works of mercy.

“Catholic Charities Bureau, our Diocese’s social ministry arm, carries on the work of Christ by reflecting gospel values; everything they do advances the mission of the Church,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “This backbone of our Diocesan ministry has, for over a century, served those who have been forgotten, ignored, and pushed to the margins of society.” 

Religious organizations operated for a “primarily religious purpose” are generally exempt under Wisconsin law from the state’s unemployment program, allowing them to join other unemployment compensation programs. But the lower court held that because serving those in need is not “inherently” a religious activity, Catholic Charities Bureau did not qualify for this exemption. In fact, the court thought that Catholic Charities Bureau needed to proselytize and preach the faith to those it served for their ministry to be religious, even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor should never be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s doctrine.

“The lower court ruling would have punished Catholic Charities Bureau for its good deeds,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “But saying a charity is religious only if it restricts its good deeds to those of the same faith misunderstands Catholic teaching, ignores Wisconsin law, and conflicts with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We’re glad that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is stepping in to review the lower court’s misguided view that Catholic Charities Bureau can’t participate in a Catholic unemployment assistance program because it’s not coaxing the poor, the elderly, and the marginalized it serves to join the faith.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of Gerald Groff, a former U.S. Postal Service postal carrier who was denied a religious accommodation to observe his Sunday Sabbath. In Groff v. DeJoy, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Groff, asking the Court to revisit Trans World Airlines v. Hardison and restore the protections Congress created for religious employees.  

In Hardison, the Supreme Court ruled that employers were under no obligation to provide religious accommodations to employees if those accommodations resulted in even a minor cost to the employer. The Hardison standard is particularly problematic for Americans who hold to minority faiths or have unpopular beliefs, placing additional hardships on marginalized communities. This includes the ability of Jewish employees to wear yarmulkes in the workplace or Muslim employees to pray during the workday.

“For almost 50 years, very large employers have been given a get-out-of-jail-free card any time they wanted to kick their religious employees to the curb for observing a holy day or taking time to pray,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “That’s all because one bad Supreme Court decision has allowed businesses to exile the faithful to the margins of society.”  

Becket has represented multiple religious workers who have been left to the whims of billion-dollar businesses that either did not understand or care about their religious convictions. Becket’s brief argues that employers have an obligation to offer accommodation and the Court should look to other areas of civil rights law – such as protections for employees with disabilities – to protect religious employees.  

“The public is often skeptical of how Supreme Court decisions affect their real lives, but there should be no doubt here: many Americans have been denied their rights because the Supreme Court got it wrong almost five decades ago,” said Rienzi. “In Groff’s case, the Court can get the law right once and for all. Fixing this mistake will help protect millions of hard-working religious Americans from having to choose between their job and their faith.”

Groff is represented by Aaron Streett of Baker Botts L.L.P. and First Liberty Institute. A decision is expected by Summer 2023. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.  

WASHINGTON – A Catholic healthcare clinic in Colorado filed a lawsuit today challenging a state law that makes it illegal to offer women a natural hormone to attempt to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, the clinic argues that the law targets clinics that have a religious duty to help all pregnant women in need, including those who decide to continue their pregnancies after willingly or unwillingly taking the abortion pill. With the help of Becket, Bella Health and Wellness asked a federal court to strike the law down and uphold its right to serve women who choose to continue their pregnancies.

Founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, Bella Health offers life-affirming, dignified healthcare to men, women, and children. Like healthcare clinics across the nation, Bella’s OB-GYN practice offers women progesterone, a naturally occurring hormone that is essential to the maintenance of a healthy pregnancy, including for women at risk of miscarriage. In some cases, progesterone has also been shown to maintain a healthy pregnancy after a woman has willingly or unwilling taken the first drug in the two-step abortion-pill regimen before deciding to carry her pregnancy to term. Consistent with its religious mission to uphold the dignity of every life, Bella offers progesterone to women who change their minds after taking the abortion pill.

“We opened Bella because of our belief that life is a precious gift from God, worthy of protection at all stages,” said Dede Chism, NP, cofounder and CEO at Bella Health and Wellness. “When a woman seeks our help to reverse the effects of the abortion pill, we have a religious obligation to offer every available option for her and her child.”

On April 14, Colorado passed a law that targets pro-life clinics like Bella Health by making it illegal to offer women progesterone in cases of abortion pill reversal. Even though Bella can offer the hormone to women in any other circumstance, including natural miscarriage, it is barred from doing so if the purpose is to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. This forces pro-life clinics to choose between their deeply held religious beliefs and their ability to operate as healthcare ministries in the state. The law would also force the women who seek Bella’s help to abort pregnancies they wish to continue. If it continues to offer and advertise progesterone for women who seek abortion pill reversal, Bella Health faces up to $20,000 per violation and the loss of the medical licenses for its providers. 

“All we want is to continue our ministry of serving expecting mothers in need, regardless of circumstance,” said Abby Sinnett, NP, cofounder and COO at Bella Health and Wellness. “In their most vulnerable state, a pregnant woman needs to know that she and her unborn child will be treated with the utmost dignity and care.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

PASADENA, Calif. – A federal court of appeals heard arguments again today in Apache Stronghold’s plea to save their sacred site at Oak Flat. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit previously ruled that the government could transfer Oak Flat to a foreign-owned mining company that will turn the site into a massive crater, ending Apache religious practices forever (Watch this short video to learn more). Last November, the court voted to rehear the case “en banc”—in front of a full panel of eleven judges—and today the Apaches and their allies made their case in the courtroom in Pasadena, California.  

“Oak Flat is where my people have come to connect with our Creator for millennia, and we have the right to continue that sacred tradition,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “Today we stood up in court for that right, determined to stop those who think that our place of worship can be treated differently simply because it lacks four walls and a steeple. We are hopeful that this time around, the Ninth Circuit will save Oak Flat.”

Since time immemorial, Western Apache and other native peoples have gathered at Oak Flat for essential religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else. Oak Flat has been protected for decades by the federal government from mining and other harmful practices that would make the land unusable for the Apache’s religious exercise. Those protections were eliminated in 2014, when a midnight provision was inserted into a must-pass defense bill authorizing the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company that plans to turn the sacred site into a two-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater. 

This past November, the Ninth Circuit decided to reconsider its decision, granting Apache Stronghold and their sacred site at Oak Flat another chance in court. Eleven judges on the Ninth Circuit reheard the case today and will decide whether the government can legally destroy sacred sites. 

“The government’s position in this case is that it can obliterate a place of worship for any reason or none at all, and not face consequences under federal religious liberty law,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We asked the court today to recognize the obvious—that when the government destroys a sacred site, religious liberty law has something to say about it. A win for Apache Stronghold will be a win for people of all faiths.” 

In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael V. Nixon and Clifford Levenson.  

A decision by the Ninth Circuit is expected in the summer of 2023.  

WASHINGTON – A group of Jewish parents and schools filed a lawsuit today challenging a California law that excludes religious parents and schools from using special education funding to serve children with disabilities. In Loffman v. California Department of Education, a group of parents want to send their children to Orthodox Jewish schools but are prevented from doing so because California politicians prohibit federal and state special education funding from being used at religious private schools while allowing those funds to be used at secular private schools.  

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law ensuring that all children with disabilities in America can receive a free appropriate public education that meets their needs. This funding helps pay for the cost of staff training, special education programs, assistive technology, and other services. IDEA provides this funding to states to assist children with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate education, including by placing children with disabilities in private schools when public schools cannot meet their needs. 

But in California, the Legislature allows only secular private schools to participate in this benefits program and has categorically excluded religious schools from participation. This court challenge aims to make sure that religious parents, their children with disabilities, and religious schools are treated equally under the law, a result that nearly 60% of Californians would like to see, according to a recent poll. 

Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Orthodox Jewish parents who want to send their children with disabilities to schools that provide both an education that allows them to reach their full potential, as well as one centered around Jewish religious beliefs and practices. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish schools in Los Angeles that provide an excellent education and seek the ability to serve the needs of children with disabilities. However, politicians in Sacramento have made that impossible by denying religious schools the right to access publicly available funding to help children with disabilities.  

“It takes a special kind of chutzpah to deny Jewish kids with disabilities equal access to special education benefits,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “California politicians can end this unlawful discrimination the easy way or the hard way. Either they change the law that is hurting children with disabilities, or they can shamefully fight in court for the right to discriminate.” 

A recent Supreme Court decision, Carson v. Makin struck down a Maine law that attempted to do precisely what the California law does here—allow private secular schools and families to access public funding but exclude religious schools and families from the same access. Carson builds on a long line of cases holding that religious people cannot be excluded from government benefits programs solely because they are religious. 

“California’s elected officials should want to help the most vulnerable members of our society, not hurt them,” said Rassbach. “There is no reason to stand by this outmoded law instead of giving kids with disabilities equal access to benefits.” 

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.

Becket will be hosting a press call at 12 p.m. PDT today to discuss California politicians’ failure to help children with disabilities.  

Press Call Information:
Dial 312-626-6799 (Meeting ID: 849 8489 2727) or
join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84984892727  

Email questions in advance to media@becketlaw.org  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON — Oakwood Adventist Academy’s remarkable journey in the Alabama boys’ state basketball tournament came to an end in Birmingham yesterday when they competed in the school’s first-ever trip to the state championship, narrowly losing 50-46 to last year’s champion.

Last year, Oakwood’s championship hopes were dashed when they were denied an accommodation to change the time of a playoff game that was scheduled during their Sabbath observance, forcing the team to forfeit and lose their chance at a championship run. After standing up for its faith, Oakwood then stood up for its rights. With the help of Becket and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Oakwood filed a lawsuit against the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) and successfully changed the policy, paving the way for its own success and for all schools of minority faiths that want to compete equally in high school sports.

“The Sabbath isn’t just a day off for these students; it’s so much more. It is an opportunity to pause and celebrate God’s goodness – honoring Him in His sacredness,” said Todd McFarland, deputy general counsel for the General Conference for Seventh-day Adventists. “This championship run proves that no one has to sacrifice their faith in order to compete at the highest level.”

Oakwood Adventist Academy is a Seventh-day Adventist school in Huntsville, Alabama, that honors the Sabbath as a central part of its religious tradition. From sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, students and staff take a break from activities like work or competitive sports to observe this sacred obligation. In February 2022, Oakwood’s boys’ basketball notched a school first by reaching the regional semifinals. However, when the game was scheduled for 4:30 pm on a Saturday, Oakwood faced a dilemma – a conflict between their most deeply held religious beliefs and the pre-sundown start time. The other three teams agreed to swap game times so that Oakwood could play during the 7:30 pm game slot, but AHSAA intervened and refused to allow the schedule swap. Unable to violate the Sabbath, this left Oakwood with no choice but to forfeit. Oakwood filed suit in May 2022, and four months later, AHSAA changed its rules to accommodate Sabbath observers.

