WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled 3-0 today that California is violating the law by discriminating against religious parents and schools in its special-education programs. In an opinion authored by Judge Kim Wardlaw and joined by Judge Morgan Christen and Judge Mark Bennett, the court held that “we easily conclude that the nonsectarian requirement fails the neutrality test” required by the Constitution.   

In Loffman v. California Department of Education, Orthodox Jewish parents, following their religious duty, are seeking to send their children with disabilities to Orthodox Jewish schools that would best serve their children’s needs. California politicians, however, have for decades banned certain special-education funding from being used at religious private schools—even though they have made that funding available to families whose children attend hundreds of non-religious private schools. Becket and Teach Coalition, an initiative of the Orthodox Union that advocates for equitable government funding for nonpublic schools, are working with these parents and schools to stop California from denying crucial services to Jewish children with disabilities.   

“This is a massive win for Jewish families in California,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “It was always wrong to cut Jewish kids off from getting disability benefits solely because they want to follow their faith. The court did the right thing by ruling against California’s bald-faced discrimination.” 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law intended to ensure that children with disabilities receive an education that meets their unique needs. IDEA provides federal funding to states, including California, for special education programs in public schools. But public schools cannot always meet the needs of students with disabilities, so federal and state law allows that funding to be used at private schools that can provide this critical support. In California, however, politicians excluded religious private schools from this program, leaving religious parents with no opportunity to find a school that best meets their child’s unique needs.  

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that California cannot continue to exclude Jewish families and schools from participating in the IDEA program just because they are religious. The court’s panel agreed that California’s discriminatory approach was wrong, stating “We conclude that the statute on its face burdens the free exercise rights of parents.” In reaching its decision, the court relied on a string of Supreme Court decisions requiring equal treatment for religious people, including Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson v. Makin.   

California has 90 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.  

WASHINGTON – A coalition of Muslims, Jews, Christians, 20 states, and legal scholars asked the Supreme Court earlier this week to block New York’s mandate that nuns and religious organizations pay for abortions for their employees. In Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a diverse group of religious organizations including an order of goat-herding nuns sued New York, seeking religious protections in 2017. After New York courts refused to protect the religious groups, Becket and Jones Day asked the Supreme Court to step in. The Justices reversed the lower courts’ rulings and told them to reconsider the case. However, the state courts ignored the Supreme Court and again refused to protect religious organizations, leaving them no choice but to return to the Supreme Court (Watch this short video to learn more).   

When the New York State Department of Financial Services initially proposed the abortion mandate, it promised to exempt all employers with religious objections. However, after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to cover only religious groups that primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith. This exception does not apply to most religious ministries because they seek to serve all people, regardless of faith. For example, the exemption doesn’t extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation.  

“New York is bullying nuns into bankrolling abortions because they serve all people, no matter their faith,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “That is unacceptable—as this outpouring of support shows, religious organizations should be free to care for the needy without having to violate their beliefs.” 

Highlights from this week’s filings in Diocese of Albany v. Harris include:   

• 20 states including Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio, highlight how states like New York, California, and Colorado have repeatedly attacked religious freedom.  

• The nation’s leading religious liberty law scholars argue that the abortion mandate violates the original meaning of the Constitution’s religious liberty protections.

• Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Christians explain that protecting religious freedom is especially critical for minority faiths.  

• Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic shows how New York’s law will hurt vulnerable communities by shutting down the religious ministries that serve them.  

• A coalition of Catholic healthcare professionals and organizations highlights how New York’s abortion mandate targets service-oriented religious groups who serve all people in need. 

“Religious groups in the Empire State should not be forced to pay for insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs,” said Noel J. Francisco, partner-in-charge of Jones Day’s Washington office. “This broad coalition is asking the Court to make that clear and protect a diverse group of religious ministries from New York’s mandate.” 

The Court will consider whether to hear the case later this fall. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – Three UCLA Jewish students and a Jewish UCLA professor filed an amended complaint today in their lawsuit against UCLA for its role in helping antisemitic agitators exclude Jews from campus. The amended complaint in Frankel v. Regents of the University of California sheds more light on UCLA’s failures to stop antisemitism on campus during and after the rise of the initial Jew Exclusion Zone, details how each defendant was personally involved, and describes how student groups have responded to the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s brutal terrorist attacks on Israel, with one student group even memorializing the October 7 massacre and another encampment forming yesterday.  

The complaint also mentions a recently filed report by UCLA’s own Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias which sharply criticizes the university for its antisemitic actions and environment. The report, which surveyed 428 members of UCLA’s Jewish community, details the systematic exclusion of Jews from UCLA’s campus and documents over 100 reports of individuals who were physically attacked or threatened. Additionally, three-quarters of respondents felt that antisemitism is “taken less seriously than other forms of hate and discrimination at UCLA.” 

The Task Force noted that it was “troubled by the defense that was offered by the university” in this case and urged the university to stop fighting it: “Jews and Israelis have been victims of discrimination and harassment on the UCLA campus, and the University should commit to remediation, rather than fighting the case.” 

A federal judge ordered UCLA in August to stop helping antisemitic agitators exclude Jews from parts of campus, calling the university’s actions “abhorrent” and “unimaginable.” UCLA responded by insisting that it bears no blame for the rampant antisemitism it encouraged and facilitated, and that any harm to Jewish students and faculty was “not by reason of anything [UCLA] did or failed to do.” UCLA has even questioned whether Jewish students and faculty were harmed at all. The Task Force, for its part, found that the Court “[a]ppropriately” “rejected UCLA’s defense and issued the injunction.”      

“UCLA should throw in the towel and finally admit that the administration not only allowed antisemitic encampments but encouraged them,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students and professor. “A federal court and now UCLA’s own antisemitism task force have denounced UCLA’s blatant facilitation of Jew-hatred on campus and called for the school to stop fighting in court. UCLA should agree to make the court’s order permanent and protect its Jewish students and faculty rather than discriminate against them.”  

Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC represent the students and professor. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – Despite a federal court order calling the exclusion of Jews from critical parts of campus “abhorrent” and “unimaginable,” UCLA stubbornly continues to deny responsibility for the Jew Exclusion Zone. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, a federal judge ordered UCLA to stop helping antisemitic agitators exclude Jewish students from campus. UCLA responded to the lawsuit late Tuesday night by insisting that it bears no blame for the rampant antisemitism it encouraged and facilitated. UCLA even questioned whether Jewish students were harmed at all. 

Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC filed a lawsuit against UCLA in June after it helped a group of activists as they set up encampments where they harassed Jewish students and stopped them from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA reinforced these zones—both by providing metal barriers and by sending away Jewish students—while taking no effective action to ensure safe passage for Jewish students. In August, federal judge Mark C. Scarsi ordered UCLA to immediately stop aiding and abetting the antisemitic demonstrations. Late Tuesday, UCLA responded by refusing to take responsibility for the encampments, arguing that it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any discriminatory conduct,” and that any harm to Jewish students was “not by reason of anything [UCLA] did or failed to do.” UCLA also denied that Jewish students were segregated from campus or were “prevented from accessing the classrooms or the main undergraduate library.”  

“Jewish students are headed into Rosh Hashanah knowing that their university denies it has a responsibility to protect its Jewish students,” said Yitzchok Frankel, father of four and a third-year law student at UCLA. “UCLA should stop dodging blame for its despicable behavior and admit its role in stoking antisemitism against students like me.” 

Yitzchok Frankel is a law student and father of four who faced antisemitic harassment last semester for simply wearing a kippah and was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Frankel detailed how UCLA’s failures forced him to cancel plans on campus with his family and forgo opportunities to mentor incoming Jewish students on campus. Eden Shemuelian, another law student, also had to avoid using campus facilities and participating in law school orientation events because of UCLA’s failures to ensure the safety and equal access of Jewish students. 

“UCLA’s denials of knowledge and responsibility won’t fool anyone,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “The university should stop pretending it had nothing to do with the antisemitism that has festered on its campus and own up to its mistakes.”  

The case will continue in the district court until the legal issues are resolved. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WATCH VIDEO: NUNS BATTLE THE NEW YORK ABORTION MANDATE

WASHINGTON – A diverse coalition of religious groups asked the Supreme Court late yesterday to block New York’s mandate forcing them to cover abortions in their employee health insurance plans. In Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a group of Anglican and Catholic nuns, Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social ministries initially sued over the mandate in 2017. After New York courts declined to protect the religious institutions, Becket and Jones Day asked the Supreme Court to step in. In 2021, the Justices reversed the lower courts’ rulings and told them to reconsider the case. However, the state courts ignored the Supreme Court and again refused to protect religious organizations, leaving them no choice but to return to the Supreme Court (Watch this short video to learn more).   

When the New York State Department of Financial Services initially proposed the abortion mandate, it promised to exempt all employers with religious objections. However, after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to cover only religious groups that primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith. This exception does not apply to most religious ministries because they seek to serve all people, regardless of faith. For example, the exemption doesn’t extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation.

“New York’s abortion mandate is so extreme that not even Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Mahatma Gandhi would qualify for an exemption,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The Justices should exempt religious organizations once and for all so they can focus on caring for the most vulnerable.” 

After New York courts refused to protect religious organizations, the religious groups asked the Supreme Court to take their case. In 2021, the Court reversed the unfavorable rulings from New York state courts and told them to reconsider the case in light of Becket’s landmark victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Despite this, the state courts ignored Fulton, forcing the religious groups back to the Supreme Court once more to protect their freedom to serve according to their faith. 

“Religious groups in New York should not be required to provide insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs,” said Noel J. Francisco, partner-in-charge of Jones Day’s Washington office. “We are asking the Court to protect religious freedom and make clear that the mandate cannot be applied to this diverse group of religious organizations.” 

The Court will consider whether to hear the case later this fall. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – A Los Angeles federal district court today ordered the University of California, Los Angeles, to stop allowing and assisting antisemitic agitators to ban Jews from large parts of UCLA’s campus.  

In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC filed a lawsuit against UCLA after it helped a group of activists as they set up encampments where they harassed Jewish students and stopped them from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA reinforced these zones—both by providing metal barriers and by sending away Jewish students—while taking no effective action to ensure safe passage for Jewish students. In response, UCLA disavowed any obligation to protect its Jewish students, and claimed that Jewish students have nothing to fear when classes begin again in the fall. 

Today, the court agreed with the students, saying, “In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.” 

“No student should ever have to fear being blocked from their campus because they are Jewish,” said Yitzchok Frankel, a rising third-year law student at UCLA. “I am grateful that the court has ordered UCLA to put a stop to this shameful anti-Jewish conduct.” 

Yitzchok Frankel is a law student and father of four who faced antisemitic harassment last semester simply for wearing a kippah and who was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Frankel detailed how UCLA’s continued failures have forced him to cancel plans on campus with his family and to forgo opportunities to mentor incoming Jewish students on campus during orientation week. Eden Shemuelian, another law student, has also had to avoid using campus facilities and participating in law school orientation events because of UCLA’s continuing failures to ensure the safety and equal access of Jewish students. Today’s ruling says that students and others should be allowed to return to campus without facing such antisemitic bigotry.  

“Shame on UCLA for letting antisemitic thugs terrorize Jews on campus,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “Today’s ruling says that UCLA’s policy of helping antisemitic activists target Jews is not just morally wrong but a gross constitutional violation. UCLA should stop fighting the Constitution and start protecting Jews on campus.” 

Today’s injunction is the first in the nation against a university for allowing an antisemitic encampment.  

The ruling goes into force on August 15. UCLA is expected to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior asked the Supreme Court today to overturn a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and recognize that its care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled is part of its religious mission. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 earlier this year that Catholic Charities’ service to the poor and needy did not count as “typical” religious activities. This means that Catholic Charities is prevented from leaving the state’s unemployment compensation program and joining the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s better program. With Becket’s help, Catholic Charities is asking the Court to protect its freedom to join the Church program.  

Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This requirement to serve everyone in need comes directly from Catholic social teaching and advances the Church’s religious mission by carrying out the corporal works of mercy. 

“Catholic Charities Bureau carries out our Diocese’s essential ministry of caring for the most vulnerable members of our society,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We pray the Court will recognize that this work of improving the human condition is rooted in Christ’s call to care for those in need.” 

Under Wisconsin law, non-profits that are operated for a religious purpose are generally exempt from the state’s unemployment compensation program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, ruled that Catholic Charities was not exempt because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. The court said that Catholic Charities could qualify for an exemption only if it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served—even though the Catholic Church forbids Catholics from conditioning assistance on acceptance of the Church’s teachings. Catholic Charities is now asking the Justices to take this case and ensure it can receive a religious exemption from the state law like all other churches in Wisconsin. 

“It shouldn’t take a theologian to understand that serving the poor is a religious duty for Catholics,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “But the Wisconsin Supreme Court embraced the absurd conclusion that Catholic Charities has no religious purpose. We’re asking the Supreme Court to step in and fix that mistake.” 

Catholic Charities Bureau is also represented by Kyle H. Torvinen of Torvinen, Jones & Saunders, S.C., in Superior, Wisconsin.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A federal judge today ordered the University of California, Los Angeles, to craft a plan with Jewish student plaintiffs to protect them from antisemitic encampments that bar them from accessing the heart of campus. UCLA must discuss the plan with Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC, who are representing the Jewish students, and the parties must submit the plan to the judge by August 5.  