This season, Oakwood defied the odds and made it to their first-ever state title match against the defending championship team. After a hard-fought battle, Oakwood lost by just four points, 50-46, but the team’s Cinderella story stands as a testament not only to their hard work on the court, but their commitment to their faith in the face of enormous adversity.

“The boys of Oakwood Academy have shown what it means to put first things first,” said Eric Rassbach, senior counsel and vice president at Becket. “These players remained true to their faith but also stood up for their rights as Americans.”

Oakwood Adventist Academy was represented by Becket and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior just asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to affirm that their mission of feeding the poor, helping the elderly, and caring for the disabled is a religious one. Under state law, religious employers in Wisconsin are eligible for an exemption from the state unemployment benefit program if they are operated primarily for religious purposes. But in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industrial Review Commission, a Wisconsin appellate court denied Catholic Charities Bureau and four of their subsidiary ministries this exemption. That effectively prevents Catholic Charities Bureau from providing their own benefit program to their employees, even though other religious organizations do so. 

Every Roman Catholic diocese in America has a social ministry arm that serves those in need. In the Diocese of Superior, Catholic Charities Bureau helps the disabled, the elderly, and those living in poverty, regardless of their faith. Guided by Church teaching that requires Catholics to serve all in need, this ministry fulfills the Church’s religious mission by offering in-home healthcare, housing, childcare services, and other vital resources.  

“As our Diocese’s social ministry arm, Catholic Charities Bureau and their subsidiary ministries provide essential resources to the most vulnerable members of our community,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “These ministries carry out the redeeming work of our Lord by reflecting gospel values; everything they do is steeped in the mission of the Church.” 

In Wisconsin, religious organizations are generally exempt from the state’s unemployment program. That allows Catholic dioceses and others to set up their own unemployment benefit programs, in accordance with Catholic teaching. But a state court recently denied Catholic Charities Bureau’s request for such an exemption. The court reasoned that because serving the poor, disabled, and hungry is not “inherently” religious, Catholic Charities Bureau was not religious enough for the exemption. In fact, the court thought that Catholic Charities Bureau needed to proselytize and preach the faith for their ministry to be sufficiently religious, even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor should never be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s religious message. 

“The lower court’s reasoning flies in the face of both the Constitution and simple common sense,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “It is absurd to suggest that Catholic Charities Bureau is not religious. Catholic Charities Bureau should not be penalized for serving all those in need or because they do not proselytize to those they serve. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should step in and correct the lower court’s error.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The most outrageous offender of this year’s Christmas and Hanukkah season and Becket’s 2022 Ebenezer Award winner is King County, Washington, for banning holiday decorations in employee video backgrounds. In a memo sent last month, the county’s Department of Human Resources told employees that they should not display nativity sets, menorahs and other religious holiday displays because they could be offensive to their colleagues.  

The announcement, entitled “Guidelines for Holiday Decorations for King County Employees” told county employees that religious symbols could not appear in their video backgrounds. While images of snowflakes, wreaths, and pine trees are still permissible, the grinch-like King County HR department has made it its mission to erase religious emblems from the online workplace this holiday season. 

King County’s rationale for banning religious symbols—that it might offend coworkers—also conflicts with Becket’s latest findings in our Religious Freedom Index. Overall, we found that 85 percent of Americans support the freedom to express or share religious beliefs with others, which would certainly include displaying a nativity scene or menorah in someone’s video background.

“Religious employees of King County will likely feel like the ransacked residents of Whoville this Christmas and Hanukkah season,” said Montse Alvarado, COO and executive director of Becket. “The government has no right to rob its employees of holiday cheer by forcing them take down their nativity sets and menorahs, particularly in their own homes.” 

Each year the Christmas and Hanukkah season inspires a slew of outrageous offenses against the free exercise of religion. At Becket, we do Santa’s dirty work for him, delivering a lump of coal as an acknowledgment of scroogery on a grand scale. Previous Ebenezer Award winners include the American Humanist Association, which tried to stop schools from sending care packages to children in need; the Department of Veteran Affairs, which banned employees at its Salem, Virginia facility from saying “Merry Christmas” to veterans; and the University of Minnesota, which two years ago banned from campus holiday colors, Santas, bows, dreidels, and even wrapped presents. (See list of previous winners).   

Finally, this year’s Eggnog Toast, given to an individual or group who avoided a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, goes to the Dedham public library in Massachusetts. After news broke that the Dedham library refused to display a Christmas tree because it made people feel “uncomfortable,” the library reversed itself and ensured distraught residents that a tree would be on display soon. Although library officials initially erred in their judgement, we salute them for turning their hearts back towards holiday cheer! 

“This is the time of year that Americans ought to come together in the spirit of Christmas to support one another and spread joy and hope,” said Alvarado. “But as always, there are bureaucrats like those in King County that scrub religion out of the holiday season. Let’s hope their hearts grow a few sizes this Christmas.” 

Becket wishes everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, and a joyous New Year! 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court today permanently blocked the Biden Administration’s attempt to force religious doctors and hospitals to perform gender-transition procedures, concluding that the Administration’s plan would violate a key federal law protecting religious freedom. This is the second appeals court ruling blocking the Administration’s controversial transgender mandate.

“The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients,” said Luke Goodrich, VP and senior counsel at Becket. “This is a common-sense ruling that protects patients, aligns with best medical practice, and ensures doctors can follow their Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm.’”  

In Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, a coalition of Catholic hospitals, a Catholic university, and Catholic nuns who run health clinics for the poor challenged the Biden Administration’s attempt to invoke the Affordable Care Act to force doctors and hospitals to perform controversial gender-reassignment procedures—on pain of multimillion-dollar financial penalties—even when doing so would violate the doctor’s conscience and could harm the patient. A federal district court held that this transgender mandate was unlawful and blocked it from taking effect. The Biden Administration then appealed to the Eight Circuit, which today concluded that the “district court correctly held that ‘intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion’” supported permanent protection.  

“Today’s victory sets an important precedent that religious healthcare professionals are free to practice medicine in accordance with their consciences and experienced professional judgment,” said Goodrich. “The government’s attempt to force doctors to go against their consciences was bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for religious liberty.”

The mandate, first issued in 2016 and applicable to nearly every doctor in the country, interpreted the Affordable Care Act to require doctors to perform gender-transition procedures on any patient, including children, even if the doctor believed the procedure could harm the patient. Immediately, religious organizations and states sued, challenging the legality of the mandate in multiple courts.  

In addition to the Religious Sisters of Mercy case, Becket also represents the plaintiffs in Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra including a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations—defending them from the same government mandate. That case also resulted in a court order stopping the mandate from taking effect, which Fifth Circuit affirmed in August 2022. 

The Administration now has 45 days to ask the Eighth Circuit to rehear the Religious Sisters of Mercy case, or 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Becket will host a press call at 2:00 p.m. ET to discuss the opinion. 

Press Call Information:
Dial 312-626-6799 (Meeting ID: 849 8489 2727) or
join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84984892727  

Email questions in advance to media@becketlaw.org
 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – South Carolina’s 3,500+ foster kids need loving homes. Governor Henry McMaster has asked a federal district court to protect the state’s right to partner with private faith-based foster care ministries that provide loving homes for children in need. In Rogers v. Health and Human Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Governor Henry McMaster to penalize South Carolina for working with religious foster agencies that serve children in need.  

“Over 3,500 of South Carolina’s children are currently in foster care and we need all the help we can get to see that they are placed in loving homes,” said Gov. Henry McMaster. “This lawsuit is a shortsighted attack against every South Carolinian’s constitutionally-protected religious liberty. We will continue to fight against any attempt to stop our private partners from being able to help provide these critical services simply because they choose to do so in accordance with their faith.” 

South Carolina’s Department of Social Services works directly with families seeking to foster and adopt children in crisis situations, serving children and families without regard to religion, race, disability, sex, or sexual orientation. The state also partners with an array of diverse private agencies that help recruit and retain more parents for foster children who need a safe place to live. Gov. McMaster issued an executive order protecting the religious freedom of foster agencies in South Carolina. Out of dozens of private agencies serving South Carolina, one agency, Miracle Hill Ministries, chooses to partner with families who share its Christian faith. Miracle Hill has an 80-year tradition of recruiting and serving families. Upon learning about Miracle Hill’s foster parent requirements, the ACLU used social media to recruit individuals who did not share Miracle Hill’s faith to apply to foster with the agency. Rather than reach out to any other agency or the state of South Carolina, which supports and licenses foster families directly, the ACLU sued South Carolina and the federal government, alleging that allowing Miracle Hill to serve foster families violated the law. 

“South Carolina’s efforts to protect all avenues of foster care should be applauded, not forced into a courtroom,” said Miles Coleman, partner at Nelson Mullins. “Too many places around the country have shuttered religious foster care agencies, making it harder to find children a home. South Carolina is doing all it can to prevent that.” 

Thankfully, the law does not allow the government to exclude foster agencies because of their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court recently affirmed this in Fulton v. Philadelphia, ruling unanimously that the law protected Catholic Social Services’ right to stick to its religious beliefs and continue serving foster children in Philadelphia. Just as in Fulton, South Carolina licenses many private agencies. This provides families looking to open their homes to children in need with numerous opportunities to find an agency that will be a good fit, while also protecting the religious freedom of all South Carolinians. 

“Faith-based agencies are effective at placing children in loving homes, and the Supreme Court unanimously protected their rights,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “This attempt to shutter faith-based agencies means fewer choices for foster parents and fewer homes for kids. South Carolina decided it could do better, and it shouldn’t be hauled into court for doing the right thing.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON- A federal court in Indiana today ruled that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis and its schools are free to choose leaders who will uphold their core religious teachings. The ruling in Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis is the latest in a string of court victories protecting religious institutions from government interference in internal religious matters.   

At Roncalli High School, education goes beyond the basic subjects by forming students’ hearts and minds in the Catholic faith. To that end, Roncalli asks its teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors to sign contracts agreeing to uphold Catholic Church teachings in both word and deed. In 2018, Shelly Fitzgerald, the Co-Director of guidance at the school, confirmed to the school that she had entered a same-sex union in violation of her contract and of Catholic teaching. The school then declined to renew her contract for the following year. Ms. Fitzgerald sued the school and the Archdiocese, alleging that its desire to uphold the Catholic faith is a form of discrimination. Today, the federal court threw out her lawsuit, stating that the Constitution protects Roncalli’s decision, because “Roncalli entrusted Fitzgerald to teach the Catholic faith and carry out Roncalli’s religious mission.” 

“The Supreme Court has long recognized that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire individuals who believe in their faith’s ideals and are committed to their religious mission,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “This is a common-sense ruling: Catholic schools exist to pass on the Catholic faith to their students; to do that, they need freedom to ask Catholic educators to uphold Catholic values.”  

The ruling is the latest in a string of court decisions protecting the hiring decisions of the Archdiocese and other religious schools. In July 2022, a federal appeals court in Chicago threw out a similar lawsuit by another guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Starkey v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis. In August 2022, the Indiana Supreme Court did the same in Payne-Elliott v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, explaining that the “Constitution encompasses the right of religious institutions to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government.” These rulings build on Supreme Court precedent set in other Becket cases, including the 2020 ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and the 2012 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical School v. EEOC.  

“Today is a great victory for not only the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, but for every religious institution seeking to instill their faith in the next generation,” said Luke Goodrich, senior counsel and vice president at Becket. “Teachers, counselors, and other school staff have an important role in students’ lives. We are glad the court decided to let Roncalli decide for itself who should have that responsibility.” 

The Archdiocese is also represented by Jay Mercer of Fitzwater Mercer. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.  

WASHINGTON – Oakwood Adventist Academy today announced that the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) has adopted a rule that would adjust game schedules to accommodate religious requests, a change that comes in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year. The case Oakwood Adventist Academy v. Alabama High School Athletic Association arose after Oakwood’s boys basketball team was forced to forfeit a semi-final tournament game scheduled on their Sabbath. Today’s action by AHSAA provides lasting protection for religious schools and their athletes and will serve as an example for other states.  

Oakwood Academy is the oldest Black Seventh-day Adventist school in the U.S, and in 2022, the basketball team set a school record: they made it to the regional semi-finals. But their big game was scheduled on a Saturday at 4:30 p.m., forcing the school to choose between playing the game and keeping their Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists consider the Sabbath, from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, holy. During this time, they do not work or play competitive sports games, an obligation taken seriously by all Oakwood Academy students and staff. 

Because of their religious beliefs, the team requested to swap game times for the later 7:30 p.m. slot, a request that the other teams competing in the playoffs agreed to. However, AHSAA denied the request, resulting in Oakwood having to forfeit the semi-final matchup. Today’s rule change ensures that championships will be decided on the field and on the court. 

“We applaud AHSAA for doing the right thing,” said Todd McFarland, associate general counsel for the General Conference for Seventh-day Adventists. “The new rule allows the Oakwood Mustangs to give their all both in their faith and in their sport.”  

Consistent with the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s rule for religious accommodations, the new rule will guarantee that schools from minority faith traditions are not excluded from the playing field or pressured to abandon their beliefs for a shot at the big game. The First Amendment requires workable accommodations in state sports to allow participants of all faiths to compete on an equal basis.  

“This new rule is a win for both the Mustangs and the First Amendment,” said Joseph Davis, counsel at Becket. “We hope that other state athletic associations will follow AHSAA’s lead so that no school or student will ever be excluded from participating on account of their faith.”  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – Yeshiva University and the Pride Alliance group have independently agreed that a stay should be entered to allow Yeshiva to appeal a ruling against it without the threat of sanctions. In June, a state court ordered Yeshiva to “immediately” give official recognition to Pride Alliance, an LGBTQ pride group. Yeshiva had been seeking the stay of that order from various courts since June, with Pride Alliance arguing that a stay was improper.

Yesterday, however, the Pride Alliance reversed course and agreed to enter into a stay. The change comes a few days after the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling directing further state court action, with four Justices indicating Yeshiva is “likely” to prevail on its claims, and the other five Justices inviting Yeshiva back if the state courts failed to grant relief. In the wake of that order, the New York Appellate Division on Tuesday, September 20, agreed to reconsider its prior ruling against Yeshiva. And now Pride Alliance has agreed that Yeshiva should be able to conduct its appeals without being forced to violate its religious identity.

“As explained yesterday, we are starting clubs after the Jewish Holidays when students are back on campus,” said Hanan Eisenman, Director Of Communications at Yeshiva University. “Now that Pride Alliance has offered a stay, we have sent their lawyers a signed agreement to stay the trial court order. We look forward to working together to quickly resolve this issue.”

WASHINGTON – Justice Sonia Sotomayor just ruled that America’s flagship Jewish university can continue to live out its religious mission without threat of government interference. After over a year of being denied protection in New York courts, Yeshiva University asked the Court to vindicate its religious identity and First Amendment rights through an emergency application. Today, Justice Sotomayor responded by issuing a stay in favor of Yeshiva’s religious liberty.  

“We are pleased with Justice Sotomayor’s ruling which protects our religious liberty and identity as a leading faith-based academic institution,” said Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University. “But make no mistake, we will continue to strive to create an environment that welcomes all students, including those of our LGBTQ community. We remain committed to engaging in meaningful dialogue with our students, Rabbis and faculty about how best to ensure an inclusive campus for all students in accordance with our Torah values.”

Established in 1886, Yeshiva University is the nation’s flagship Jewish university that empowers its students to apply Torah values in the world through education. 

“Yeshiva shouldn’t have been forced to go all the way to the Supreme Court to receive such a commonsense ruling in favor of its First Amendment rights,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We are grateful that Justice Sotomayor stepped in to protect Yeshiva’s religious liberty in this case.”  

Justice Sotomayor’s stay order indicates that it will remain in force until further order of Justice Sotomayor or the full Court.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON– There was an enormous outpouring of support today for Yeshiva University’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, with ten friend-of-the-court briefs filed by leading legal scholars and organizations from across the religious spectrum, including Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other faith traditions. On August 29, 2022, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court after the New York courts said that the nation’s oldest Jewish university could not be considered religious. 

When the University decided that it could not officially recognize an LGBTQ Pride Alliance club on campus due to its commitment to Torah values, a group of students sued the school. The lawsuit and ensuing lower court rulings in YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University seek to force Yeshiva University to compromise its religious mission.  

“This is a broad and monumental showing of support for Yeshiva at the highest court in our nation,” said Eric Baxter, VP and senior counsel at Becket. “It shows that this case does not just concern Yeshiva’s individual case but the right of all religious institutions to carry out their missions without interference from the civil court system. We are hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize that social reality and intervene.”  

Highlights from the wide array of friend-of-the-court briefs include:

• Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia
   
• The President of the Conference of European Rabbis, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine, the Chief Rabbi of South Africa, a Rabbinical Judge of the Upper Beth Din of Israel, and the Rabbinical Council of America
   
• The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Policy (COLPA), Agudath Harabbanim of the United States and Canada, Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce, Orthodox Union, Rabbinical Alliance of America, Torah Umesorah (National Society for Hebrew Day Schools)

• The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the Coalition for Jewish Values
   
• Agudath Israel of America
   
• The Association of Classical and Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, International Alliance for Christian Education, Association for Biblical Higher Education, and American Association of Christian Schools
   
• Professor Richard Epstein of New York University
   
• Council for Christian Colleges and Universities

• A coalition of religious groups including the Archdiocese of New York, United States Council of Catholic Bishops, Houston Baptist University, Liberty University, Wheaton College, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young University, Biola University, and Cedarville University
   
• Professor Phillip Hamburger of Columbia University and the New Civil Liberties Alliance
   

The full list can be found here.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The nation’s oldest Jewish university just asked the Supreme Court to protect its First Amendment rights. Yeshiva University has been fighting in New York State courts for over a year to defend its right to conduct its internal affairs in accordance with its religious beliefs. Yeshiva is now asking the Court to protect its religious mission from government interference.   

In YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, a group of students is demanding that the University officially recognize an LGBTQ Pride Alliance club on campus. The lower court rulings would force Yeshiva to put its stamp of approval on a club and activities that are inconsistent with the school’s Torah values and the religious environment it seeks to maintain on its undergraduate campuses.  

“The Torah guides everything that we do at Yeshiva—from how we educate students to how we run our dining halls to how we organize our campus,” said Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University. ”We care deeply for and welcome all our students, including our LGBTQ students, and continue to be engaged in a productive dialogue with our Rabbis, faculty and students on how we apply our Torah values to create an inclusive campus environment. We only ask the government to allow us the freedom to apply the Torah in accordance with our values.” 

Established in 1886, Yeshiva University is the United States’ foremost expression of the Torah Umadda philosophy, which advocates for participation in secular culture in accordance with Torah values. Those values pervade all life at the university.   

While the school welcomes and provides support services to its LGBTQ students and bans anti-LGBTQ bullying and discrimination in accordance with its multimillennial tradition of Torah values, in 2020, a small group demanded that Yeshiva recognize a “Pride Alliance” club on campus. These few alumni and students sued the school, insisting that – despite its 136-year commitment to its religious identity – the school was not in fact a religious institution, and demanded a court order the school to accept the club on campus while the lawsuit played out. 

“When secular authorities try to tell Yeshiva University that it is not religious, you know something has gone terribly wrong,” said Eric Baxter, VP and senior counsel at Becket. “The First Amendment protects Yeshiva’s right to practice its faith. We are asking the Supreme Court to correct this obvious error.”  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just heard a case involving a challenge to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that requires doctors to perform harmful, irreversible gender transition procedures against their conscience and best medical judgment. In Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra a group of doctors and hospitals argue that the Biden Administration’s mandate violates their medical conscience rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  

“Franciscan Alliance and the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration seek to carry on Jesus Christ’s healing ministry by providing the best possible care to every person who comes through our doors,” said Sister Petra Nielsen, Sister of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration and member of the Corporate Board for Franciscan Alliance. “We are simply asking the courts to let us keep caring for all our patients with joy and compassion—as we’ve done for over 145 years.” 

In 2016, almost 20,000 healthcare professionals, eight states and two religious hospitals challenged the HHS requirement in a federal district court in Texas. After years of litigation, including an appeal to the Fifth Circuit and a remand, a federal district court granted this relief to the doctors and hospitals involved and protected their medical conscience rights. In response, the federal government, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, appealed the ruling back to the Fifth Circuit to force doctors to perform these controversial, harmful procedures. 

“No medical professional should be forced to participate in controversial and irreversible gender transition procedures that can be deeply harmful to patients,” said Dr. André Van Mol, member of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. “The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their conscience, professional medical judgment, and Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm.’”  

The government’s requirement, known as the Transgender Mandate, is an HHS rule that forces doctors and other medical professionals to perform gender transition procedures, even if it goes against their conscience and medical judgment. It also requires private employers to cover these procedures or be threatened with crippling fines and potential litigation. Just last week, the Biden administration proposed a new, revised version of the mandate this week, but it will remain unenforceable against tens of thousands of religious doctors and hospitals across the country if the Fifth Circuit affirms the lower court’s ruling in this case.  