In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, Jewish students filed a lawsuit against UCLA after it helped a group of activists as they set up an encampment where they harassed Jewish students and stopped them from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA reinforced these zones—both by providing metal barriers and by sending away Jewish students—while taking no effective action to ensure safe passage for Jewish students. 

On June 24, three current UCLA students asked the court to put an immediate stop to UCLA’s actions so that they could return to class free from fear that they would be harassed and excluded for being Jewish. UCLA then doubled down, disavowing any obligation to protect its Jewish students, and claimed—despite the numerous encampments that have continued to mar the face of UCLA’s campus—that the students have nothing to fear when classes begin again. In response, the students pointed out to the court that the May encampment was hardly an isolated incident. Rather, it merely exemplified the unchecked antisemitism that ran rampant both before and after those appalling events took place. Given that UCLA has admitted to the court that UCLA itself set up barricades reinforcing the encampment and follows a policy that prohibits calling the police “preemptively,” it could not be clearer that “[w]hen activists discriminate against and threaten Jews, UCLA protects the activists, not their Jewish victims.” At the hearing today, Judge Mark C. Scarsi asked the parties to work out an agreed plan preventing UCLA from allowing discrimination against Jewish students. He ordered the parties to submit the proposed plan by Monday, August 5. 

“UCLA tried to force me to choose between being a student or being a Jew,” said Yitzchok Frankel, a rising third-year law student at UCLA. “I appreciate the chance to have my day in court, and I look forward to being able to return to campus safely next month.”  

Yitzchok Frankel is a law student and father of four who faced antisemitic harassment last semester simply for wearing a kippah and who was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Frankel detailed how UCLA’s continued failures have forced him to cancel plans on campus with his family and to forgo opportunities to mentor incoming Jewish students on campus during orientation week. Eden Shemuelian, another law student, has also had to avoid using campus facilities and participating in law school orientation events because of UCLA’s continuing failures to ensure the safety and equal access of Jewish students. 

“It’s disgusting that a prestigious American university would aid and abet antisemitic agitators who harass and segregate Jewish students,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “UCLA’s behavior needs to change, and we look forward to working out an appropriate plan that protects Jewish students on campus.” 

The plaintiffs and defendants will submit a proposed plan to the court by Monday, August 5.  

WASHINGTON – Three Jewish students condemned the University of California, Los Angeles, yesterday for defending its actions, allowing and assisting antisemitic encampments that bar Jewish students from accessing the heart of campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC filed a lawsuit against UCLA after it helped a group of activists as they set up an encampment where they harassed Jewish students and stopped them from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA reinforced these zones—both by providing metal barriers and by sending away Jewish students—while taking no effective action to ensure safe passage for Jewish students.  

On June 24, three current UCLA students asked the court to put an immediate stop to UCLA’s actions so that they could return to class free from fear that they would be harassed and excluded for being Jewish. UCLA then doubled down, disavowing any obligation to protect its Jewish students, and claimed—despite the numerous encampments that have continued to mar the face of UCLA’s campus—that the students have nothing to fear when classes begin again. In response, the students pointed out to the court that the May encampment was hardly an isolated incident. Rather, it merely exemplified the unchecked antisemitism that ran rampant both before and after those appalling events took place. Given that UCLA has now admitted to the court that UCLA itself set up barricades reinforcing the encampment and follows a policy prohibiting calling the police “preemptively,” it could not be clearer that “[w]hen activists discriminate against and threaten Jews, UCLA protects the activists, not their Jewish victims.” 

“UCLA’s attempt to dodge responsibility for the ongoing antisemitism on its campus is transparent and shameful,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “No one is fooled—UCLA alone bears the blame for allowing and assisting mobs of masked antisemites who threaten, assault, and segregate Jewish students.”  

Yitzchok Frankel is a law student and father of four who faced antisemitic harassment last semester simply for wearing a kippah and who was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Frankel detailed how UCLA’s continued failures have forced him to cancel plans on campus with his family and to forgo opportunities to mentor incoming Jewish students on campus during orientation week. Eden Shemuelian, another law student, has also had to avoid using campus facilities and participating in law school orientation events because of UCLA’s continuing failures to ensure the safety and equal access of Jewish students. With the beginning of the fall semester looming, the students are asking the court to ensure that Jews will never again face such antisemitic bigotry at UCLA.  

“Universities that abandon their duty to protect students from vicious targeting must face the consequences,” said Rienzi. “The court should hold UCLA accountable for its discriminatory behavior and ensure the safety of Jewish students before the start of the fall semester.” 

A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 29, 2024 in Los Angeles federal district court. 

WASHINGTON – Catholic therapists in Michigan asked a federal court today to protect their ability to provide compassionate, professional counseling to children experiencing discomfort with their biological sex. In Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, Becket represents counselors who are challenging a new Michigan law that bans counselors from helping children talk through the underlying causes of their gender confusion, and instead requires counselors to assist children with a “gender transition”—a regime of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries designed to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex.  

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of children identifying as transgender. Many of these children have been encouraged to try to change their bodies by receiving drugs, hormones, and surgeries that have no proven benefits and serious, demonstrated harms—such as increased risk of cancer, loss of bone density, sexual dysfunction, and permanent sterilization. The harms are so significant that 25 states have banned or strictly limited gender transitions for children, recommending instead that children receive compassionate counseling to help address the underlying causes of their distress. Unfortunately, a new law in Michigan now bans this compassionate approach, forcing therapists to turn away children and families or risk losing their licenses and suffering hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.   

“I opened Little Flower to offer those who come through my doors compassionate therapy that helps them live whole, integrated lives,” said Emily McJones, licensed therapist and owner of Little Flower Counseling. “But now Michigan officials are threatening to strip my license because I provide therapy rooted in my faith and the best available scientific evidence.” 

Emily McJones is a Catholic therapist in Lansing, Michigan, who counsels children and adults on a wide variety of life issues. Many of Emily’s clients share her Catholic faith, and some of those include young people seeking help to address discomfort they feel with their biological sex. To help these clients, Emily talks with them to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, help them embrace their bodies without resorting to irreversible medical procedures. According to recent research, this cautious approach is often the best way to help children experiencing such discomfort. But Michigan’s law now bans this approach. Emily and a local Catholic Charities’ counseling ministry are asking a court to block Michigan’s law and allow them to continue helping children.

“Michigan’s attempt to gag compassionate, professional counselors is contrary to the Constitution, sound evidence, and common sense,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The Constitution doesn’t let the government dictate what people can and can’t say—especially when the government is cutting off vulnerable children and families from counseling they desperately want to receive.”  

A hearing in the case is expected later this year. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – The University of California, Los Angeles, has defended its actions allowing and assisting antisemitic encampments that bar Jewish students from accessing the heart of campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, Becket and Clement & Murphy PLLC filed a lawsuit against UCLA after it helped a group of activists as they set up an encampment where they harassed Jewish students and stopped them from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA reinforced these zones—both by providing metal barriers and by sending away Jewish students—while taking no effective action to ensure safe passage for Jewish students. UCLA’s policies harm Jewish students and violate numerous provisions of the U.S. and California Constitutions and multiple civil rights laws.   

On June 24, three current UCLA students asked the court to put an immediate stop to these blatantly discriminatory actions so that they could return to class free from fear that they would be harassed and excluded simply for being Jewish. But in response to their request, UCLA disavowed any obligation to protect its Jewish students because, according to UCLA, the university doesn’t share a “special relationship” with them and refused to even acknowledge that these encampments and checkpoints were antisemitic. Worse yet, UCLA blamed everyone but itself for the rampant antisemitism that took place on its own campus. It blamed the police for the delayed response of “several days.” It blamed the victimized Jewish students for being in the “vicinity” of an encampment that was blocking their access to critical campus facilities. And, for everything else, it blamed the “unidentified activists.”  

“In the end, UCLA has nobody to blame but itself for the harassment, assault, and segregation of Jewish students on its campus,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “Now the university is scrambling to defend its actions and cover up its gross failure of leadership. It won’t work—UCLA will answer in court for the rampant antisemitism it allows and assists.” 

Yitzchok Frankel, a law student and father of four, faced antisemitic harassment simply for wearing a kippah and was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Joshua Ghayoum, a sophomore and history major, was repeatedly blocked from accessing the library and other public spaces. He also heard chants at the encampment like “death to Jews.” Eden Shemuelian, another law student, had her final exam studies severely disrupted when she was forced to walk around the encampment and immerse herself in its antisemitic chants and signs to access the law school’s library. These occupations continued after the initial encampment was dismantled, with activists repeatedly blockading campus buildings throughout May and June.  

“No student in America should have to worry that they will be segregated from their peers and targeted for their faith,” said Rienzi. “And no school in America should get away with blaming the victims. The court must hold the university accountable for its reprehensible actions and protect Jewish students before the fall semester begins.” 

A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 29, 2024. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – Becket president Mark Rienzi testified before Congress today about how UCLA assisted antisemitic activists as they barred Jewish students from accessing the heart of their own campus (watch the testimony here). In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, Becket and Clement & Murphy PLLC filed a lawsuit against UCLA after it allowed a group of extremist students and outside agitators to set up an encampment where they stopped Jewish students from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA allowed and reinforced these zones, breaking the law and hurting its Jewish students.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, anti-Jewish demonstrations emerged on college campuses nationwide. UCLA allowed activists to set up an encampment that enforced what was effectively a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” stopping Jewish students from accessing the encampment and other parts of campus unless they agreed to disavow Israel’s right to exist. The activists used checkpoints, issued wristbands, built barriers, and often locked arms to prevent Jews from passing through. For a week, UCLA’s administration was aware of these practices and chose to let them persist. In fact, rather than clearing the encampment, UCLA instructed security staff to discourage unapproved students from attempting to cross through the areas blocked by the activists. 

These occupations continued after the initial encampment was dismantled, with activists repeatedly blockading campus buildings throughout May and June. Most recently, activists forced students to be evacuated from final exams, and a Rabbi was harassed and threatened while police stood idly by.  

Here are excerpts from Becket’s president Mark Rienzi’s congressional testimony today before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections:  

“These episodes may sound like they come from Germany in the 1930s, but they don’t. They describe real-life events that occurred at the University of California, Los Angeles over the past nine months—events that have prompted a lawsuit against UCLA where my law firm is representing several students.  And they could very well describe events at any number of American universities, where similar illegal conduct occurred following Hamas’ terrorist attack on October 7.” 

“Together, we can defeat the scourge of antisemitism in our institutions of higher learning and society by ‘giv[ing] to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’ Together, we can live up to Washington’s promise that in this country, none shall be made afraid on account of his faith or ancestry. And together, we can ensure that the promises of our Constitution and our civil rights laws are kept and safeguarded.” 

His testimony can be read in full here and you can watch a recording of the hearing here.  

The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections hosted the hearing, Combating Workplace Antisemitism in Postsecondary Education: Protecting Employees from Discrimination, at the Rayburn House Office Building.   

Becket and Clement & Murphy PLLC are asking a federal court to ban antisemitic encampments on UCLA’s campus by August 15 before the fall semester begins. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – On behalf of three Jewish students, Becket attorneys asked a federal court late yesterday to order UCLA to obey the Constitution and federal civil rights laws by August 15 before they arrive on campus for the fall semester. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, UCLA allowed a group of extremist students and outside agitators to set up an encampment where they stopped Jewish students from accessing classes, the library, and other critical parts of campus. UCLA allowed and reinforced these zones, breaking the law and hurting its Jewish students. With the help of Becket, two law students and an undergraduate are asking a federal court to prevent UCLA from ever allowing such exclusion of Jewish students again.  

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, anti-Jewish demonstrations emerged on college campuses nationwide. UCLA allowed activists to set up an encampment that enforced a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” stopping Jewish students from accessing the encampment and other parts of campus unless they agreed to disavow Israel’s right to exist. The activists used checkpoints, issued wristbands, built barriers, and often locked arms to prevent Jews from passing through. For a week, UCLA’s administration was aware of these practices and chose to let them persist. In fact, rather than clearing the encampment, UCLA instructed security staff to discourage unapproved students from attempting to cross through the areas blocked by the activists.   

“No student should have to fear for their safety or pass a religious test to walk freely at a public university,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “UCLA’s behavior on this issue has been shameful, and the students need a court order to allow them to return to campus safely this fall.” 

Activists within the encampment viciously targeted Jewish students. Yitzchok Frankel, a law student and father of four, faced antisemitic harassment simply for wearing a kippah and was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Joshua Ghayoum, a sophomore and history major, was repeatedly blocked from accessing the library and other public spaces. He also heard chants at the encampment like “death to Jews.” Eden Shemuelian, another law student, had her final exam studies severely compromised when she was forced to walk around the encampment and immerse herself in its antisemitic chants and signs to access the law school’s library. Those same groups of activists have continued attempts to occupy and barricade parts of campus. The students are asking the court to ensure that Jews will never again face such antisemitic bigotry at UCLA.   

“It’s appalling that an elite American university would actively support and encourage masked mobs of antisemites,” said Rienzi. “UCLA’s Jewish community needs to know that they’ll be safe on campus before the start of the fall semester.”  