“We asked the court today to let doctors keep caring for all patients with compassion, conscience, and common sense,” said Joseph Davis, counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “We are hopeful the court will agree that the Transgender Mandate clearly violates federal law and doctors’ freedom of conscience.”  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 25 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here). 

WASHINGTON – Three Sikh recruits to the United States Marine Corps will be in the District Court for the District of Columbia tomorrow to defend their right to maintain their religious beards during basic training. Recruits Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Singh Chahal were all granted religious accommodations by the Marines, except during basic training and when deployed to “combat zones.” The Marine Corps contends that accommodating during basic training would disrupt troop uniformity. In Toor v. Berger, Becket, Winston & Strawn LLP, the Sikh Coalition, and BakerHostetler are representing the recruits in their fight to freely exercise their religion throughout their service.

In recent years, the Marine Corps has significantly relaxed its uniformity requirements to diversify its ranks. In recent months, it introduced rules making it easier for Marines suffering from pseudofolliculitis barbae (razor bump) to get medical accommodations for their beards, including during boot camp. It also relaxed rules prohibiting tattoos, so that individuals with tattoos anywhere except on the face, neck, and hands are now eligible to serve. And female recruits have never been asked to shave their heads, as is required of all male recruits. Other rules allowing diverse hairstyles, painted nails, and foreign characters on nameplates have been introduced, specifically to facilitate greater diversity among recruits.  

Plaintiffs Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Chahal are simply asking the government to provide them religious accommodations that will allow them to serve, just as it has provided secular accommodations to allow others to serve. These Sikh men—and all other religious observers in the armed forces—should not have to choose between exercising their faith and serving their country.
 

What:
Hearing in Toor v. Berger 

Who:
Eric Baxter, VP & senior counsel at Becket
Giselle Klapper, Sikh Coalition Senior Staff Attorney
Amandeep S. Sidhu, partner at Winston & Strawn LLP  

When:
Tuesday, June 28, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. ET 

Where:
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – Native American sacred land is on the chopping block after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today refused to protect Oak Flat from a foreign-owned copper mining company. In a 2-1 decision, which dissenting Judge Marsha Berzon called “absurd,” “illogical,” “disingenuous,” and “incoheren[t],” the court ruled that the government’s decision to transfer Oak Flat to Resolution Copper does not substantially burden Apaches’ religious practices—even though the mine will swallow the sacred site in a massive crater, ending those practices forever. Apache Stronghold—a coalition of Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies, which is represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“Oak Flat is like Mount Sinai to us—our most sacred site where we connect with our Creator, our faith, our families, and our land,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “It is a place of healing that has been sacred to us since long before Europeans arrived on this continent. My children, grandchildren, and the generations after them deserve to practice our traditions at Oak Flat.” 

Known in Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, Oak Flat has been protected from mining interests for more than six decades and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Western Apaches and other tribes have worshipped at Oak Flat since time immemorial (watch their story) and they still go there today to gather medicinal plants, visit sacred springs, and conduct essential ceremonies like the coming-of-age Sunrise Ceremony for Apache women—practices which cannot happen anywhere else.  

The longstanding protections for Oak Flat were eliminated in 2014, when a midnight rider was sneaked into a must-pass bill and the United States government decided to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company. Resolution Copper’s mine will swallow the site in a 2-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater—rendering longstanding religious practices impossible and devastating the Apache way of life. 

“Today’s decision is, as the dissent says, ‘absurd,’ ‘illogical,’ and ‘incoheren[t]’: if anything violates the free exercise of religion, it is the complete destruction of a sacred site that ends religious practices forever,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “This ruling not only is devastating to Apaches and other Native Americans but also threatens people of all faiths—and should not stand up on appeal.”  

Apache Stronghold’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is due on September 22, 2022. In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael V. Nixon and Clifford Levenson. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – After a historic winning season, Oakwood Adventist Academy’s basketball team had its dreams of competing for a state championship dashed after the Alabama High School Athletic Association refused to make a minor shift in the postseason schedule. In Oakwood Adventist Academy v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, a Seventh-day Adventist school’s basketball team was forced to choose between playing in a semi-final game on Saturday afternoon and keeping their Sabbath—a defining religious practice of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. Oakwood Academy is now asking to have its right to straightforward religious accommodations vindicated in federal court.

As a private Seventh-day Adventist school, Oakwood Academy has educated its students in accordance with its faith for over a century. This February, the school’s varsity basketball team made it to the regional semi-finals in the Alabama state postseason tournament but were kept from playing because their game was scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on a Saturday, which fell during the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath.

“This is not just another day of the week for us,” said Todd McFarland, associate general counsel for the General Conference for Seventh-day Adventists. “The Sabbath is the day we stop our work, rest and worship God. It is far more important to the members of the team to keep holy the Sabbath than play in any playoff game. The AHSAA should have made the simple schedule change – agreed upon by all teams – instead of making Oakwood Academy choose between faith and basketball.”

For Seventh-day Adventists, the Sabbath lasts from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. They consider the day holy and refrain from working to honor God’s command to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8). They therefore typically spend time at church and with their families. Knowing that it was a day of rest, Oakwood Academy asked the AHSAA to simply switch the two games scheduled for the day. The team could play in the second game in the semi-finals, which was occurring after the sunset on Saturday, and therefore no longer on the Sabbath. But even after the other teams involved agreed to the switch, AHSAA denied the accommodation. Oakwood was forced to forfeit the game.

It is common for sporting organizations to grant scheduling accommodations to religious groups, especially since refusing them has a disproportionate impact on minority faiths. For example, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has found common-sense solutions that ensure Jewish and Seventh-day Adventist schools can compete without issue.

“It’s bad enough that AHSAA would intentionally exclude a religious school for honoring the Fourth Commandment,” said Eric Rassbach, senior counsel and vice president of Becket. “But it’s worse when the exclusion is entirely unnecessary—like most Americans faced with this issue, the schools had worked out a simple, common-sense solution. But the bureaucrats said no. The First Amendment demands much more.”

Becket will host a press call at noon ET to discuss the case. Email questions in advance to media@becketlaw.org.

What:
Press call for Oakwood Adventist Academy v. AHSAA

Who:
Eric Rassbach, VP and senior counsel at Becket
Orlan Johnson, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Director for the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

When:
Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at noon ET

Call Information:
Dial 312-626-6799 (Meeting ID: 849 8489 2727) or
join  https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84984892727

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – The most outrageous offender of this year’s Christmas and Hanukah season and Becket’s 2021 Ebenezer Award winner is the Brookings, Oregon City Council for restricting church efforts to feed the homeless. An ordinance passed in late October by the council has severely restricted area ministries like St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church from feeding the city’s rapidly growing homeless population.

The ordinance was passed after some city residents complained about safety issues during the hours church ministries were operating their soup kitchens. But the new regulation doesn’t resolve any safety concerns and instead cuts St. Timothy’s food ministry from four days a week to just two. St. Timothy’s Rev. Bernie Lindley calls the ordinance unjust, noting that it solves nothing and prevents his ministry from doing the Lord’s work of serving the least among us.

“Feeding hungry people is at the core of what our church believes Jesus calls us to do,” said Reverend Bernie Lindley, vicar of St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church. “We do not see how a municipality can interfere with that mission without violating our constitutional right to freely practice our faith.”

Like many cities on the West Coast, Brookings is grappling with a surge in homelessness following months of lockdowns and isolation aggravated by the COVID pandemic. Church ministries that provide critical care to the homeless are essential in Brookings, because the city doesn’t provide homeless services and the county doesn’t have shelters to help keep the homeless warm and indoors during the cold winter months. Churches like St. Timothy’s are happy to step in to provide care and resources that the city is incapable of providing.

Reverend Lindley isn’t complying with the ordinance and plans to continue to feed the homeless — on the church ministry’s schedule — throughout the Christmas season.

“Lockdowns and isolation have caused a surge in homelessness across the country, and church ministries should be supported for the work they are doing to help restore human dignity to the most vulnerable,” said Montse Alvarado, Becket’s vice president and executive director. “I applaud St. Timothy’s for not backing down to the whims of government bureaucrats and continuing to do what religious ministries all around this country do best in times of adversity– serve.”

Each year the Christmas and Hanukkah season inspires a slew of outrageous offenses against the free exercise of religion. At Becket, we do Santa’s dirty work for him, delivering a lump of coal as an acknowledgment of scroogery on a grand scale. Previous Ebenezer Award winners include Freedom from the Religious Foundation for stealing presents from children, the Dunwoody, Georgia City Counsel which banned all religious symbols in response to an email from a disgruntled citizen, and the Department of Veteran Affairs, which banned employees at its Salem, Virginia facility from saying “Merry Christmas” to veterans. (See list of previous winners).

Finally, this year’s Eggnog Toast, given to an individual or group who has shown persistence in the face of adversity – or even offered an exception to a long-standing rule, goes to Michigan State University for allowing menorah lightings in its residence halls during Hanukkah for the first time. We salute the University for making an exception to its candle ban in residence halls so that Jewish students could fully celebrate the Hanukkah season without leaving their dorms!

Becket wishes everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, and a joyous New Year!

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court just heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which will decide if parents in Maine can use the state’s scholarship program to send their kids to local religious schools just as the program allows them to send their children to elite private secular schools.

Since many Mainers live in rural areas there are few education opportunities for students. To fix this issue, Maine offers to pay tuition fees for students to attend the primary schools of their choice. Students can choose elite private secular prep schools and even schooling in other countries but cannot use the scholarship program to attend a local school with a religious curriculum. The state of Maine itself chooses what schools are “too religious” to bar certain institutions from the tuition assistance program.

“Imagine thinking it is fair for privileged students attending elite out-of-state boarding schools to reap the benefits of tuition assistance, but not economically-disadvantaged kids wanting to attend their local religious school down the road,” said Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket. “Maine has created an absurd divide that treats religious education as second-class and harms the poor too.”

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Maine’s parents and students, arguing that religious people are not second-class citizens and that religious schools must not be excluded from public benefits, as the Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed. The Court ruled four years ago in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that religious schools cannot be barred from generally available government programs. That decision was strengthened in last year’s case, Espinoza v. Montana Board of Revenue, which ruled that Montana could not exclude religious schools from a scholarship program due to bigoted anti-Catholic laws known as Blaine Amendments.

“Maybe the third time’s the charm,” said Thomson. “It shouldn’t take multiple Supreme Court rulings to stop Maine from treating religious people like second-class citizens, but now that the issue is back before it, the Supreme Court should not hesitate to protect religious people not just for who they are but also for what they do.”

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – Members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde were at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today seeking justice after the United States government bulldozed a sacred site to add a highway turn lane near Mount Hood, Oregon. Members of the tribes had shared their pleas with the government to save the site but were ignored. In today’s Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration oral argument, Becket asked the court for remedies against this injustice and for protection of the site in the future.

For many worshipers in traditional Native American faiths, religious practice centers on sacred land. In the Mount Hood area, indigenous people have used the land to fish, hunt, gather food and medicine, bury their dead, and perform religious ceremonies for centuries. But in 2008, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration refused to listen to tribal members’ pleas about a small, less-than-one-acre sacred site and chose to demolish it, destroying the ancient sacred stone altar and burying ancestral gravesites to make way for a highway turn lane. Sadly, the government also chose to ignore the numerous alternatives for widening the highway, leaving the other side of the road untouched.

“We have been waiting for over a decade for this injustice to be set right,” said Carol Logan, tribal elder of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. “It is past time for the court to recognize that without our sacred land, our religious traditions will be lost.”

After failed negotiations for restoration of the site, the tribal members pursued claims in federal court, arguing that the sacred site should have been protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, and several environmental laws. But even after acknowledging that the destruction of the sacred site would make it impossible for the tribal members to engage in their religious practices, the lower court ruled in February of 2021 that federal law does not prevent the government from destroying Native American sacred sites. Tribal leaders are now asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to provide justice for the destroyed site and assurances that this will not happen again.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in a similar case, Apache Stronghold v. United States, last month. A group of Apaches and other native and non-native allies are fighting to protect sacred indigenous land in Arizona called Oak Flat from a foreign mining company that will swallow the sacred site in a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,100-foot deep crater. The United States tried to get the case thrown out of court, saying that because the destruction hasn’t occurred yet, the Apaches brought their lawsuit too soon. Ironically, in Slockish, the United States is making the opposite argument, saying that because the site has already been destroyed, the lawsuit should be thrown out as too late. The tribal members are asking the Ninth Circuit to end this injustice to Native American people.

“The government’s priorities were made abundantly clear when they decided to raze a sacred site into oblivion but protected a tattoo parlor on the other side of the highway,” said Joe Davis, counsel for Becket. “Native Americans have faced injustice from the United States government since before our nation’s founding and the discrimination isn’t over yet.”

The tribal members are represented by Becket together with Oregon City attorney James Nicita and Keith Talbot of the Seattle-based law firm, Patterson Buchanan Forbes & Leitch.

Press Call Information:

Becket will host a press call at 5:45 p.m. EST
Dial 312-626-6799 (Meeting ID: 849 8489 2727) or join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84984892727
Email questions in advance to media@becketlaw.org

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON –The Supreme Court just ordered New York courts to reconsider Diocese of Albany v. Emami, a case challenging New York’s coercive abortion mandate, in light of Becket’s unanimous victory in Fulton v. Philadelphia. New York requires employers to cover abortions in their health insurance plans—even if the employers are religious groups like the Sisterhood of Saint Mary, an Anglican order of nuns dedicated to a peaceful, contemplative monastic life and youth outreach. After New York courts upheld the coercive mandate, Becket and Jones Day joined Tobin and Dempf, LLP, to represent the Diocese of Albany at the Supreme Court, which today vacated the lower courts’ rulings and ordered a rehearing of the case.

“We believe that every person is made in the image of God,” said Mother Miriam of the Sisterhood of Saint Mary, the oldest Anglican religious order founded in America. “That’s why we believe in the sanctity of human life, and why we seek to serve those of all faiths—or no faith at all—in our community. We’re grateful that the Supreme Court has taken action in our case and hopeful that, this time around, the New York Court of Appeals will preserve our ability to serve and encourage our neighbors.”

New York’s law has only a limited religious exemption—for religious groups that primarily serve and employ people of their own religion. This exemption, which is so narrow that Jesus himself would not qualify for it, excludes the Sisterhood of St. Mary because they sponsor a 4-H club and allow local youth to lease some of their prized Cashmere goats as part of their agricultural outreach ministry.

“New York clearly learned nothing from the federal government’s own attempts to force nuns to pay for contraceptives and is now needlessly threatening charities because they believe in the dignity and humanity of every human person,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Punishing faith groups for ministering to their local communities is cruel and counterproductive. We are thankful that the Supreme Court won’t allow the New York Court of Appeals’ bad ruling to be the last word on the right of religious ministries to serve New Yorkers of all faiths.”

Other religious groups targeted by the abortion mandate include the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, the First Bible Baptist Church of Hilton, New York, and Catholic Charities, the Catholic Church’s charitable arm, which all joined forces against the abortion mandate. What all of these diverse groups have in common is that they seek to serve all people in their communities: the First Bible Baptist Church conducts outreach via its local youth ministry, Catholic Charities provides adoption and maternity services to its community, and the Carmelite Sisters operate the Teresian Nursing Home in Albany. But because they offer these services to people in their communities regardless of their faith background, the state holds that they must offer abortion services in their insurance plans—or else.

“We are gratified and grateful that the Supreme Court has recognized the serious constitutional concerns over New York State’s heavy-handed abortion mandate on religious employers,” said The Most Rev. Edward B. Scharfenberger, bishop of the Diocese of Albany, New York. “We are confident that now that the Court has ordered the case remanded for reconsideration in light of last year’s Fulton v. Philadelphia decision, the unconstitutional regulatory action taken by New York State will ultimately be completely overturned as incompatible with our country’s First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.”

The religious groups are also represented by Michael Costello of Tobin and Dempf, LLP, and Noel Francisco and Victoria Dorfman of Jones Day. Mr. Francisco was counsel of record at the Supreme Court.

SAN FRANCISCO – Apaches from Arizona were in federal court today to save their sacred site known as Oak Flat from being destroyed by a copper mine that would swallow their holy ground in a nearly 2-mile-wide crater deeper than the Eiffel Tower. If the court doesn’t intervene, the government will turn this historically protected land over to a foreign-owned mining company that will obliterate the sacred ground where the Apaches conduct their most important religious ceremonies.

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit community organization dedicated to the defense of Native American sacred sites, is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop a land swap, which would completely destroy the sacred land and religious exercise of the region’s first inhabitants. Becket is representing Apache Stronghold, arguing that the destruction of sacred sites is a flagrant violation of the free exercise of religion (watch their story).

“As it was at the beginning of our people with one prayer, one drum and one circle we again must defend our sacred land and our home with one prayer, one drum and one circle,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We have worshipped on Oak Flat since time immemorial in reverence just as Abrahamic faiths reverence Mt. Sinai and we will continue to defend and protect our sacred place.”

Apache Stronghold is asking the Ninth Circuit to halt a land transfer to a foreign-owned mining company, which plans to destroy a traditional Apache sacred site as part of a multi-billion-dollar copper-mining plan. Oak Flat – known in Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel – is part of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona. The federal government has protected the land from mining interests for more than six decades, recognizing that the Western Apaches and other tribes have long celebrated sacred ceremonies and gathered natural resources from the area. The worship of Western Apaches is inseparable from Oak Flat, where they gather medicinal plants, visit sacred springs, and conduct essential ceremonies such as the coming-of-age Sunrise Ceremony for Apache women—practices which cannot happen anywhere else.

Unfortunately, a midnight rider was slipped into a must-pass defense bill in 2014, directing the government to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company whose parent company, Rio Tinto, recently destroyed a sacred 46,000-year-old Aboriginal site in Australia. Now Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies, has asked the court to stop the land transfer because it would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

“The brazen destruction of a sacred site like Oak Flat is a tragic reminder of how terribly the United States government has treated, and still treats, Native peoples,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel of Becket. “This kind of abuse would never be tolerated for other faith groups, and it is long past time for the courts to stop this injustice.”

A ruling in this case is expected in the coming months. In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael Nixon and Bill Carpenter.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – Apaches in Arizona will be in federal court this week to save their spiritual lifeblood and sacred site known as Oak Flat from being destroyed by a copper mine that would swallow their holy ground in a nearly 2-mile-wide crater deeper than the Eiffel Tower. If the court doesn’t intervene, the government will turn this historically protected land over to a foreign-owned mining company that will obliterate the sacred ground where the Apaches conduct their most important religious ceremonies.   

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit community organization dedicated to the defense of Native American sacred sites, is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop a crooked land swap with a mining company that will completely destroy the sacred land and devastate the Apaches’ religious life. Becket is representing Apache Stronghold, arguing that the destruction of sacred sites is a flagrant violation of the free exercise of religion.  

Members of Apache Stronghold, Poor People’s Campaign and supporters will be protesting outside the courthouse during the virtual hearing. Details about the protest and hearing are below.  

What: 
Oral Argument in Apache Stronghold v. United States 

Who: 
Luke Goodrich, Becket vice president & senior counsel 
Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr., Apache Stronghold   

When: 
Friday, October 22 at proximately 12 p.m. PST (time may change) 

Where: 
Protest location (outdoors):
Civic Center Plaza
Larkin St between Grove St and Fulton St, San Francisco
9 a.m. – 1 p.m. PST

Oral argument will be held virtually at this link: Live Video Streaming of Oral Arguments and Events (uscourts.gov) 

Attorney Luke Goodrich and Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. will be available for comment immediately following the hearing. Join us for statements live on Twitter @BECKETlaw.  

In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael Nixon and Bill Carpenter. 

Statements for media use:  

“As it was at the beginning of our people with one prayer, one drum and one circle we again must defend our sacred land and our home with one prayer, one drum and one circle,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We have worshipped on Oak Flat since time immemorial in reverence just as Abrahamic faiths reverence Mt. Sinai and we will be outside the courthouse to defend and protect our sacred place.” 

“The government’s plan to destroy Oak Flat is a tragic reminder of how terribly our nation has treated, and still treats, native peoples,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Such callous disregard of religious practices would never be tolerated for other faith groups, and it is long past time for our nation to provide equal protection for Native Americans and their religious practices.” 

Photos © Russ McSpadden 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – A Texas death row inmate is asking the Supreme Court to protect his first freedom in his last hour. In Ramirez v. Collier, John Henry Ramirez has appealed to the Court to allow his spiritual advisor—a Southern Baptist pastor—to pray over him in the execution chamber. The Court will hear argument in the case on November 1. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday arguing that the First Amendment and federal civil rights law require the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to allow prisoners the right to meaningful clergy access in their final moments. TDCJ’s ban on pastors praying aloud for the condemned or laying hands on them threatens centuries-old religious rituals that long predate the United States and continue to be practiced in prisons around the country. 