In addition to Becket, the students are represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – A federal court in Louisiana protected a group of Catholic ministries yesterday from being forced to support employee abortions against their religious beliefs. In United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC, religious groups challenged a federal agency which had hijacked a law protecting expecting mothers and their unborn children to force employers nationwide to accommodate abortion. The court’s ruling protects the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and several other Catholic ministries from the mandate while the case is ongoing.   

Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in 2022 to protect expecting mothers in the workforce and their unborn babies. The law makes it illegal for employers to deny accommodations like extra restroom breaks and modified work schedules to women who have physical limitations brought on by pregnancy or childbirth. Throughout the legislative process, the USCCB—an organization of Catholic bishops who are the senior religious leadership of the Catholic Church in the United States—supported the PWFA’s passage because of the law’s admirable and uncontroversial purpose. But despite the PWFA’s clear text, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the federal agency enforcing the law—mandated that employers nationwide must accommodate abortions, including by knowingly allowing their employees to take paid leave to have an abortion and by removing life-affirming workplace policies discouraging abortion.  

“The EEOC twisted a law protecting expecting mothers and their babies and co-opted the workplaces of over 130 million Americans to support abortion,” said Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket. “That is an abuse of power—no one should have to choose between their conscience and protecting pregnant women.” 

With the help of Becket, a group of Catholic ministries including the USCCB filed a lawsuit in May 2024 against the abortion-accommodation mandate. The lawsuit details how the EEOC’s actions follow a lengthy history of federal agencies misusing their authority against religious objectors. In one example, for nearly 15 years, federal agencies attempted to impose a mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortion pills—forcing groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns that run homes for the elderly poor, to seek judicial protection. 

The court’s ruling yesterday temporarily stops federal agencies from imposing yet another abortion-related mandate on the USCCB and several other Catholic ministries. “‘Abortion’ is a term that is readily understood by everyone,” the court explained. “If Congress had intended to mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions under the PWFA, it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation.” But to the contrary, the court noted, the legislative record “unambiguously confirms that Congress specifically did not intend for the PWFA to require employers to accommodate abortion.” Instead of faithfully applying the law passed by Congress, the court said, EEOC’s “semantic gymnastics” and “disingenuous” legal arguments were a “textbook case of a federal administrative agency exceeding its statutory authority[.]” 

“Banning employers nationwide from affirming life is unacceptable and unlawful,” said Wolk Slavis. “This ruling is an important step in ensuring that American workplaces can be free to continue serving their communities consistent with their beliefs.” 

The states of Louisiana and Mississippi had filed a parallel lawsuit before the same court, and employers in those states were also protected by the ruling. The federal government has 60 days to appeal the decision. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A Catholic parish in Michigan was in federal appeals court today to protect its ability to guide its church and school community without asking for permission from state officials. In St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel, the parish, with Becket’s help, challenged a state law that makes it illegal for St. Joseph to hire staff who agree to uphold its religious beliefs and bars it from maintaining a church and school environment that reflects its faith. After a lower court dismissed the case last year, St. Joseph asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow it to run its parish and school activities consistent with its Catholic beliefs. 

Since 1857, St. Joseph Catholic Church has served the local Catholic community of St. Johns, Michigan, as the only Catholic parish in town. In 1924, St. Joseph expanded and opened an elementary school—St. Joseph Catholic School—to provide families in the area with a Catholic education rooted in the teachings of the Church. Like many religious schools, St. Joseph hires teachers and staff who support and advance the Catholic faith. St. Joseph also asks all staff—from kindergarten teachers to part-time bookkeepers—to be practicing Catholics and to uphold the faith. St. Joseph also follows Catholic teaching on issues like pronouns and separate girls’ and boys’ bathrooms and locker rooms.  

“Michiganders don’t need a permission slip from bureaucrats in Lansing to practice their religious beliefs,” said William Haun, senior counsel at Becket. “The court should reject this irresponsible law and let institutions like St. Joseph get back to freely serving in their schools, churches, and communities.” 

Michigan recently revised its civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity without any protection for religious organizations like St. Joseph. Michigan doesn’t deny that it could punish St. Joseph simply for following its faith. Instead, Michigan told St. Joseph it must ask permission from the state’s Civil Rights Commission whenever it wants to ask Catholic employees to follow Catholic teaching. Meanwhile, St. Joseph risks being sued in all its public activities—at the parish, the school, and its services to the community—simply for upholding Catholic teaching.   

“Michigan politicians are chilling St. Joseph and hundreds of other religious ministries out of staying true to their faith,” said Haun. “That is irresponsible—the First Amendment prohibits scaring religious institutions into abandoning their religious ways of life.”

A decision is expected later this year. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – Three Jewish students filed a federal lawsuit against the University of California, Los Angeles, today for allowing antisemitic activists to bar them and other Jewish students from accessing the heart of campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, UCLA allowed a group of extremist students and outside agitators to set up an encampment where they stopped Jewish students and faculty from going to their classes, offices and the library. With the help of Becket, two law students and an undergraduate are now asking a federal court to hold UCLA accountable for allowing this antisemitic encampment and the rampant anti-Jewish discrimination it bred. 

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, anti-Jewish demonstrations emerged on college campuses nationwide. UCLA allowed activists to set up an encampment that enforced a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” stopping Jewish students and faculty from accessing the encampment and other parts of campus unless they agreed to disavow Israel’s right to exist. The activists used checkpoints, issued wristbands, built barriers, and often locked arms to prevent Jews from passing through. For a week, UCLA’s administration was aware of these practices and chose to let them persist. In fact, rather than clearing the encampment, UCLA instructed security staff to discourage unapproved students from attempting to cross through the areas blocked by the activists. 

“If masked agitators had excluded any other marginalized group at UCLA, Governor Newsom rightly would have sent in the National Guard immediately,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “But UCLA instead caved to the antisemitic activists and allowed its Jewish students to be segregated from the heart of their own campus. That is a profound and illegal failure of leadership.” 

Activists within the encampment viciously targeted Jewish students. Yitzchok Frankel, a law student and father of four, faced antisemitic harassment and was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Joshua Ghayoum, a sophomore and history major, was repeatedly blocked from accessing the library and other public spaces. He also heard chants at the encampment like “death to Jews.” Eden Shemuelian, another law student, had her final exam studies severely compromised when she was forced to walk around the encampment and immerse herself in its antisemitic chants and signs to access the law school’s library. The students are asking the court to ensure that Jews will never again face such antisemitic bigotry on UCLA’s campus.  

“This is America in 2024—not Germany in 1939. It is disgusting that an elite American university would let itself devolve into a hotbed of antisemitism,” said Rienzi. “UCLA’s administration should have to answer for allowing the Jew Exclusion Zone and promise that Jews will never again be segregated on campus.”

In addition to the Becket Fund, the students are also represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC.

WASHINGTON – A federal court in Colorado ruled today that the State of Colorado violated the law by excluding Catholic preschools from the State’s new universal preschool (UPK) program on the basis that they consider religious affiliation in making enrollment decisions. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, two Catholic preschools and a Catholic family asked a federal court in Denver to stop the Department of Early Childhood from excluding them from the UPK program. While the Department provided funding for 15 hours per week of free preschool to over 40,000 families attending private, public, and faith-based preschools across Colorado in its first year, it denied that benefit to families who send their children to St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s Catholic preschools because the preschools ask families to share their beliefs. 

In a 101-page opinion, the court explained that Colorado’s effort to exclude the schools on this ground “created an unworkable scheme that breaches the appropriate limits on state power.” The State, according to the court, “provided no compelling interest” for excluding Catholic preschools because they consider religious affiliation in their enrollment and operations decisions. Last year, a different federal judge in Denver also issued a ruling against the State, in a case brought by a separate religious preschool raising similar claims. The decision is the latest setback for Colorado’s embattled UPK program. 

“Of course a Catholic school shouldn’t be punished for caring about its students’ religion,” said Nick Reaves, counsel at Becket. “Colorado richly deserves this injunction, as it did the earlier one.” 

Given the multiple issues addressed in the court’s ruling, the decision may be appealed by any party. Any appeal from this decision would be to the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – Becket will celebrate 30 years of defending religious liberty for all at its annual Canterbury Gala on May 23 in New York City. This year’s Gala will celebrate Becket’s heroic clients, whose courage has helped lay the foundation for generations of Americans to live out their faith freely. The keynote address will be given by Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, director of the Zahava and Moshael Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and the rabbi at Congregation Shearith Israel in Manhattan. 

In 1994, founder Kevin “Seamus” Hasson left a top D.C. law firm to start his own practice defending the religious liberty of people of all faiths. He founded Becket, which has grown into the premier nonprofit, public interest religious liberty law firm in the U.S. and has been called “God’s ACLU.” Over the past three decades, Becket has secured eleven Supreme Court victories and hundreds of victories in the lower courts. This year’s Gala will honor the individuals who made those achievements possible, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns who serve the elderly poor; Agudath Israel of America, a historic Orthodox Jewish advocacy organization; Sikh Army Major Simmer Singh; and Lipan Apache feather dancer Pastor Robert Soto. Because of the bravery of these clients and many others, America has become a freer nation for people of all faiths. 

“For three decades, Becket has been proud to defend the religious freedom for all faiths,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “True freedom includes not merely private worship or belief, but also the right to live out those religious beliefs in daily life.” 

The Canterbury Gala draws its name from one of history’s most dramatic religious liberty stand-offs, when Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket steadfastly refused to allow King Henry II to interfere in the affairs of the Church. As a result, he was killed by the King’s knights for defending the principles of religious liberty. Becket traditionally awards the Canterbury Medal at the Gala to an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment to defending religious freedom in America and around the globe (read about past medalists here). 

“Like Henry II before them, some government officials today try to use their power to silence religious beliefs they find troublesome or truths they find inconvenient,” said Rienzi. “But religion and religious liberty will not be silenced—and neither will Becket.”

WASHINGTON – A 29-judge federal appeals court refused to protect an ancient Native American sacred site from destruction by a multinational mining giant, paving the way for an appeal to the Supreme Court. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, a coalition of Western Apaches and allies asked the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear their case after a special “en banc” panel of eleven judges split 6-5 earlier this year, refusing to stop the federal government from transferring the sacred site Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company that plans to turn Oak Flat into a massive mining crater, ending Apache religious practices forever. (Watch this short video to learn more). The Apaches will now seek to save the spiritual lifeblood of their people at the Supreme Court. 

Since time immemorial, Western Apaches and other Native peoples have gathered at Oak Flat for sacred religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else. Known in Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, Oak Flat is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and has been protected from mining and other harmful practices for decades. These protections were targeted in December 2014 when a last-minute provision was inserted into a must-pass defense bill authorizing the transfer of Oak Flat to the Resolution Copper company. Resolution Copper is a foreign-owned mining company that plans to turn the sacred site into a two-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater. The majority owner of Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto, sparked international outrage when it deliberately destroyed 46,000-year-old Indigenous rock shelters at one of Australia’s most significant cultural sites. 

“Oak Flat is the place where generations of Apaches have come to connect with our Creator, our faith and our land,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We pray the Supreme Court will take our case and protect Oak Flat the same way it would protect other historic houses of worship across the country.”

Apache Stronghold—a coalition of Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies—filed this lawsuit in January 2021 seeking to halt the proposed mine at Oak Flat. The mine is opposed by 21 of 22 federally recognized tribal nations in Arizona and by the National Congress of American Indians. Meanwhile, national polls indicate 74% of Americans support protecting Oak Flat. The Ninth Circuit ruled in March that the land transfer is not subject to federal laws protecting religious freedom. But five judges dissented, writing that the court “tragically err[ed]” by refusing to protect Oak Flat. After unsuccessfully asking all 29 judges on the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, Apache Stronghold will now appeal to the Supreme Court.  

“Obliterating the birthplace of Western Apache religion would be a tragic betrayal of our nation’s promise of religious freedom for all,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We will ask the Supreme Court to take this case, protect Oak Flat, and ensure that Indigenous peoples receive the same protection for religious freedom that all other faith groups enjoy.” 

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

Apache Stronghold’s Supreme Court appeal is expected by August 12, 2024. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court today protected a Catholic school’s freedom to hire schoolteachers who uphold its religious beliefs. In Billard v. Diocese of Charlotte, a former substitute teacher sued the school and diocese for not calling him back to work as a substitute teacher after he entered a same-sex union and posted about it on Facebook. Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the diocese’s freedom to choose teachers who will uphold and help pass on the faith to the next generation.  

The Diocese of Charlotte has operated Catholic schools across western North Carolina for more than 50 years. Its 20 schools provide a top-notch education that also helps students grow in the Catholic faith, making the opportunity widely available to students of all backgrounds in part through generous financial aid. To ensure teachers are helping the diocese fulfill its mission, the diocese asks all of its teachers – Catholic and non-Catholic – to uphold the Catholic faith in word and deed. 

“Many of our parents work long hours and make significant sacrifices so their children can attend our schools and receive a faithful Catholic education,” said Assistant Superintendent Allana Ramkissoon. “That’s because we inspire our students not only to harness the lessons and tools they need to thrive, but to cherish their faith as a precious gift from God.”  