Becket argues that both audible clergy prayer and clergy touch stand at the center of the “historical practices and understandings” that define the Free Exercise right to clergy access for the condemned. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment requires TDCJ to prove that it has a really important reason to enforce these restrictions, and can accomplish its goals no other way—which it cannot do. 

“For some reason, Texas wants to turn back the clock hundreds of years on the rights of clergy to minister to the condemned,” said Eric Rassbach, VP & senior counsel at Becket. “If King George III could do it back then, and Alabama can do it today, Texas ought to be able to figure it out. The Supreme Court should tell Texas to allow Ramirez’s pastor to minister to him in the death chamber, including by praying aloud and laying hands on him. Human dignity and simple common sense demand no less.” 

Prior to 2019, Texas’ policy allowed Christian and Muslim chaplains into the death chamber. In a 2019 case, Patrick Murphy asked the TDCJ to allow his Buddhist priest into the execution chamber with him and to chant his prayers with him as he died. TDCJ denied Murphy this right, but after Becket filed a brief, the Supreme Court halted the execution. TDCJ responded to Murphy’s “equal treatment” claim by blocking spiritual advisors of all faiths from the execution chamber. After another Supreme Court ruling in favor of a prisoner supported by Becket, TDCJ’s policy now allows chaplains to be in the execution chamber, but still prohibits any spoken prayer or slight contact with the inmate. This runs contrary to centuries of religious practice, and even TDCJ’s own practices up until 2019. 

Ramirez’s request is not unusual. Clergy of choice have been allowed in most executions performed over the history of the United States, and in the lethal injection context, clergy members have offered touch and audible prayer in the final moments for decades.  

“Our country allowed clergy to minister to Revolutionary War traitors and Nazi war criminals at the gallows. We have always given condemned prisoners the chance to get right with God not because of who they are, but because of who we are,” said Rassbach. 

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ramirez v. Collier on November 1. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – Last year, in a range of cases concerning COVID-19, college campuses, the federal no-fly list, and foster care, the Supreme Court repeatedly strengthened religious liberty. In the upcoming 2021 Term, which opens October 4, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to protect rural families and their children’s access to religious private school education, prisoner’s comfort of clergy in the death chamber and goat-herding nuns from mandated abortion coverage in their insurance plan.  

In Carson v. Makin, the State of Maine has a religious discrimination problem. It provides funding to students in rural parts of the state who want to attend a secular elite prep school in another part of New England—or even overseas—but it won’t do the same for those who want to attend religious private schools down the street. Becket’s brief argues that this type of religious discrimination is unconstitutional because states can’t punish families and children for choosing religious schools. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in July of 2021 and oral argument is expected in late 2021 or early 2022.  

In Ramirez v. Collier, a condemned man is asking for his pastor to pray for him in the death chamber. The State of Texas has refused to allow John Ramirez’s pastor to pray aloud for Ramirez, or hold Ramirez’s hand in prayer, in the death chamber. As one of the oldest religious exercises in human history, allowing clergy to assist the condemned at the moment of death is at the heart of religious liberty. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Ramirez’s emergency application at the Supreme Court last week. That application was granted and the case was scheduled for argument before the Court on November 1, 2021.   

In Diocese of Albany v. Emami, nuns are back at the Supreme Court. This time, an order of nuns that provides healthcare services is among a coalition of religious groups fighting a New York state abortion mandate that would force them to cover abortion in their health plans. The mandate does have a narrow religious exemption—except Jesus himself wouldn’t qualify because Jesus served people of all faiths. That’s a problem for the Carmelite Sisters, because they perform social work for people of all faiths. Becket and the law firm Jones Day have filed a petition to the Supreme Court, and a decision to take the case could come as early as October 8.  

Join the Nation’s religious freedom experts to discuss these and other religious liberty cases to watch this coming term. On the call we will discuss the themes for the upcoming term, cases being heard this term and preview petitions currently pending before the Court. We will take questions at the end of the call. 

For more information about the agenda click here.

What:
Preview of the SCOTUS 2021-22 term 

Who:
Mark Rienzi, president of Becket
Montse Alvarado, COO of Becket 

When:
Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 2:15 p.m. EDT 

Call-in:
Zoom ID: 849 8489 2727 or join us06web.zoom.us/j/84984892727
Email questions in advance to: media@becketlaw.org.

This press call has already concluded. Click here listen to a recording.

Additionally, Becket has just launched season 2 of its Stream of Conscience podcast with the release of episode one: A Love Letter to RFRA. It can be found on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and wherever else you stream!  

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – Becket just filed its friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin in support of religious schools’ ability to teach their faith without fear of government discrimination. The brief is in support of students in Maine who are wrongly barred from using Maine’s flexible schooling subsidy program to attend the school of their choice—a religious school.

Maine pays the private school tuition of students who live in certain thinly populated rural areas where no public schooling is available. This allows them to attend the school of their choice – unless they choose to attend a school with too much religious content according to the State, which reviews schools’ curriculums to ensure that they aren’t engaging in “sectarian” behavior. 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.

“Maine will pay a student’s tuition if they want to attend a private school in England, but not if they want to attend a local faith-based school,” said Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket. “It is time for the Supreme Court to put an end to this unfair double-standard once and for all.”

States have a long history of excluding religious institutions from public benefits, often due to discriminatory Blaine Amendments that were passed during a wave of anti-Catholic sentiment starting in the late nineteenth century. However, as Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief points out, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Constitution prevents laws that burden religious beliefs or actions simply because they are religious. In a previous case, Espinoza v. Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court ruled that Montana couldn’t single out religious schools for exclusion from a state scholarship program.

“It’s not right to target religious parents, students, and schools for a denial of government benefits,” said Thomson. “The Supreme Court has said that schools cannot be excluded for their religious status—that should have been enough. But now it should clarify that this rule includes schools that want to actually teach the faith to their students.”

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON –The Texas Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, rejected a million-dollar defamation lawsuit today against the Catholic Diocese of Lubbock, ensuring that religious organizations are free to speak transparently with their flocks about their clergy. 

The Texas Supreme Court recognized the full scope of the First Amendment’s freedom for religious institutions to shape their own faith and missions. Religious institutions 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.”  

As the court said, a religious institution’s freedom “is based not on whether a publication goes beyond church walls but rather whether the substance and nature of the … claims implicate ecclesiastical matters, including a church’s internal affairs, governance, or administration.” It is not enough that a secular court can think of a way to make a claim sound non-religious. As the court stated in its opinion, “a civil suit that is inextricably intertwined with a church’s directive to investigate its clergy cannot proceed in the courts.” Any other conclusion would mean that religious institutions are not free to make decisions “consistent with [their] own norms and policies.”   

 “The Church carries its mission well beyond its four walls,” said William Haun, counsel at Becket. “We are happy that the court recognized that fundamental truth today, and that the First Amendment does not allow government bodies—including courts—to interfere with internal religious decisions. Religious organizations do not surrender their freedom to govern themselves just because they speak in public on matters affecting their faith, clergy, and moral witness.”  

In 2019, the Catholic dioceses of Texas agreed to compile and release lists of clergy members credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor. This was part of the Catholic Church’s broader effort to reform its governance around transparency toward clergy misconduct, better protect vulnerable community members, and restore lost trust. The list was drawn up in accordance with the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which defines a “minor” as any person habitually lacking the use of reason. Deacon Guerrero was placed on the list after he had been permanently removed from public ministry following allegations of sexual misconduct with a woman who has a history of mental and emotional illness.   

As a Catholic clergyman, Deacon Guerrero knew about Canon Law and was obliged to follow it. He sued the Diocese in 2019 claiming defamation because the woman he was accused of abusing was older than 18 years of age.   

After two lower courts ruled against the Diocese, Becket represented the Diocese on appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. The Diocese’s petitions received the support of 34 members of the Texas legislature, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, prominent legal scholars, and a diverse array of religious organizations.  

“Today the Texas Supreme Court said ‘Don’t mess with Texas churches,’” said Haun. “Any other decision would have amounted to punishing the Church for doing the right thing by its members.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

Read in English

WASHINGTON – Hoy, el Fondo Becket Pro Libertad Religiosa presentó un escrito amicus curiae en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. El Fondo Becket aclaró la importancia de este derecho argumentando que las iglesias, sinagogas y mezquitas de todo el hemisferio occidental, no los funcionarios estatales, son quienes deberían elegir quién enseña religión en las escuelas. El caso, Sandra Pavez vs. Chile, se refiere a una demanda presentada contra la Diócesis de San Bernardo, Chile, por un maestro de escuela cuya certificación para enseñar la fe católica fue revocada por la diócesis por una violación del derecho canónico católico.

El escrito de Becket explica que los tribunales internacionales y nacionales de todo el mundo han reconocido el principio fundamental de autonomía de la iglesia: el control religioso sobre cuestiones religiosas, como es el caso de decidir quién enseña la fe a la siguiente generación. El escrito de Becket insta a la Corte Interamericana —un tribunal internacional con jurisdicción sobre 35 naciones del hemisferio occidental, incluidos los Estados Unidos, Canadá, México y Argentina, entre otras naciones— a reconocer dicho principio como ya lo han hecho otros tribunales internacionales.

“La autonomía de los grupos religiosos es fundamental para toda sociedad democrática”, dijo Diana Verm, asesora senior de Becket. “Los funcionarios estatales simplemente no deberían de ingerir en la elección de obispos, rabinos, imames o maestros de religión”.

En Chile, una nación predominantemente católica, las clases de religión se imparten en escuelas públicas, pero al tratarse de una cuestión de autonomía religiosa, los maestros de estas clases deben ser certificados por el obispo católico local como calificados para enseñar la religión católica. Cuando Sandra Pavez, profesora de religión en una escuela pública en San Bernardo se casó con una persona del mismo sexo en violación de la enseñanza de la Iglesia, la Diócesis de San Bernardo revocó su certificación.

A pesar de que la Sra. Pavez fue retenida en su empleo e incluso promovida a un mejor puesto por la escuela, demandó a la diócesis —que no era su empleador— por discriminación laboral. Cuando los tribunales chilenos fallaron en su contra, presentó una demanda contra la nación de Chile en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, alegando que Chile había permitido una “injerencia arbitraria en la vida privada” en violación de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.

El escrito de Becket explica que una amplia gama de precedentes legales —provenientes del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, de las constituciones y leyes de los Estados Unidos y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos— apoyan sistemáticamente el principio de autonomía religiosa como fundamental para todos los Estados democráticos. De hecho, la autonomía religiosa proporciona una protección especial para los grupos minoritarios e impopulares. Por el contrario, estados autoritarios como Irán y Rusia no respetan ni la autonomía religiosa ni a las personas LGBTQ.