Lonnie Billard taught English and drama at Charlotte Catholic High School for over a decade before retiring and then returning to Charlotte Catholic as a substitute teacher. Billard received training in the school’s religious mission and signed a contract agreeing to uphold Church teaching. In 2015, he entered a same-sex union in knowing violation of Church teaching and wrote about it on Facebook, where he was friends with many of the school’s faculty and families. When the school stopped calling him to work as a substitute teacher, he partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the school and the diocese, seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. 

In its ruling today, the court protected the Catholic Church’s freedom to employ teachers who agree to uphold Catholic teaching. As the court explained, the First Amendment requires civil courts to ‘“stay out’ of employment disputes involving ministers.” And here, the court found that Billard was a minister because Charlotte Catholic required all its teachers to “model and promote Catholic faith and morals.” Billard, therefore, played a “vital role” in advancing the school’s religious mission. This was true even though Billard taught secular subjects like English and drama. As the court put it: “Billard may have been teaching Romeo and Juliet, but he was doing so after consultation with religious teachers to ensure that he was teaching through a faith-based lens.” Having found that Billard was a minister, the court held that Billard’s lawsuit could not proceed, thus ruling in favor of Charlotte Catholic.  

“The Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this issue: Catholic schools have the freedom to choose teachers who fully support Catholic teaching,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which represents the diocese in the case. “This is a victory for people of all faiths who cherish the freedom to pass on their faith to the next generation.”  

Billard has 14 days to ask the Fourth Circuit to rehear his case or 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – A group of Jewish families and schools were in federal appeals court today fighting a California law that excludes religious schools from special education funding to help children with disabilities. In Loffman v. California Department of Education, Orthodox Jewish parents are fighting for the ability to send their children with disabilities to schools that will best serve their children’s needs. California politicians, however, block special education funding from being used at religious private schools—even though it is available to families whose children attend hundreds of other private schools. Becket and Teach Coalition, an initiative of the Orthodox Union that advocates for equitable government funding for nonpublic schools, are helping these parents and schools stop California from denying crucial services to Jewish children with disabilities.  

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law intended to ensure that children with disabilities receive an education that meets their unique needs. IDEA provides federal funding to states, including California, for special education programs in public schools. But public schools cannot always meet the needs of students with disabilities, so federal and state law allows that funding to be used at private schools that can provide this critical support. In California, however, politicians have excluded religious schools from this program, leaving religious parents with no opportunity to find a school that best meets their child’s unique needs.

“California is denying parents like us the chance to provide our son with a safe, supportive learning environment simply because of our Jewish faith,” said Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Jewish parents of a child with disabilities in Los Angeles. “We pray that the court will end the punishment of religious families and the religious schools that wish to serve children with disabilities.” 

Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Orthodox Jewish parents of children with disabilities for whom California’s public schools are not providing an adequate education. These families want the same opportunity as other families whose children with disabilities can’t be served by public schools: placement in a private school that best meets their child’s needs. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish primary and secondary schools that offer an excellent education but are barred from providing families with state-funded special education services under California law. Becket and Teach Coalition are working together to ensure equal access to special education funding regardless of one’s religion—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Californians support. 

“Sacramento is slamming the door on children with disabilities just because they come from religious families,” said Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket. “That’s unacceptable. We are asking the Ninth Circuit to ensure that Jewish kids with disabilities can access the resources they need and deserve — just like everyone else.” 

A decision is expected in the coming months. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A diverse coalition of tribal nations, religious and civil-rights groups, and legal experts filed eight new friend-of-the-court briefs yesterday in Apache Stronghold v. United States, asking all 29 judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to protect Oak Flat from destruction by a mining project. A special “en banc” panel of eleven judges split 6-5 in the case earlier this year, refusing to stop the federal government from transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company that plans to turn Oak Flat into a massive mining crater, ending Apache religious practices forever. (Watch this short video to learn more). Last week, the Apache asked the full court for one more chance to protect their sacred site before the case goes to the Supreme Court.

“This strong showing of support from Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, and other faiths shows that the government’s threat to destroy Oak Flat is a threat to the religious freedom for people of all faiths,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We hope the judges will reconsider our case and ensure that Native American religious practices receive the same respect that all other faith traditions already receive.”

Since time immemorial, Western Apaches and other Native peoples have gathered at Oak Flat for sacred religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else. Known in Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, Oak Flat is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and has been protected from mining and other harmful practices for decades. These protections were eliminated in December 2014 when a last-minute provision was inserted into a must-pass defense bill authorizing the transfer of Oak Flat to the Resolution Copper company. Resolution Copper is a foreign-owned mining company that plans to turn the sacred site into a two-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater. The majority owner of Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto, sparked international outrage when it deliberately destroyed 46,000-year-old Indigenous rock shelters at one of Australia’s most significant cultural sites.

Apache Stronghold—a coalition of Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies—filed this lawsuit in January 2021, seeking to halt the proposed mine at Oak Flat. The mine is opposed by 21 of 22 federally recognized tribal nations in Arizona and by the National Congress of American Indians. Meanwhile, national polling indicates 74% of Americans support protecting Oak Flat. The Ninth Circuit ruled last month that the land transfer is not subject to federal laws protecting religious freedom. But five judges dissented, writing that the court “tragically err[ed]” by refusing to protect Oak Flat.

Including the eight briefs filed yesterday, there have now been a total of 23 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in support of Apache Stronghold in this case, representing the voices of hundreds of federally recognized tribes, scores of religious organizations of diverse faiths, and leading scholars of Indian law and the Constitution. A full listing of briefs is available here. Highlights from yesterday’s filings in Apache Stronghold v. United States include:

• Tribal Nations and Tribal Organizations arguing that this case will set vital precedent for tribal nations across the continent. 
• The Mennonite Church USA and 20 Mennonite conferences, churches and ministries explaining how the government can manage federal lands while still providing full protection to Native American religious practices; 
• Religious liberty law scholars arguing that the plain language of federal civil rights law requires protection of Oak Flat; 
• A diverse array of 38 religious and Indigenous groups—including the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Oregon, the Southwestern Conference of the United Church of Christ, and the National Council of Jewish Women demonstrating broad support for Native American religious exercise from across the country;   
• The Sikh Coalition, the Christian Legal Society and the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute noting that the legal standard for judging Native religious liberty claims should be consistent with that for other land-use and prisoner claims; 
• Protect the First asking the court of appeals to reconsider its narrow, inflexible approach toward Native American sacred site cases. 
• The Native American Law Students Association pointing out the unique effect this case will have on Native American religious believers under the current interpretation of the law.  
• The Multi-Indigenous Community Action Group, the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers, and a Tribal Elder explaining that the court’s decision creates an unfair double standard for Native American religious exercise.   

“It is heartening to see a broad coalition of tribes, religious groups, and scholars stand up in defense of Oak Flat,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Our nation has a history of destroying Native sacred sites without consequence, and it’s long past time for that dark tradition to end.” 

In addition to Becket, Apache Stronghold is represented by attorneys Michael V. Nixon and Clifford Levenson. The Ninth Circuit is expected to decide by this fall whether all 29 judges will rehear the case. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.

WASHINGTON – A diverse coalition of religious groups was at the New York Court of Appeals yesterday to continue their fight against the state’s abortion mandate. In Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a group of Anglican and Catholic nuns, Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social ministries sued New York after it mandated that they cover abortion in their employee health insurance plans in violation of their religious beliefs. After state courts left the mandate in place, Becket, Jones Day and Tobin and Dempf, LLP, asked the Supreme Court to step in. In 2021, the Justices reversed the lower courts’ rulings and told them to reconsider the case. 

When the New York State Department of Financial Services initially proposed the abortion mandate, it promised to exempt employers with religious objections. However, after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York radically narrowed the exemption to cover only religious groups that both primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith. This exception does not apply to most religious ministries that seek to serve all people, regardless of faith. For example, the exemption doesn’t extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation. 

“Forcing nuns to bankroll abortions because they believe in serving all people is unacceptable,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The court should toss this mandate into the dustbin of history and allow these religious groups to focus on what they do best: caring for those in need.” 

After New York courts refused to stop the mandate, the religious groups asked the Supreme Court to take their case. In 2021, the Court reversed the unfavorable rulings from New York state courts and told them to reconsider the case in light of Becket’s landmark victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The case is now back before the New York Court of Appeals. Noel J. Francisco, former U.S. Solicitor General and partner-in-charge at Jones Day’s Washington office, argued on behalf of the religious groups at the hearing yesterday. 

“Religious groups in New York should not be required to provide insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs,” said Noel J. Francisco, partner-in-charge of Jones Day’s Washington office. “We asked the court to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance, protect religious freedom, and make clear that the mandate cannot be applied to this diverse group of religious organizations.” 

A decision is expected later this year.   

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.

WASHINGTON – A Catholic couple in Massachusetts was in court today challenging the state’s decision to ban loving couples from welcoming children into their home. In Burke v. Walsh, Mike and Kitty Burke wanted to foster and someday adopt children in need of a family. Even though Massachusetts has a foster care crisis, state officials refused to let the Burkes foster any children in the state because of their religious beliefs about marriage and sexuality. With the help of Becket, the Burkes are asking the court to ensure that qualified families are not punished for their religious beliefs and that vulnerable children are given a loving home. 

Mike and Kitty Burke are a Catholic couple from Massachusetts who have long wanted to become parents. Mike is an Iraq war veteran, and Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs kids. Together they run a business and perform music for Mass. Mike and Kitty began exploring becoming foster parents through the state’s foster care program, hoping to care for and eventually adopt children in need of a stable, loving home like theirs. 

“Our state’s children deserve better than to be put in hospitals and office buildings rather than in safe, loving homes,” said Mike and Kitty Burke. “We pray the court stops Massachusetts’ campaign against vulnerable children and the many religious couples like us who wish to care for them.”  

Children in foster care throughout Massachusetts are waiting for families like the Burkes. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) currently does not have enough foster homes or facilities to meet the needs of the children in its care, leaving some children without a family. The crisis has become so extreme that the state has resorted to housing children in hospitals for weeks on end. Now more than ever, Massachusetts needs the help of parents like Mike and Kitty to foster children in need. During their application process, the Burkes underwent hours of training, extensive interviews, and an examination of their home. Mike and Kitty completed the training successfully and received high marks from the instructors. However, because Mike and Kitty said they would continue to hold to their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, they were denied the ability to foster.   

“Massachusetts should be doing everything it can to alleviate its foster care crisis, but instead it’s excluding loving couples from helping children in need,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We asked the court to stop the state from targeting couples like Mike and Kitty and protect the thousands of vulnerable children who desperately need homes.” 

A decision is expected later this spring.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the court brief at the Supreme Court today in a case involving an Oregon city’s laws that penalize sleeping on public property. In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Grants Pass, reasoning that the city’s laws imposed “cruel and unusual punishments” because there were not enough shelter beds to house the entire homeless population. The court, however, refused to count religious homeless shelters when it assessed whether there were enough beds available in the city. Becket’s brief explains how the decision to discount religious shelters was based on a wrongheaded legal standard.

A group of homeless people sued the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, in 2018, challenging local laws that penalize sleeping on public property. Breaking the laws can result in penalties of up to several hundred dollars and repeat offenders can be barred from all city spaces. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit ruled against Grants Pass, relying on Martin v. City of Boise, one of its previous decisions regarding anti-camping laws. The court reasoned that the city’s laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” because the city did not have enough shelter beds for its homeless population. As part of its analysis, however, the court refused to count religious homeless shelters in determining whether there were enough beds available. 

“The homeless problem on the West Coast is bad enough without adding culture-war attacks on religious groups who are helping the destitute,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “It is wrong to treat religious homeless shelters as inherently suspect instead of as inherently helpful in solving this massive social problem.” 

Becket’s brief argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling relied on a misguided legal standard known as the Lemon test that the Supreme Court overruled in its 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. For decades, the Lemon test had caused courts to incorrectly apply the Establishment Clause, driving religious people and religious ideas out of public life. Even though Lemon was overturned, many lower courts, including ones within the Ninth Circuit, continue to rely on it. Becket’s brief urges the Supreme Court to reject the Ninth Circuit’s misguided view of the Establishment Clause and reiterate that courts should apply a historical test based on what was understood as a religious “establishment” at the time of the Founding.

“Justice Scalia once called the Lemon test a ghoul that kept rising from the dead, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision is proving him right,” said Rassbach. “The Justices should do whatever it takes to destroy this zombie doctrine once and for all so that it never rises again.” 

The oral argument in the case will be heard on April 22, and a decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A Catholic couple in Indiana asked the Supreme Court today to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home. In M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Indiana investigated Mary and Jeremy Cox because they would not refer to their son using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex. State courts allowed Indiana to keep the child from their home because of their disagreement with their child—motivated by their religious beliefs—about human sexuality. With the help of Becket and attorney Joshua Hershberger, the Coxes today filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court, asking the Justices to take their case. 

Mary and Jeremy Cox are a faithful Catholic couple living in Indiana. In 2019, their son informed them that he identified as a girl. Because of their religious belief that God creates human beings with immutable sex—male or female—they could not refer to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology. The Coxes also believed that he needed help for underlying mental health concerns, including an eating disorder. To address both issues, they provided therapeutic care for their child’s gender dysphoria and scheduled appointments with a specialist to help him with the eating disorder. In 2021, Indiana began investigating the Coxes after a report that they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity. Indiana then removed the teen from the parents’ custody and placed him in a home that would affirm his preferred identity. 