“Es mejor tanto para la Iglesia como para el Estado que el Estado no decida sobre cuestiones religiosas”, dijo Verm. “Todas las sociedades democráticas reconocen ese hecho fundamental. La Corte Interamericana debería estar del lado de esos países, no de violadores seriales de los derechos humanos como Arabia Saudita o Corea del Norte”.

Para obtener más información o para concertar una entrevista con un abogado de Becket comuníquese con Ryan Colby a media@becketlaw.org o al 202-349-7219. Las entrevistas se pueden realizar en inglés, chino, francés, alemán, portugués, ruso y español.

WASHINGTON – A federal court just ruled against Wayne State University, finding that it discriminated against InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a religious student club, when it kicked the group off campus for requiring its leaders to be Christians. As the court stated, at Wayne State, “[s]tudent groups were permitted to restrict leadership based on sex, gender identity, political partisanship, ideology, creed, ethnicity, and even GPA and physical attractiveness.” However, religious groups were not allowed to require that leaders share any of a group’s religious beliefs and at Wayne State, it was a “small group of Christians, who were denied [student organization] benefits because they require their Christian leaders to be . . . Christian.” The court concluded that Wayne State’s actions to force religious groups to accept leaders “who may be hostile to [their] religious tenets” were obviously wrong and “strike at the heart” of the First Amendment: “No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause.” Because Wayne State’s actions were “obviously odious to the Constitution,” the court held Wayne State officials personally liable for violating the rights of Wayne State’s religious students.

“The law is crystal clear: universities can’t kick religious student groups off campus just because they choose leaders who share their faith,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket. “The court’s common-sense ruling today means that InterVarsity must be treated fairly, just as it had been for 75 years at Wayne State, and now can continue its good work serving a diverse campus community.”

InterVarsity’s student group had been a part of Wayne State for three-quarters of a century, holding Bible studies and providing a place for community discussion. InterVarsity is open to all students, but, like many other student groups, it requires its student leaders to adhere to its mission and purpose. The university never had a problem with their policy until 2017 when, during a routine club membership reapplication process, Wayne State told InterVarsity that asking its leaders to share its faith was “discriminatory” and deregistered the group.

But the court said Wayne State had things backward—it was the school that had discriminated against the small student group: “Disparate and discriminatory treatment of religious groups due to their religious character violates the Free Exercise Clause.” In fact, Wayne State’s attempt to control a religious group’s leadership selection was “categorically barred by the Constitution.” And the law on this point was so clear that the court held that Wayne State officials are personally liable for their actions.

In 2018, Becket sued Wayne State on InterVarsity’s behalf, since the group had been excluded. Wayne State relented and let InterVarsity back onto its campus but argued that it still had the right to remove the group later. Today’s ruling safeguards InterVarsity and sends a clear message that accommodation, not discrimination, is the best policy.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – In the last week, two groups of Native Americans brought two different cases to a federal appeals court, seeking to protect their religious freedom and stop the government from destroying sacred sites where they have worshipped since time immemorial. The rare convergence of these two cases presents a major test of Native American religious freedom: Will Native Americans receive the same protections for their religious practices that other faith groups enjoy?

Members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde on Monday appealed to the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, seeking justice after the government knowingly destroyed a sacred site in Oregon near Mount Hood that included ancient burial grounds, a campground, and a stone altar. The government bulldozed the site in 2008 during a highway-widening project, even though tribal members repeatedly alerted officials to the importance of the site, and highway officials protected a nearby wetlands and a tattoo parlor. The case has been stalled in court for over a decade—during which time one of the plaintiffs, Johnny Jackson, sadly passed away—but is finally moving forward. (Watch their story.)

Members of Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit community organization dedicated to the defense of Native American sacred sites, filed a request on Thursday in Apache Stronghold v. United States to save their spiritual lifeblood, a sacred site called Oak Flat, from being destroyed by a copper mine that would swallow their holy ground in a nearly 2-mile-wide 1,000-foot-deep crater. Oak Flat is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and has been protected from mining for more than six decades, but, in a 2014 midnight backroom deal politicians slipped in a “rider” to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, letting the government transfer the land to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company. (See video.)

“The wanton destruction of Native American sacred sites is a tragic reminder of how terribly the United States government has treated, and still treats, native peoples,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel of Becket. “This kind of abuse would never be tolerated for other faith groups, and it is long past time for the legal system to end it.”

“For centuries Native Americans have endured the destruction of sacred places by the federal government, and it’s heartbreaking that the court would say this completely preventable destruction was okay,” said Carol Logan, a member of the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde and plaintiff in Slockish. “All we want is the return of our sacred artifacts, the rededication of the area for our ancestors, and the promise that we can continue to worship as our tribes have done for centuries.”

“Oak Flat is a holy, sacred, and consecrated place which remains central to our identity as Apache People,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We have our own legacy of persistence and are never letting go of this place. Oak Flat’s religious value to our prayers, our ceremonies, and in our family histories cannot be overstated. Development of the Resolution Copper Mine would directly and permanently damage our traditional cultural property that is vital to us, which is why we strongly oppose this operation.”

The plaintiffs in Slockish are represented by Becket together with Oregon City attorney James Nicita and Keith Talbot of the Seattle-based law firm, Patterson Buchanan Forbes & Leitch. The plaintiffs in Apache Stronghold are represented by Becket together with attorneys Michael Nixon and Bill Carpenter.

Photos of Oak Flat and Apache Stronghold © Robin Silver Photography

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court just ruled that University of Iowa officials who kicked a student club off campus because of its faith can be held personally accountable for the harm they caused. The university targeted Business Leaders in Christ, or BLinC, for requiring its student leaders to affirm the Christian faith. The university oddly claimed this was a violation of its nondiscrimination policy, even though it allowed other religious groups to select faith-compliant leaders and openly encouraged other groups—like fraternities and sororities—to select leaders based on other characteristics covered by the nondiscrimination policy. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized this selective enforcement of the university’s policy for what it is: blatant viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. And its ruling makes clear that university officials are personally responsible for such knowingly unconstitutional conduct.

In a partial concurrence/partial dissent, Judge Kobes concluded with these words:

The law is clear: state organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they should not get qualified immunity.

BLinC is a Christian student group at the university that helps business students live out their faith in the workplace. The university initially recognized its members as some of the best students on campus and assured them they could select leaders who embraced their faith. But the university later did an abrupt about-face, accusing BLinC of discrimination and kicking it off campus.

“BLinC takes good students and makes them better by strengthening their resolve to remain true to their moral compass in the cutthroat business world,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Any wise university would be thrilled to have them on campus, but the University of Iowa tried hounding them off instead. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects their right to remain on campus on the same terms as every other student group.”

In October 2017, after a student complained about being denied a leadership position, school officials subjected BLinC to a lengthy investigation, ultimately demanding that it “revise” its beliefs and strip faith out of its leadership criteria. But while BLinC welcomes all students as members, to maintain its religious mission, it needs leaders who agree with its faith. While other campus clubs were allowed to set their own criteria for leaders, the school removed BLinC from campus for doing the same and told them their leadership selection was discriminatory.

Even after a federal judge warned the university about its double standards, university officials went on a deregistering spree to cover their tracks, ultimately kicking other Christian, Sikh, and Muslim student groups off campus for reserving leadership positions for students who shared their faith. But at the same time, fraternities and sororities, political groups, and other ideology-based organizations were left untouched, even though they discriminate based on sex, other characteristics protected by the nondiscrimination policy, or—like BLinC—agreement with their underlying mission. A lower court last year ruled that the court’s discrimination against BLinC was illegal, and that the university had to let BLinC back on campus once and for all. The Eighth Circuit’s decision affirms that ruling, while holding the individual officials personally responsible for their discriminatory application of the university’s nondiscrimination policy.

“It’s deeply ironic that school officials tried using the university’s nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against religion,” said Baxter. “They knew this was wrong, yet did it anyway. We’re pleased the court has recognized that such blatant religious discrimination brings personal consequences.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – Apaches in Arizona filed an emergency appeal yesterday to save their spiritual lifeblood, a sacred site called Oak Flat, from being destroyed by a copper mine that would swallow their holy ground in a 2-mile-wide crater deeper than the Eiffel Tower. If the court doesn’t intervene, the government will turn this historically protected land over to a mining company that can begin the destruction in as few as 15 days.  

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit community organization dedicated to the defense of Native American sacred sites, is pleading with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop a crooked land swap, which would completely destroy the sacred land and religious exercise of the region’s first inhabitants. Becket is representing Apache Stronghold, arguing that the destruction of sacred sites is a flagrant violation of the free exercise of religion.  

Long a sacred place for Apaches and other native peoples, Oak Flat (or Chi’chil Bildagoteel in Apache) also contains copper, making it vulnerable to the exploitation of mining companies. Recognizing its responsibility to Native peoples, the federal government has protected the sacred site from mining interests for more than six decades. But in 2014, in a midnight backroom deal, Senator John McCain attached a “rider” to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, letting the government transfer the land to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company. In January 2021, when word leaked that the required environmental study was about to trigger the transfer, Apache Stronghold sued the government to save Oak Flat. But on February 12, 2021, a federal district court ruled that the destruction of their sacred land did not constitute a “substantial burden” on their religious liberty.  

Unfortunately, the U.S. government has a history of destroying Apaches’ lives and land for the sake of mining interests. In the 1870s, the government forced the Apache people onto the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and authorized miners to take Apache land. Today, although many of their ancestral sacred sites have been destroyed, thousands of Apaches maintain the essential connection to their Creator by worshipping at Oak Flat. At this beautiful, ecologically rich location, Apaches harvest sacred medicinal plants, access sacred springs, and perform essential religious ceremonies, such as the coming-of-age Sunrise Ceremony. These practices must be performed at Oak Flat, which has been recognized by the National Register of Historic Places as a vital sacred site.  

“Being driven from our ancestral lands and imprisoned on reservations is still a deep wound borne by the Apache people. Now, the United States government is trying to sell us out again—making way for a foreign company to desecrate our sacred land,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “My people are pleading with the court to stop this unconstitutional destruction of native land and preserve Oak Flat so that we can continue taking our children and our grandchildren there to worship and pray.”

Resolution Copper, if given possession of Oak Flat, would completely destroy the sacred land with a 2-mile-wide, 1,100-foot-deep crater in order to access the copper underneath the land. Unless the courts halt the land transfer, Oak Flat will officially change hands as soon as March 11, 2021.  

“Our nation has a tragic history of destroying Apache lives and land for the sake of mining interests,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The very least our legal system can do is ensure that Apache religious practices are treated with the same respect as all other faiths, and that this vital sacred site is preserved for generations to come. The Constitution, not to mention basic human decency, requires no less.”  

In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael Nixon and Bill Carpenter.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court denied Alabama’s request to overturn a lower court’s order granting a death row prisoner the right to have his pastor accompany him to the death chamber. The Alabama Department of Corrections has banned all clergy from the death chamber, depriving prisoners like Willie Smith from praying with a clergy member during their final moments. Smith’s execution was scheduled for last night, but a federal appeals court ordered Alabama to allow Smith’s pastor in the death chamber, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.

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.”

“If Willie Smith has to leave this world, he shouldn’t have to leave it all alone,” said Diana Verm, senior counsel at Becket. “Alabama used to know that, which is why it always required a chaplain to be with the condemned man until the end. Prisoners should be allowed to make peace with their Maker in their final moments. We are glad the Supreme Court has ensured that can happen in this case.”

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Dunn v. Smith in support of Smith’s request for Pastor Robert Paul Wiley, Jr. to accompany him to the gurney. Becket pointed out that most of the prisoners who were executed in the United States over the last year could 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, Alabama should be able to as well. In fact, Alabama required clergy in the chamber until 2019, when it changed its requirement as a result of prisoner litigation requesting equal treatment. In Murphy v. Collier, a Buddhist prisoner requested that his spiritual advisor be available instead of the Christian or Muslim chaplains that the prison provided. When the Supreme Court required at least equal treatment for all faiths, Alabama banned all clergy from the death chamber, even its own prison chaplains.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit required Alabama to allow clergy into the execution chamber and the Supreme Court agreed with that decision, delaying the execution until Smith is allowed a pastor in the chamber.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – The Archdiocese of Chicago went to court today asking to keep the government from choosing who leads its masses. In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, the former music director of St. Andrew parish is suing the Archdiocese of Chicago for requiring its liturgical leaders to follow the Catholic faith. Becket is defending the Archdiocese of Chicago and St. Andrew parish before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the full court to follow settled law and allow religious groups to supervise their own ministers of the faith without governmental entanglement.

Last August, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against the Archdiocese. That decision was at odds with previous Seventh Circuit decisions, rulings of other federal circuits, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, another Becket case in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of churches to select and supervise their ministers free from government interference. The full court vacated the panel’s opinion and reheard the case today.

“He who sings, prays twice—so whoever leads the singing is central to church worship,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket. “Allowing the government to entangle itself in the relationship between a church and its ministers runs headlong into the wall between church and state.”

As the church music director, Sandor Demkovich played a central role in planning the liturgy and conveying the Catholic faith to St. Andrew’s congregation. When Mr. Demkovich entered into a same-sex marriage in violation of his employment agreement and 2,000-year-old Church teaching, the pastor had to let him go. Mr. Demkovich then sued the Archdiocese for discrimination.

“Courts nationwide have consistently ruled that the government doesn’t get to inject itself into the church-minister relationship,” said Blomberg. “Churches, not judges or government officials, should control who stands at the pulpit or in front of the choir.”

The Archdiocese of Chicago is also represented by its General Counsel, Jim Geoly, and by Alex Marks at Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today heard arguments over whether university officials can be held personally accountable for intentional religious discrimination on campus. Officials from the University of Iowa appealed after a district court found them personally liable for kicking out InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and other Sikh, Muslim, and Christian groups—all supposedly for violating the University’s nondiscrimination policy by asking their leaders to agree with their respective faiths. However, other groups were not held to the same standard. Greek groups and sports teams were allowed to select leaders and members based on sex, despite the University’s policy against sex discrimination. And dozens of groups were allowed to screen leaders for shared beliefs on issues like gender, race, and sexual orientation, even though those topics are also covered by the nondiscrimination policy. Only disfavored religious groups were punished for screening their leaders for mission alignment.  Today, InterVarsity asked the Eighth Circuit to affirm a lower court ruling that school officials should be personally responsible for this religious discrimination.  

“InterVarsity serves the University of Iowa, its students and faculty, and the local community,” said Greg Jao, Director of External Relations at InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA. “The policy should have been used to protect, rather than penalize, religious groups that seek to retain their religious identity on campus.” 

InterVarsity was a part of the campus community at the University of Iowa for over 25 years, during which time it was awarded and recognized by the University for exemplary service to students. But in 2018, InterVarsity received a notice from the school threatening deregistration. The school claimed that InterVarsity’s longstanding requirement that its leaders be Christians violated the school’s nondiscrimination policy. The University gave InterVarsity two weeks to change its religious leadership requirement, refused to allow InterVarsity to even “strongly encourage” its leaders to agree with its faith, and then kicked it off campus. The University also deregistered several other religious groups, including Sikh, Muslim, and other Christian organizations, for requiring their leaders to agree with their religious missions. But secular groups—including Greek groups that counted almost 20% of campus among their members—were allowed to form around shared characteristics and beliefs.  

“University officials who target individuals or groups based on religion must be held accountable for their actions,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket. “No organization can live out its mission if its leaders don’t share its beliefs. Allowing all groups except religious groups to ensure that leaders are mission aligned is blatant religious discrimination.”  

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court just heard the case of Chike Uzuegbunam, a college student who was threatened with arrest for sharing his faith on campus. Chike, a passionate Christian believer, wanted to peacefully share his faith with other students at his school, but found himself threatened and silenced by school officials. After Chike sued, and after vigorously defending its unconstitutional policies in court at first, the college changed course and argued that since Chike had graduated and was not asking for a large sum of “compensatory damages,” his case should be thrown out. Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether the rights of Chike and others like him can be vindicated, or whether government bureaucrats can use a technical loophole to wiggle out of the consequences of their actions. 

During argument, the Justices expressed concern that the college’s position could harm victims beyond this case. Justice Kagan pointed out that in Taylor Swift’s sexual assault case against a radio host, “it was unquestionable physical harm, but she just asked for this one dollar to say that she had been harmed. . . . In the same way” that Taylor Swift’s dollar “compensated her, so too here.” And Justice Gorsuch was concerned that many of the amicus briefs filed with the Court—including Becket’s—point out that some groups “have religious scruples against seeking damages for injuries suffered,” and that under the college’s rule, these religious groups “lose out.”  

Becket’s brief argues that prisons, universities, and other government actors frequently make insincere and temporary rule changes to escape justice for their unconstitutional policies.  

“Georgia Gwinnett’s ‘free speech’ policies were outrageous and their officials knew it. They tried to intimidate Chike Uzuegbunam into silence, and when he challenged them in court, they tried to duck and run,” said Adèle Keim, counsel at Becket. “We’re confident the Supreme Court will see through the college’s dishonorable actions and decide in Chike’s favor.” 

WASHINGTON – As if things weren’t bad enough this holiday season, America’s most notorious grinches, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), a noted anti-Christmas activist group, has found a way to steal presents from children. Last month, FFRF intimidated a Kansas school district into canceling its annual charity drive that sends Christmas gifts and necessities to underprivileged children abroad. The reason: the drive was sponsored by Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian international disaster relief organization – and FFRF can’t abide the thought of a religious organization helping school children spread Christmas cheer. FFRF’s crusade makes the Grinch’s ransacking of Whoville look tame, which is why the atheist organization has earned Becket’s lowest (dis)honor, the 2020 Ebenezer Award, awarded for the biggest bah humbug of the holiday season.

As part of Operation Christmas Child, students at Liberty Middle School in Pratt, Kansas, were anticipating partaking in a charity drive to gather Christmas gifts and other necessities to send to underprivileged children abroad. But the school district abruptly canceled the program after FFRF attorney, Chris Line, sent a letter to the district’s superintendent claiming that “[o]rganizing a donation drive that for all intents and purposes employs school staff and resources to convert people to Christianity violates basic constitutional principles.” Regrettably, FFRF’s stunted idea of how constitutional law (and gift drives) work and their general aura of Grinchiness succeeded in shutting the charitable endeavor down. However, Samaritan’s Purse invited kids to send shoeboxes regardless of the school program, trying to avoid the chilling effect of FFRF’s Grinch-like campaign to “stop Christmas from coming!”

“Worse than taking candy from a baby, FFRF is stealing Christmas presents from impoverished children,” said Montse Alvarado, executive director of Becket, “The Constitution does not require Americans to quarantine their faith when they go to class. In a year when hope and joy are scarce, intimidating school children into abandoning charity is shameful and wrong.”

Each year the Christmas and Hanukkah season inspires a slew of outrageous offenses against the free exercise of religion. At Becket, we do Santa’s dirty work for him, delivering a lump of coal as an acknowledgment of scroogery on a grand scale. Previous Ebenezer Award winners include Dunwoody, Georgia City Counsel which banned all religious symbols in response to an email from a disgruntled citizen, the Department of Veteran Affairs, which banned employees at its Salem, Virginia facility from saying “Merry Christmas” to veterans, and the University of Minnesota, which three years ago banned from campus the colors red, green, blue, and silver; Santas; bows; dreidels; and even wrapped presents. (See list of previous winners).

In this year of unprecedented violations of civil liberties, we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge the everyday scroogery of our COVID curmudgeons in high office. The Ebenezer Award runners-up are none other than Governor Cuomo of New York, Governor Gavin Newsom of California, and Governor Sisolak of Nevada, who are barring the doors of houses of worship and turning Americans out into the cold innkeeper-style this Christmas and Hanukkah (read more here).

Finally, this year’s Eggnog Toast, given to an individual or group who has shown persistence in the face of adversity, goes to two Wisconsin state representatives, Paul Tittl and Shae Sortwell, who wanted to spread Christmas cheer after the governor tried to cancel the annual capitol Christmas tree. Although their permit to erect a tree was denied, Tittl and Sortwell took the initiative to put up their own tree anyway – and then put up a second tree when the first one was removed. We salute them for their dedication to good cheer!

“This year, of all years, Americans ought to come together in the Christmas season to support one another and spread joy and hope,” said Alvarado. “True to form, FFRF is hell-bent on purging the holiday season of any whiff of its true meaning. Let’s hope their hearts grow a few sizes this Christmas.”

Becket wishes everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, and a Joyous New Year!

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – Recognized for its extraordinary success before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appeals courts, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joins 23 premier appellate firms across a number of practice areas as this year’s constitutional rights advocate on the “appellate hot list” and the only non-profit law firm chosen since the list’s creation. 

 A non-profit law firm that defends religious freedom for all, Becket overcame the unprecedented challenges of 2020 by securing two Supreme Court victories on the same day in July and arguing on behalf of faith-affirming agencies at the High Court just last week.   

“High profile. High pressure. High stakes. These are the traits that defined our defense of religious believers amid a global epidemic,” said Montse Alvarado, executive director of Becket. “Our expert First Amendment litigators have worked tirelessly to protect the rights of nuns, heroic foster moms, and Jews who have been targeted and bullied by government officials.”