“This is what every parent is afraid of. We love our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by taking him from our home and banning us from speaking to him about gender,” said Mary and Jeremy Cox. “We are hopeful that the Justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did.”  

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

After completing its investigation, Indiana made an about-face and abandoned all allegations against Mary and Jeremy, admitting that the accusations of abuse were unsubstantiated. However, Indiana surprised the parents by arguing that the disagreement over gender identity was distressing to their child and contributed to his eating disorder—even though that disorder became worse after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home. The trial court relied on Indiana’s argument to keep the child out of his parents’ custody and keep the gag order in place. In short, even though the court agreed that the Coxes were fit parents, it upheld the removal of their child. An appeals court upheld the removal.  

“If this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere. Tearing a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs, which are shared by millions of Americans, is an outrage to the law, parental rights, and basic human decency,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “If the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, how many times will this happen to other families?” 

The Coxes are represented by Becket, together with attorney Joshua Hershberger in Madison, Indiana. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

DENVER – A Catholic family and two Catholic preschools were in Denver federal court for a three-day trial this week challenging the State of Colorado’s decision to bar them from participating in the state’s Universal Preschool (UPK) Program because of their religious beliefs.   

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, Catholic families seeking to receive the benefits promised by Colorado’s “universal” preschool funding program have asked a federal judge in Denver to require the state to include Catholic preschools among the list of private and public preschools eligible for UPK funding. While Colorado’s Department of Early Childhood currently allows over 2,000 other preschools (including many private and faith-based preschools) to participate in the UPK program, the Department has denied Catholic preschools a religious accommodation that would allow them to provide families enrolled in their preschools with 15 hours of free preschool education each week. With the help of Becket, parish preschools St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s have asked for an order telling Colorado that the First Amendment prohibits the state from excluding Catholic preschools from a generally available government benefit based on their sincere religious beliefs and religious exercise.  

St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s are Catholic parishes in Colorado that operate high quality, licensed preschool programs serving Denver-area families. For decades, these parish preschools have assisted parents with the religious and educational upbringing of their children. Many families the preschools serve are of limited means. A full 20% of families who send their children to preschools in the Archdiocese qualify for the free and reduced-price school meals program. At St. Bernadette’s, that number is over 50%. At St. Mary’s over a quarter of families also receive scholarships or discounts on their preschool education.  

“Universal should mean universal. Instead of keeping its promise of free preschool for all children, Colorado is turning its back on certain tax paying families because of their religious beliefs,” said Nick Reaves, counsel at Becket. “Colorado cannot deny parents the opportunity to provide their children with a free, high quality preschool education just because they’ve chosen a school that reflects their faith.”  

In 2022, Colorado created its Universal Preschool Program to provide all children access to a free preschool education. After Colorado created the program, St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s were excited to participate and further assist parents in providing their children with an education that upholds their beliefs. But the UPK program imposed certain requirements on preschools that barred St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s from participating. Specifically, the Department said these schools cannot participate because they prioritize Catholic families in admissions and require students and their families to support the school’s religious mission. At a three-day bench trial this week, the preschools argued that Colorado cannot continue to exclude them while allowing over 2,000 other preschools to participate in the program. Notably, another Christian school recently won temporary protection from a different federal judge in a similar challenge to Colorado’s preschool funding program. 

Despite excluding Catholic preschools, Dawn Odean, the Director of Colorado’s UPK program, testified during trial that her department would allow preschools to participate in UPK Colorado even if they limited enrollment in other ways that appeared to conflict with the state’s own law, such as operating programs only for LGBTQ children or families, only for children of veterans, or only for children of certain races. Ms. Odean also affirmed that over a thousand providers—around half the total in UPK—have claimed at least one exception from the program’s requirement that providers accept any preschool family matched with them. Colorado Governor Jared Polis has stated that preschools ought to “serve everybody” but has at the same time excluded kids at Catholic schools from the UPK program. 

“Governor Polis thinks UPK preschools should ‘serve everybody.’ That’s what we’re saying the Constitution requires the State of Colorado to do—serve kids at Catholic schools too,” said Reaves. “We’ve asked the Court to stop Colorado’s attack on these Catholic preschools and the many families they wish to serve. We are confident that Colorado won’t be able to leave religious preschools and the families they serve out in the cold because of their beliefs.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – A group of Eastern Orthodox churches just filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court of New Jersey in support of an Orthodox Jewish school’s freedom to choose who carries out its mission without government interference. In Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey, an Orthodox Jewish school announced in a letter to parents that, after consulting with religious advisors, it had parted ways with a rabbi who the Yeshiva said violated Orthodox Jewish law by engaging in inappropriate conduct with his elementary age female students. The rabbi then sued the school, arguing he had been defamed and that the yeshiva should have to go to court to fight for its right to make its religious decisions. Becket filed a brief on behalf of Serbian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, and Antiochian Orthodox church bodies in support of Rosenbaum Yeshiva to explain the vital importance of allowing religious groups to select, control, and discipline their leaders no matter what their faith tradition. 

Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey is a Jewish day school located in the town of River Edge, NJ. The school exists to help young Jewish men and women excel academically while remaining committed to Torah learning and Orthodox Jewish traditions. After concluding that one of its teachers, Rabbi Shlomo Hyman, made inappropriate contact with female students, the school ended his contract and wrote a letter to parents informing them of the Yeshiva’s decision. Hyman then filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state, claiming he was defamed and that the Yeshiva should have to defend its religious decision about its ministers in civil court.

“The courts of New Jersey should not be deciding who serves as an Orthodox Jewish rabbi or an Orthodox Christian priest,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “That is way above their pay grade.” 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of the Diocese of Eastern America of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Romanian Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas, and the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Becket’s brief explains which kinds of claims come within the ministerial exception, a legal doctrine that protects religious groups’ ability to select and govern their ministers. The brief details the importance of allowing religious groups to control and discipline leaders. While some claims fall outside of the exception—like a priest who sues a bishop for punching him in the face—it protects religious groups from defamation claims such as the one brought by Hyman.    

“Religious groups should be free to act forcefully to protect the children in their care,” said Rassbach. “We are hopeful that the Court will make clear that decisions about who should be a rabbi or priest are no business of judges and juries.” 

Oral argument is possible sometime in 2024.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The most outrageous offender of this year’s Christmas and Hanukkah season, and Becket’s 2023 Ebenezer Award winner, is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who canceled the state’s annual in-person Christmas tree lighting and skipped the menorah lighting traditionally attended by the governor. As if to combine the two slights, the governor said he was canceling the live Christmas tree lighting over fears that anti-Israel protestors would cause disruption.   

Governor Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom announced in a press release on December 6 that the annual Christmas tree lighting—which was set to feature a Christmas market and live music—would instead be streamed on the Governor’s social media accounts. Newsom’s reason for moving the longstanding tradition to a virtual format was the recent flurry of anti-Israel protests which he feared would disrupt the festivities. Rather than allow all Californians to ring in the Christmas season at the capital, the Governor invited only his family and a few select guests. 

“In canceling one of California’s most cherished holiday traditions and skipping another, Newsom can rightly be dubbed the Governor who stole Christmas and Hanukkah,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “We hope Governor’s heart will grow three sizes next year, so that Californians can once again celebrate their annual holidays with joy.” 

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 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 has shown persistence in the face of adversity, goes to the Chabad Williamsburg and Rabbi Herber for putting on a Menorah lighting ceremony. In early December, Virginia non-profit LoveLight Placemaking refused to host menorah lighting in part because it did not want to appear to be “supporting the killing/bombing of thousands of men, women & children” in the Israel-Hamas war. In response, Chabad Williamsburg and Rabbi Herber decided to host one of their own so that local Jewish residents could celebrate the beginning of Hannukah. More than 250 people attended the lighting.  

“All Americans should be able to come together in a spirit of joy and hope at the holidays,” said Rienzi. “While there will always be those who seek to divide us, the Christmas and Hanukkah season serves as an important reminder of our need to live together in peace despite our differences.” 

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.  

WASHINGTON – A coalition of religious parents in Maryland were in federal appeals court today fighting for the ability to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology regarding gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. McKnight, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that advocate Pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for kids as young as four. Becket is supporting these Muslim, Jewish, and Christian parents who are fighting to restore their ability to raise their children consistent with their faith. 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through eighth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks 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 say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks earlier this year, contrary to Maryland law and the Board’s own policies, and over the objection of their own elementary school principals. 

“Montgomery County’s decision to introduce instruction on gender and sexuality to children in elementary school violates parents’ right to control how and when their children are introduced to such sensitive matters,” said Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs in Montgomery County Schools. “I pray that the judges will restore the ability of parents like me to raise our children in accordance with our religious beliefs.” 

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Jews, and Christians, sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the new storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs. After a lower court upheld the mandate, the parents asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to step in and strike down the court’s no notice, no opt-out policy. Today, these parents fought in court to restore their ability to help their own children on sensitive topics like gender identity and human sexuality. 

“Parental involvement is crucial for children, especially in elementary school. The Court should restore notice and opt-outs so parents can parent and kids can be kids,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Schools have no business pushing instruction on gender and sexuality without even notifying parents.”

A ruling from the Fourth Circuit is expected in the coming months.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.

WASHINGTON – A Catholic parish in Michigan asked a federal appeals court yesterday to protect its ability to guide its church and school community, without first asking for permission from state officials. In St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel, the parish challenged a newly revised state law that makes it illegal for St. Joseph to hire staff who agree to uphold its religious beliefs and bars it from maintaining a church and school environment that reflects its faith. After a lower court dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year, St. Joseph is asking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to let St. Joseph run its parish and school activities consistent with its Catholic beliefs about human sexuality and marriage.  

Since 1857, St. Joseph Catholic Church has served the local Catholic community of St. Johns, Michigan, as the only Catholic parish in town. In 1924, St. Joseph expanded and opened an elementary school—St. Joseph Catholic School—to provide families in the area with a Catholic education rooted in the teachings of the Church. Like many religious schools, St. Joseph hires teachers and staff who support and advance the Catholic faith. Like many Catholic churches around the country, St. Joseph asks all staff—from kindergarten teachers to part-time bookkeepers—to be practicing Catholics and to uphold the faith. St. Joseph also follows Catholic teaching on issues like pronouns for staff and children and separate girls’ and boys’ bathrooms and locker rooms. 

“For over a century, St. Joseph has existed to serve its local community and help its parish and school grow deeper in the faith,” said William Haun, senior counsel at Becket. “St. Joseph must have the freedom to foster an environment that is faithful to its Catholic identity to continue that mission.” 

Michigan recently revised its civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity, without any protection for religious organizations like St. Joseph. According to Michigan’s Attorney General, religious Michiganders seeking protection on these issues are “not religious heroes, they are bigots.” Michigan doesn’t deny that it could penalize St. Joseph simply for exercising its religion. Instead, Michigan told St. Joseph to ask permission from the Civil Rights Commission every time St. Joseph wants to ask Catholic employees to uphold Catholic teaching. Meanwhile, St. Joseph faces the risk of being sued in all its open activities—at the parish, the school, and its local Knights of Columbus Hall—simply for upholding Catholic teaching.  

“Constitutional rights don’t come with permission slips. Michigan cannot tell St. Joseph and every other religious organization in the state that they are breaking the law by staying true to their religious beliefs,” said Haun. “We are asking the court to step in and ensure that religious groups across the state can live out their faith and not be sued simply because they open their doors to everyone.” 

Oral argument is expected in spring 2024. 

WASHINGTON – Two religious schools were in federal court today defending against Minnesota’s ongoing efforts to bar some faith-based universities from offering free college credit to high school students. In Loe v. Jett, a group of Christian families and schools sued Minnesota earlier this year for excluding universities that require students to sign a statement of faith from the state’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. After Minnesota promised in June not to enforce the law while the case is ongoing, Governor Walz’s Department of Education filed counterclaims against the schools, arguing that because the schools receive public funds, they are state actors and their statement of faith requirements are unconstitutional. The schools were in court today defending their right to continue participating in the program free from religious discrimination. 

Minnesota created the PSEO program almost 40 years ago to enable high school juniors and seniors to earn college credit for free. Through this program, students have been able to attend any eligible public or private school of their choice. Melinda and Mark Loe and Dawn Erickson are parents in Minnesota who have used PSEO funds for their older children to attend two outstanding Christian schools—University of Northwestern – St. Paul and Crown College—that uphold their religious values. Their current high-school kids hoped to do the same, but earlier this year Governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law that excludes religious schools like Northwestern and Crown from participating in the PSEO program because they require on-campus students to sign a statement of faith. Their statements ask students to agree with the schools’ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding their Christian campus communities. 

But the Department of Education filed counterclaims against Northwestern and Crown in an unrelenting effort to force the schools to abandon their religious admissions criteria. For the first time, the state is claiming that the schools’ acceptance of PSEO students means that they are subject to the same constitutional requirements as the government, and that their Christian campus communities are unconstitutional—an argument that would extend not just to Crown and Northwestern, but to every private school that accepts students who receive government aid. With the help of Becket, the schools asked the court today to dismiss the state’s retaliatory counterclaims. 

Statements for media use: 

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

“Northwestern strives to offer a Christ-centered education to every student who joins our campus community to equip them to serve effectively in their professions and give leadership in the home, community, church, and world. Our university wants to ensure that this essential mission is available to both undergraduates and PSEO students alike. We are praying that the court protects our ability to serve all those who want to take advantage of what our campus community has to offer into the future.” 

Andrew Denton, president of Crown College: 

“Crown College has offered generations of students opportunities to excel intellectually and spiritually through our biblically integrated education. The PSEO program has long allowed us to extend this opportunity to young students ready to begin their on-campus experience. We pray that the court will continue to allow every student in Minnesota to use PSEO funds at the school that best meets their needs and matches their values.” 

Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket:

“Minnesota is waging a senseless campaign against students and the faith-based schools that wish to serve them. Private schools don’t become public schools just because they accept students who receive state funds, and to argue that they do is a transparent attempt to control Minnesotans’ religious beliefs and practices.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A group of Los Angeles-area Jewish families and schools asked the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court to strike down a California law that excludes religious families from special education funding for their children with disabilities and prevents religious schools from serving those students. In Loffman v. California Department of Education, Orthodox Jewish parents want to send their children with disabilities to Orthodox Jewish schools, and two Orthodox Jewish schools want to welcome children with disabilities. However, California politicians have blocked federal and state special education funding from being used at religious schools. In August, a Los Angeles federal district court ruled against the parents and schools, contrary to controlling Supreme Court precedent. Now, Becket and Teach Coalition, an initiative of the Orthodox Union that advocates for equal funding in nonpublic schools, have asked the Ninth Circuit to stop California from denying special education benefits to Jewish children with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law ensuring that all children with disabilities can receive an education that meets their unique needs. IDEA funds help pay for the cost of staff training, special education programs, assistive technology, and other services. IDEA is designed to ensure all children can receive a free and appropriate education, including in private schools when public schools cannot meet their needs. However, California politicians exclude religious schools and the religious families they want to serve from even applying to receive this funding. 

“California should be helping disabled kids, not excluding them,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Children with disabilities should never be deprived of safe, compassionate learning environments just because they and their families are religious.” 

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 an education that allows them to reach their full potential and that is centered around their Jewish traditions and beliefs. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish schools in Los Angeles that both provide an excellent education and want to serve the needs of children with disabilities. 

Becket and Teach Coalition are working together to ensure that these religious parents, their children with disabilities, and these religious schools are given equal access to special education funding—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Californians would support.  

“Sacramento got this wrong,” said Rassbach. “We are asking the Ninth Circuit to put things right and let our clients have both a Jewish education and the special education services they are entitled to.” 

Oral argument at the Ninth Circuit is expected to take place next year. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A federal court in Colorado late last night protected a Catholic healthcare clinic’s ability to help women reverse the effects of the first abortion pill. Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser is a challenge to a new Colorado law that forbids doctors and nurses to give progesterone to help women who took the first abortion pill, even if they were tricked or forced into taking it. The decision by a federal judge protected Bella and the many women who come to them for medical help to continue their pregnancies.  

Founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, Bella offers life-affirming, dignified healthcare to men, women, and children. Like healthcare clinics across the nation, Bella offers progesterone—a naturally occurring hormone that is essential to the maintenance of a healthy pregnancy—to women at risk of miscarriage. Studies also show that progesterone can help women who have taken the first abortion pill but decide they want to continue their pregnancies. Consistent with its religious mission to uphold the dignity of every life, Bella offers progesterone to these women who seek help to keep their unborn children after taking the first abortion pill.    

“Some of these women have had abortion pills forced on them, and others change their minds,” said Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, cofounders of Bella Health and Wellness. “We are relieved and overjoyed to continue helping the many women who come to our clinic seeking help.”  

Earlier this year, Colorado passed a law that targets pro-life clinics like Bella Health and Wellness by making it unprofessional conduct to offer women progesterone when seeking to reverse the effects of the first abortion pill. Bella asked a federal court to block the law and protect its ability to help pregnant women in need of life-saving care. In April, Colorado agreed to put the law on hold until three state boards weighed in on the safety of abortion pill reversal. During that time, Bella successfully helped multiple women continue their pregnancies, including one who recently gave birth to a healthy baby. However, despite evidence of progesterone’s safety and effectiveness, the state still banned it. Late last night, Judge Daniel Domenico temporarily stopped Colorado’s ban after Bella asked the court to protect its care for women last week.  

“Colorado is trying to make outlaws of doctors and nurses providing life-saving and compassionate care to women they serve,” said Rebekah Ricketts, counsel at Becket. “This ruling ensures that pregnant women across the state will receive the care they deserve and won’t be forced to have abortions against their will.”  

Colorado has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – A Catholic healthcare clinic was in federal court today challenging a Colorado law that bans giving women a natural hormone to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, Colorado agreed earlier this year not to enforce the law until three state licensing boards had implemented the regulations required by the statute. Now that these regulations have been issued—leaving Bella and its patients in jeopardy—Bella once again asked the court to protect its life-saving ministry to help women discontinue unwanted abortions.  

Founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, Bella offers life-affirming, dignified healthcare to men, women, and children. Like healthcare clinics across the nation, Bella offers progesterone—a naturally occurring hormone that is essential to the maintenance of a healthy pregnancy—to women at risk of miscarriage. In some cases, progesterone has also been shown to maintain healthy pregnancies when women take the first drug in the two-step abortion pill process but then change their minds and decide to continue their pregnancies. Consistent with its religious mission to uphold the dignity of every life, Bella also offers progesterone to these women who seek help to keep their unborn children after taking the first abortion pill.  

“We founded Bella because we believe that the miracle of life is worth protecting at every stage and in every circumstance,” said Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, cofounders of Bella Health and Wellness. “Under our care, mothers who choose life have access to a safe treatment that increases the chances they will give birth to healthy babies. I pray that we will be able to continue this life-saving ministry to women who come to us in need of help.” 

Earlier this year, Colorado passed a law that targets pro-life clinics like Bella by making it unprofessional conduct to offer women progesterone when seeking to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. Bella asked a federal court to block the law and protect its ability to help pregnant women in need of life-saving care. In April, Colorado agreed to put the law on hold until three state medical boards weighed in on the safety of abortion pill reversal. During that time, Bella successfully helped multiple women continue their pregnancies, including one who recently gave birth to a healthy baby. However, despite evidence of progesterone’s safety and efficacy, the state has still banned it. As a result, providing progesterone to women who change their minds about abortion remains unprofessional conduct in Colorado—and Bella’s providers run the risk of losing their medical licenses and suffering crippling fines if they continue their ministry to women who seek their help. 

“Colorado is forcing women to continue unwanted abortions and punishing the doctors who help them safely continue their pregnancies,” said Rebekah Ricketts, counsel at Becket. “It is outrageous and wrong for Colorado to deprive these women of their ability to choose life, and to ban faith-based clinics like Bella from serving them.” 

A decision from the court is expected in the coming weeks.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The federal government has agreed to restore a Native American sacred site in Oregon 15 years after bulldozing it to add a turn lane to a nearby highway. In Slockish v. U.S. Department of Transportation, members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde asked the Supreme Court last year to hold the federal government accountable for needlessly destroying the site in 2008. Today, in a landmark settlement agreement, the government agreed to replant a grove of native trees, pay for the reconstruction of a sacred stone altar, and recognize the historic use of the site by Native Americans. 

Since time immemorial, Native Americans have used the land around Mount Hood in Oregon to hunt, gather food, fish, bury their dead, and perform religious ceremonies. The sacred site known as Ana Kwna Nchi Nchi Patat (the “Place of Big Big Trees”) lay along an ancient Native American trading route and consisted of ancestral grave sites, a campground, old-growth trees, and an ancient stone altar, all on less than one acre of land. Wilbur Slockish, who is a Hereditary Chief of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Carol Logan, who is a spiritual practitioner and elder in her tribe, regularly visited the site for decades to pray, meditate, and pay respects to their ancestors through traditional ceremonies. However, in 2008, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration ignored tribal members’ pleas to protect the site and bulldozed it to add a turn lane to U.S. Highway 26, even while admitting it could have added the turn lane without harming the site. (Watch their story.) 

“Our sacred places may not look like the buildings where most Americans worship, but they deserve the same protection, dignity, and respect,” said Carol Logan, a member of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. “It is heartbreaking that even today the federal government continues to threaten and destroy Native American sacred sites, but I’m hopeful that our story and this settlement agreement can help prevent similar injustices in the future.” 

After failed negotiations with the government to restore the sacred site, the tribal members continued pressing their claims in federal court. In 2018, a lower court decided that federal law does not prohibit the government from destroying sacred sites located on federal land. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government could not be held accountable because it was impossible to provide relief to the tribe members. With the help of Becket, the tribe members asked the Supreme Court last year to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Once the case reached the Justices, the federal government agreed to settle the case and make efforts to restore the site by replanting trees, allowing the tribal members to rebuild a centuries-old stone altar, and recognizing historic Native American use of the site.  

This settlement comes as the Ninth Circuit is still considering the case of Apache Stronghold v. United States, in which the federal government is seeking to give away another Native sacred site to a multinational mining giant, which will destroy the site in a massive copper mine.  

“Our nation has a long, dark history of needlessly destroying Native American sacred sites without consequence,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “While the government can never entirely undo the damage it caused in this case, we hope this is the start of a new chapter—in which our nation’s promise of religious freedom will fully extend to Native American ceremonial, cultural, and religious ways of life, as it should have all along.” 

The restoration of the sacred site is set to be completed by spring 2024. In addition to Wilbur Slockish and Carol Logan, the plaintiffs were joined in their lawsuit by Chief Jonny Jackson, who was also a member of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Michael Jones, who led the Cascade Geographic Society and the Mount Hood Sacred Lands Preservation Alliance. Chief Jackson and Jones unfortunately passed away before the case could be resolved. In addition to Becket, the plaintiffs are represented by Oregon City attorney James Nicita and Keith Talbot of the Seattle-based law firm Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch.  

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 on Friday upheld South Carolina’s decision to do the right thing: continue partnering with faith-based foster care ministries that provide loving homes for children. In Rogers v. Health and Human Services and Maddonna v. Health and Human Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued Governor Henry McMaster to try to stop the state from working with religious foster agencies. On Friday, a federal court shut down these attempts to shutter faith-based foster care, rejecting challenges to South Carolina’s efforts to protect children in foster care and the families who serve them. These decisions will make it easier for all foster families in South Carolina to find an agency that meets their unique needs and for more foster children to find loving homes. 

“These two rulings from the U.S. District Court represent significant wins for religious liberty and South Carolina’s faith-based organizations like Miracle Hill, which will be able to continue their crucial mission of connecting children in foster care with loving homes,” said Governor Henry McMaster. “These victories will directly benefit countless children by further ensuring that faith-based organizations will not be forced to abandon their beliefs to help provide critical services to our state’s youth.” 

South Carolina works directly with families seeking to foster and adopt children in crisis situations, serving children and families from all backgrounds. The state also partners with an array of private agencies that help find and support more families for foster children who need a safe place to live. Governor McMaster issued an executive order protecting the religious freedom of foster agencies in South Carolina. However, the ACLU recruited individuals to sue South Carolina over the inclusion of a single faith-based agency, Miracle Hill. Rather than reach out to any other organization or to the South Carolina Department of Social Services, the plaintiffs went straight to federal court. 

“South Carolina admirably stood up against two transparent efforts to reduce the number of options available to children in foster care and the foster parents who selflessly serve them,” said Miles Coleman, partner at Nelson Mullins. “Around the country, too many governments have forced religious foster care agencies to close down. Governor McMaster has made sure that won’t happen in his state.” 

In its two opinions, the federal court protected the state’s freedom to partner with faith-based agencies who serve children in need, pointing out that those who sued the state “could [have] foster[ed] the same children at any of twenty-six other private agencies in the State, including eighteen in the Upstate or with the State itself.” The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously in Fulton v. Philadelphia that the U.S. Constitution protected Catholic Social Services’ right to stay faithful to its religious beliefs while still serving foster children in Philadelphia. The federal court in this case relied on Fulton to stop similar attempts to shut down faith-based foster care ministries. 

“This is a major victory for the children in South Carolina’s foster care system who were at risk of losing out on loving homes,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The attempt to shutter faith-based foster care agencies and decrease the number of foster homes for these kids violated the law and common sense. We are glad that South Carolina stood up for foster children and faith-based agencies and that the court protected them.” 

The ACLU and Americans United will now have to decide whether to appeal the decisions to the Fourth Circuit. 

Becket represented Governor McMaster in the two cases, together with Miles Coleman of Nelson Mullins, and Thomas Limehouse, Grayson Lambert, and Erica Shedd with the Office of the Governor.  

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 new Supreme Court Term will provide the Justices with important opportunities to protect religious speakers and activities from unlawful government restrictions. Cases concerning counselors offering help to pregnant women, the destruction of Native American sacred lands, and religious groups fighting government mandates are all headed toward the Court.  

“Religious liberty and free speech are central to our ability to live together in peace,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO at Becket. “The Court has an important role to play in protecting the First Amendment rights for people of all faiths.” 

In Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, Debra Vitagliano, a devout Catholic and sidewalk counselor, is asking the Supreme Court to take her case. Last year, Westchester County, New York passed a law restricting offers of help and information to women on public sidewalks outside clinics. The law was modeled on one upheld by the Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado. It makes it much harder to offer help to women outside abortion clinics. Even on a public sidewalk, no one can approach within 8 feet of another person to offer help or alternatives unless they somehow get explicit consent from that distance. After a federal appeals court upheld the law, Becket asked the Supreme Court to get rid of the Hill decision and protect Debra’s ministry to women in need. 

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, Western Apache and other Native tribes are fighting to save their sacred site at Oak Flat in Arizona (known in Apache as Chi’chil Bildagoteel) where they have gone to worship, pray, and perform essential religious ceremonies since time immemorial. For decades, Oak Flat has been protected by the federal government from mining and other practices that would destroy the Apache land. But in 2021, the United States government pushed ahead on a decision to give the land away to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company with a history of cultural and environmental degradation. Resolution Copper has announced its plan to blow a 2-mile wide, 1,100-foot crater into the land, ending native religious practices forever. Apache Stronghold—a coalition of Apaches, other Native tribes, and non-Native allies—sued the federal government in federal district court in Arizona, where the trial court denied the request to protect the sacred site. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit denied the Apaches’ request to save Oak Flat —a decision the whole Circuit decided to reconsider en banc. In March 2023, the Ninth Circuit heard the case, and a decision is expected any day. Should the en banc court decide not to protect Oak Flat, Becket plans to file a petition for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court. 

In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that could overturn a ruling that has severely damaged religious liberty. In its 1984 ruling Chevron v. NRDC, the Supreme Court gave significant power to unelected lower-level Executive Branch officials, requiring courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of law. For years, agency deference has empowered hostile federal government officials to target religious believers—like Becket’s client the Little Sisters of the Poor—for special disfavor. On July 24, 2023, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of the Little Sisters. 

Read about other cases headed to the Supreme Court from Becket’s Supreme Court preview.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – The nation’s largest federal appeals court ruled today that Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ student clubs can freely gather and hold events on public high school campuses. In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District, school district officials in San Jose removed FCA clubs from all local high schools simply because the clubs—which welcome everyone—ask their leaders to embrace their core religious beliefs. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel (consisting of eleven federal appellate judges) ruled today that FCA and similar religious clubs do not have to give up their faith to have equal access to campus. 

Local Fellowship of Christian Athletes clubs had served students in San Jose high schools for over a decade. They held regular meetings open to all students, and supported the local community by leading sports camps and donating sports equipment to underserved groups. But in 2019, after years of strong relationships with local school leaders, FCA clubs were removed from San Jose high schools and faced harassment and protests simply because the clubs asked their student leaders to agree with their faith. Today’s ruling ensures FCA will once again be treated equally and can return to campus for prayer, service, and ministry. 

“FCA is excited to be able to get back to serving our campuses,” said Rigo Lopez, the local FCA leader for Bay Area schools. “Our FCA teams have long enjoyed strong relationships with teachers and students in the past, and we are looking forward to that again.”  

After a lower court sided with the school district, FCA successfully defended its ability to meet on campus in a federal appeals court last year. However, a few months later, the school district took the case into overtime—asking the appeals court to hear the case again, but this time before a panel of eleven federal judges (a process called an “en banc” rehearing).   

The Ninth Circuit today ruled that “anti-discrimination laws and the protections of the Constitution work in tandem to protect minority views in the face of dominant public opinion,” and that the District had regrettably used a discriminatory “double standard” against FCA that failed to “treat[] FCA like comparable secular groups” and instead “penalized it based on its religious beliefs.” The Court explained that, just as it makes sense that the “Senior Women club” would have all-female members, or that honors clubs would set standards of “good moral character” for their members, “it makes equal sense that a religious group be allowed to require that its leaders agree with the group’s most fundamental beliefs.” The Court concluded that “the First Amendment ‘counsel[s] mutual respect and tolerance for religious and non-religious views alike,’” requiring that FCA must be treated equally once again. 

“This is a huge win for these brave kids, who persevered through adversity and never took their eye off the ball: equal access with integrity,” said Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Today’s ruling ensures religious students are again treated fairly in San Jose and throughout California.”   

“Public schools should respect every student’s religious beliefs and treat every student with dignity,” said Steve McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom. “We are grateful the court has reaffirmed this foundational right of every student.” 

FCA is represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Christian Legal Society, and Christopher Schweickert of Seto Wood & Schweickert LLP. 

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 Diocese of Superior’s Catholic Charities Bureau was in the Wisconsin Supreme Court today to explain that its care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled is part of its religious mission. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industrial Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to review a lower court decision that said that Catholic Charities Bureau’s charitable activities were not religious. This decision meant that Catholic Charities Bureau was barred from leaving the state’s unemployment compensation program and joining the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s more efficient unemployment program. 

Most Catholic Dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities Bureau carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, the elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This requirement to serve everyone in need comes directly from Catholic Church teaching and advances the Church’s religious mission by carrying out the corporal works of mercy.  

“Catholic Charities Bureau is the social ministry arm of our Diocese. It fulfills the essential work of bringing love, healing, and hope to those whom our society has left behind,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We pray the Court will recognize what we firmly believe: that this work of improving the human condition is rooted in Christ’s call to care for all our brothers and sisters.” 

Religious non-profits are generally exempt under Wisconsin law from the state’s unemployment program, allowing them to join other unemployment compensation programs. A lower court in the state, however, found that Catholic Charities Bureau did not qualify for this exemption because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. In fact, the court thought that Catholic Charities Bureau could only qualify if it preached the faith and tried to convert those it served—even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor should never be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s teachings. 

“It is patently absurd to say that a Catholic ministry’s care for the disabled, the poor, and the hungry is not religious,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “But Wisconsin has done just that, mainly because Catholic Charities Bureau serves non-Catholics, too. We are hopeful the Court will correct Wisconsin’s misguided attempt to tell the Catholic Church what is and is not religious.”  

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 diverse group of religious parents in Maryland asked a federal appeals court yesterday for the ability to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology regarding gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. McKnight, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that advocate pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for kids as young as pre-kindergarten. After a lower court upheld the storybook mandate, these Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents are asking the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to restore their ability to raise their children consistent with their faith. 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through eighth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. 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 say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks earlier this year, contrary to Maryland law and the Board’s policies, and over the objection of their own elementary school principals. 

“The Board forged ahead with its storybook mandate over the concerns of thousands of parents and its own principals,” said Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs in Montgomery County Schools. “But the School Board does not replace parents, who know best about how and when to introduce their elementary-age children to complex and sensitive issues around gender and sexuality.”  

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Jews, and Christians, sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the new storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for kids and inconsistent with their beliefs. Last week, a federal district court judge ruled against the parents, writing that notice and opt-outs to the books are “not a fundamental right.” In the opinion, the judge even dismissed the claims of a religious couple whose daughter’s disabilities make it impossible for them to teach her their beliefs after the storybooks have been read to her. Today, the coalition of parents asked the Fourth Circuit to immediately restore their ability to help their own children on such complex issues and put a stop to the School Board’s no notice, no opt-out policy.  

“Children deserve the guidance of their parents when learning about complex issues around gender and sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “That’s why we are asking the Fourth Circuit to step in to protect the right of parents to guide their children’s education consistent with their religious beliefs.” 

A preliminary decision on the Parents’ motion for an injunction pending appeal is anticipated early this fall.  

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 coalition of states, legal experts, sidewalk counselors, pregnancy resource centers, pro-life feminist groups, and more filed friend-of-the-court briefs yesterday in Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, urging the Supreme Court to restore sidewalk counselors’ ability to offer compassionate support to women outside abortion clinics. Last month, Catholic sidewalk counselor Debra Vitagliano asked the Court to reconsider its heavily criticized decision in Hill v. Colorado, which allowed states and local governments to ban peaceful, life-affirming conversation on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics.

“I want to offer abortion-vulnerable women a message of hope and compassion, letting them know that they are loved and can keep their babies,” said Debra Vitagliano, a sidewalk counselor and resident of Westchester County. “I am thankful for this outpouring of support for my ministry and sidewalk counselors across the country, and I pray that the Justices will take my case and vindicate my First Amendment rights.”

Motivated by her Catholic faith and experience as an occupational therapist for special-needs children, Debra Vitagliano felt called to offer compassionate, face-to-face support to women considering abortion. Debra desires to help these women in the most critical moment—when they are approaching the abortion clinic. But last year, Westchester County, New York, passed a law restricting discussions about abortion, its alternatives, and resources available to abortion-vulnerable women on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics. The law established a 100-foot zone around abortion clinics—including public sidewalks—preventing anyone from approaching within eight feet of another person in that zone unless given explicit consent. Such bans on sidewalk counseling deprive abortion-vulnerable women of a final opportunity to receive help and learn about additional resources before potentially making a life-altering choice.

Westchester County’s law was modeled after and virtually identical to the Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld in Hill v Colorado. But legal scholars and judges have long criticized Hill, and last year, five Justices of the Supreme Court stated that Hill was a major departure from our nation’s protections of free speech. Debra’s case presents an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court to right Hill’s wrong and protect all those who want to serve abortion-vulnerable women.

Highlights from the friend-of-the-court filings in Vitagliano v. County Westchester include:

• First Amendment experts Eugene Volokh (of UCLA School of Law), Richard W. Garnett (of Notre Dame Law School), and Michael Stokes Paulsen (of the University of St. Thomas Law School) highlighted the widespread disagreement with Hill by pro-choice and pro-life scholars alike, as well as by the ACLU.
• Fourteen States argued that continued reliance on Hill curtails free-speech rights and explained how governments can protect public safety outside abortion clinics without Hill.
• Life-affirming feminist organizations argued that Hill reflects a “paternalistic belief” “rooted in the sexist assumption that women are too fragile to hear alternative viewpoints.”
• Sidewalk counselor Jeannie Hill—the plaintiff in Hill itself—highlighted Hill’s departure from pre-existing First Amendment jurisprudence and destabilizing effect on the rule of law.
• Alliance Defending Freedom argued that recent “hostility toward the pro-life community has exacerbated the need for an end to Hill.”
• Pregnancy resource centers explained how they offer tangible help to expectant and new mothers, with testimonials from women who benefitted from such help.

The list of friend-of-the-court briefs can be found here.

“Governments should not try to outlaw peaceful conversations on public sidewalks, and they certainly shouldn’t make it harder for women to get complete information,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO at Becket. “As this wave of support shows, it’s time for the Court to fix the mistake in Hill and make clear that the law protects people like Debra Vitagliano who want to offer help to women in need.”

A response from Westchester County is due to the Supreme Court by September 25.

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 – Contrary to Maryland and Montgomery County regulations, a federal court today ruled that parents have no right to be notified when their elementary-school children will be read storybooks that address complex and sensitive issues regarding gender and human sexuality. In Mahmoud v. McKnight, the Montgomery County Board of Education removed state-mandated parental notice and opt-outs rights for storybooks that advocate pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for kids as young as pre-kindergarten. Becket represents parents of diverse faiths who challenged the mandate in court earlier this month. After today’s ruling, these religious parents will quickly ask a federal appeals court to protect their ability to guide their children’s education in accordance with their faith. 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through fifth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. 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 say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. Other books focus on children’s romantic feelings.  

The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks earlier this year, contrary to Maryland law and the Board’s policies. Even the Board’s elementary school principals protested that the books were age-inappropriate, dismissive of students’ religious beliefs, and present as facts information that is not factual. 

“Parents know and love their children best; that’s why all kids deserve to have their parents help them understand issues like gender identity and sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The School Board’s decision to cut parents out of these discussions flies in the face of parental freedom, childhood innocence, and basic human decency.” 

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and Protestants, among others, sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents are united in their view that the LGBTQ storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for kids and inconsistent with their religious beliefs. These parents fought in court earlier this month seeking to restore their ability to help their own children on such complex issues and put a stop to the School Board’s no-notice, no opt-out policy. Today the court left the mandate in place, putting the case on a fast track to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

“The court’s decision is an assault on children’s right to be guided by their parents on complex and sensitive issues regarding human sexuality,” said Baxter. “The School Board should let kids be kids and let parents decide how and when to best educate their own children consistent with their religious beliefs.” 

Oral argument is expected in the fall at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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 – Two Catholic preschools filed a lawsuit against Colorado today for excluding religious preschools from participating in the state’s Universal Preschool Program. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s are parish preschools that were eager to serve families who wanted to use Colorado’s preschool funding benefit at a Catholic preschool. However, the state has banned funding for religious preschools because they provide an education rooted in their beliefs. With the help of Becket, St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s are asking a federal court to ensure that religious preschools can participate in the funding program just like every other private secular school. 

St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s are Catholic parishes in Colorado that operate excellent preschool programs to serve Denver-area families. For decades, these parish preschools in the Archdiocese of Denver have faithfully assisted parents with the religious and educational upbringing of their children. Many of the families they serve are of limited means. A full 20% of families who send their children to preschools in the Archdiocese qualify for the free and reduced-price school meals program. At St. Bernadette’s, that number is 85%. At St. Mary’s over a quarter of families also receive scholarships or discounts on their preschool education.  

“Our preschool exists to help kids harness the skills they need to flourish and grow into individuals prepared to serve others in hope, joy, and love,” said Tracy Seul, Director of Development and Preschool at St. Mary Catholic School. “We are called to offer this ministry to every parent who wants to provide their child with an authentic Catholic education.” 

In 2022, Colorado created its Universal Preschool Program to provide all children access to a free, quality preschool education the year before they are enrolled in kindergarten. After Colorado created the program, St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s were excited to begin assisting parents in providing their children an education that upholds their beliefs. But faith-based preschools like St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s cannot participate in the program because they prioritize the admission of Catholic families and have religious expectations for the teachers who operate their ministries. This ban forces parents to choose between paying out of pocket for the cost of faith-based preschool or receiving a free preschool education at any other private school in Colorado. It also hurts the ability of schools like St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s to compete with other preschools that can offer free preschool education.  

“Universal should mean universal,” said Nick Reaves, counsel at Becket. “Colorado is slamming the door on hundreds of parents that need help sending their kids to preschool, all because the schools that are best for their kids reflect their beliefs. We are asking the court to stop Colorado’s campaign against preschoolers and the schools that want to serve them. Families should be free to choose the private school that best meets their needs—whether it is secular or religious.” 

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 group of Jewish families and schools asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday to strike down a California law that excludes religious families from accessing special education funding for their children with disabilities. In Loffman v. California Department of Education, a group of Orthodox Jewish parents want to send their children with disabilities to Orthodox Jewish schools, and two Orthodox Jewish schools want to welcome children with disabilities. However, California politicians have blocked federal and state special education funding from being used at religious schools. After a lower court ruled against the families and schools last week, Becket, with the support of Teach Coalition—an initiative of the Orthodox Union that advocates for equal funding in nonpublic schools—has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stop California from denying education benefits to Jewish children with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law ensuring that all children with disabilities can receive an education that meets their unique needs. IDEA funds help pay for the cost of staff training, special education programs, assistive technology, and other services. IDEA is designed to ensure all children can receive a free and appropriate education, including in private schools when public schools cannot meet their needs. However, California politicians exclude religious schools, and the religious families they want to serve, from even applying to participate in this program.  

“Our son has to overcome many obstacles to have his unique needs met in the classroom, and California is making it even harder for him because of our faith,” said Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Jewish parents of a child with a disability in Los Angeles. “We pray that the court will stop this attack on children like ours and allow special education funding for every child with disabilities in California.”  

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 an education that allows them to reach their full potential and that is centered around their Jewish traditions and beliefs. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish schools in Los Angeles that both provide an excellent education and want to serve the needs of children with disabilities. 

“We are proud to fight alongside these parents, who have been forced to grapple with this unimaginable situation,” said Maury Litwack, Founder, Teach Coalition. “All children with disabilities, regardless of their religious beliefs, should have the same opportunity to receive a quality education and parents should never have to compromise on how or where their child is educated just because they are religious. That’s what we’re fighting for.” 

Becket and Teach Coalition are working together to ensure that these religious parents, their children with disabilities, and these religious schools are given equal access to special education funding—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Californians would want to see. 

“California is waging an indefensible and needless campaign against kids with disabilities just because they come from religious families,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We have asked the Ninth Circuit to strike down this law and ensure that all kids with disabilities receive the care and support they need to thrive.” 

Oral argument at the Ninth Circuit is expected to take place this winter.  

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 diverse group of religious parents in Maryland were in federal court today fighting for their ability to opt their children out of storybooks that push extreme ideology regarding gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. McKnight, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that advocate pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for kids as young as pre-kindergarten. Becket is supporting these Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox parents who are fighting to restore their ability to raise their children consistent with their faith. 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through eighth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sex and focus 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 say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks earlier this year, contrary to Maryland law and the Board’s policies and over the objection of their own elementary school principals. 

“Children deserve their parents’ guidance on how they learn about complex issues of gender identity, gender transitioning, and sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The School Board’s decision to cut parents out of these discussions prematurely destroys childhood innocence and wrongfully ignores the right of children to be guided by their own parents. The School Board should let kids be kids.”  

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians, sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the new storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for kids and inconsistent with their religious beliefs. These parents fought in court today seeking to restore their ability to help their own children on such complex issues and put a stop to the School Board’s no notice, no opt-out policy.  

“Education works best when schools team up with parents to guide what children are learning in the classroom,” said Baxter. “We asked the court today to recognize that and protect the ability of every parent to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs and age-appropriateness.” 

A decision from the court is expected in the coming weeks.  

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 religious couple in Massachusetts took the Commonwealth to court today for banning them from welcoming vulnerable children into their home through the Commonwealth’s foster care program. In Burke v. Walsh, Mike and Kitty Burke wanted to foster and someday adopt children in need of a family. Even though Massachusetts has a foster care crisis, state officials refused to let the Burkes foster any children in the state. The reason was their religious beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender. With the help of Becket, the Burkes are asking the court to ensure that qualified families no longer suffer for their religious beliefs and that vulnerable children are given a loving home.  

Mike and Kitty Burke are a Catholic couple from Massachusetts who have long wanted to become parents. Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs kids, and together they run a business and perform music for Mass.  Mike and Kitty began exploring becoming foster parents through the state’s foster care program, hoping to care for and eventually adopt children in need of a stable, loving home like theirs. 

“After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents,” said Mike and Kitty Burke. “We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home.”  

Children in foster care throughout Massachusetts are waiting for families like the Burkes. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) currently does not have enough foster homes or facilities to meet the needs of the children in its care, leaving over 1,500 children without a family. The crisis has become so extreme that the state has resorted to housing children in hospitals for weeks on end. Now more than ever, Massachusetts needs the help of parents like Mike and Kitty to foster children in need. 

During their application process, the Burkes underwent hours of training, extensive interviews, and an examination of their home. Mike and Kitty completed the training successfully and received high marks from the instructors. However, during their home interviews, the Burkes were troubled that many questions centered on their Catholic views about sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. In response, the Burkes emphasized that they would love and accept any child, no matter the child’s future sexual orientation or struggles with gender identity.  

However, because Mike and Kitty said they would continue to hold to their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, they were denied the ability to foster. The couple’s home study said, “Their faith is not supportive.” DCF officials said that while they had strengths, their answers about sexuality and gender barred them from being licensed.  This denial was as unnecessary as it was unconstitutional. Massachusetts law protects the religious liberty of foster parents. And Massachusetts is supposed to put the best interests of children first.   

“It takes the heroic effort of parents like Mike and Kitty to provide vulnerable children with loving homes through foster care,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Massachusetts’ actions leave the Burkes, and families of other faiths, out in the cold. How can they explain this to children waiting for a home?”  

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 137-year-old religious college and seminary that trains students for ministry has asked a federal appeals court to protect its beliefs about religious leadership from second-guessing by judges or juries. In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, a former faculty member at Moody is enlisting federal courts to punish Moody for its beliefs about the composition of the clergy. With the help of Becket, Moody is asking the court to keep the federal judiciary from entangling itself in disagreements over who should be clergy, and uphold its ability to train students for Christian leadership free from government interference.

Moody Bible Institute was founded in 1886 in downtown Chicago by prominent evangelist Dwight L. Moody. Originally named the Chicago Evangelization Society, Moody’s college and seminary prepares women and men to bring the Christian faith to all people. In the course of sharing this faith, Moody’s graduates have served worldwide, flying medical supplies to remote parts of Indonesia, feeding the poor in Cambodia, caring for refugees from South America, supporting displaced families in war-torn Ukraine, and running a women’s shelter in downtown Chicago. 

“For over 130 years, our school has trained and formed faithful Christian women and men who will commit their lives to spreading the gospel and bringing hope, joy, and love to all those in need,” said Dr. Mark Jobe, president at Moody Bible Institute. “This mission is rooted in Christ’s command to announce the good news to all people, and it has served as the bedrock of Moody since our founding.”  

Moody ensures that its ministry remains steadfast by asking all faculty to affirm its core religious beliefs, including its belief that the church office of pastor (or “elder”) should be filled by men. But despite knowing about this belief and agreeing to adhere to it, a Moody faculty member began advocating against it within Moody’s ministry. When Moody approached her about the situation and received her confirmation that she rejected Moody’s religious views, the professor’s contract was not renewed. In response, she moved her advocacy to federal court and sued, asking the government to take her side in a religious dispute.  

“If the separation of church and state means anything, it means that the federal government can’t punish a religious college for its beliefs over who should serve as a pastor, priest, imam, or rabbi,” said Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Religious groups should be free to make up their own minds on clergy qualifications without judges or juries putting a finger on the scales.”  

Oral argument is expected to be scheduled for Winter 2023 or Spring 2024.   

Moody is also represented by Christian Poland of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.  

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 group of Jewish parents and schools were in federal court on Friday fighting a California law that excludes religious schools from receiving special education funding to serve children with disabilities. Loffman v. California Department of Education involves a group of parents whose faith compels them to send their children with disabilities to Orthodox Jewish schools, and two Orthodox Jewish schools that want to welcome children with disabilities. California politicians, however, have made this impossible by blocking federal and state special education funding from being used at private religious schools. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, with the support of the Orthodox Union, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, is supporting these parents and schools in their fight to stop California from denying education benefits to Jewish children with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law ensuring that all children with disabilities can receive an education that meets their unique needs. IDEA funds help pay for the cost of staff training, special education programs, assistive technology, and other services. IDEA is designed to ensure all children can receive a free and appropriate education, including in private schools when public schools cannot meet their needs. However, California politicians exclude religious schools, and the religious families they want to serve, from even applying to participate in the program.  

“We want to educate our son in a safe, supportive learning environment that meets his unique needs and upholds our shared religious beliefs,” said Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Jewish parents of a child with disabilities in Los Angeles. “Unfortunately, California is forcing our family to choose between raising our son in our faith tradition and providing him the help he needs to reach his full potential.” 

Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Orthodox Jewish parents who believe that their children with disabilities should go to schools that provide both an education that allows them to reach their full potential and one centered around their Jewish traditions and beliefs. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish schools in Los Angeles that both provide an excellent education and want to serve the needs of children with disabilities. Becket and Teach California, an initiative of the Orthodox Union that advocates for equal funding in nonpublic schools, are working together to ensure that these religious parents, their children with disabilities, and these religious schools are given equal access to special education funding—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Californians would approve. 

“California’s campaign against Jewish children with disabilities and the schools they want to attend is shameful and unconstitutional,” said Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket. “We argued in court on Friday that the government cannot exclude religious people and schools from a public benefit simply because they are religious.” 

A decision from the federal district court is expected in the coming months. 

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 sidewalk counselor asked the Supreme Court today to restore her ability to offer compassionate support to abortion-vulnerable women outside abortion clinics. In Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, a federal appeals court ruled last month that Catholic sidewalk counselor Debra Vitagliano could ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its heavily criticized decision in Hill v. Colorado, which allowed states and local governments to ban peaceful life-affirming advocacy on public sidewalks. Today, Debra—who is challenging a recent law in Westchester County, New York, that is modeled after the law upheld in Hill—asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Hill and protect all those who wish to offer help and information to women in need.  

Motivated by her Catholic faith and experience as an occupational therapist for special-needs children, Debra Vitagliano felt called to offer compassionate, face-to-face support to women considering abortion. Debra desires to help these women in the most critical moment—when they are approaching the abortion clinic. But last year Westchester County, New York, passed a law restricting discussions about abortion, its alternatives, and resources available to abortion-vulnerable women on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics. The law establishes a 100-foot zone around abortion clinics—including public sidewalks—and prevents anyone from approaching within eight feet of another person in that zone unless given explicit consent. This ban on sidewalk counseling deprives abortion-vulnerable women of a final opportunity to receive help and learn about additional resources before potentially making a life-altering choice.    

“I am called to be a compassionate voice to abortion-vulnerable women, letting them know that that they are loved, supported, and can choose life for their babies,” said Debra Vitagliano, a sidewalk counselor and resident of Westchester County. “I pray that the Justices will take this case and allow me to help women in need.” 

Westchester County’s law is modeled after and materially identical to the Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld in Hill. But legal scholars and judges have long criticized Hill, and last year five Justices of the Supreme Court stated that Hill was a major departure from our nation’s protections of free speech. Debra’s case presents an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court to right Hill’s wrong and protect all those who want to serve abortion-vulnerable women. 

“No one should be arrested and put behind bars for having peaceful, face-to-face conversations on a public sidewalk,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO at Becket. “The Court should fix the mistake of Hill and make clear that the First Amendment protects these offers of help and information to women in need.”  

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 ruled that faith-based schools are free to choose leaders who will uphold their core religious beliefs. In Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis, a former co-director of guidance at a Catholic high school sued the school and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis after her contract was not renewed because she entered a same-sex union in violation of her contract and Catholic teaching. Today the court dismissed her case, ruling that the Constitution forbids the government from interfering with a religious school’s selection of who will pass on the faith to the next generation. 

At Roncalli High School, education goes beyond the basic subjects to help form students’ hearts and minds in the Catholic faith. To accomplish that mission, Roncalli asks its teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors to sign contracts agreeing to uphold Church teaching in both word and deed. In 2018, Shelly Fitzgerald, the co-director of guidance, told the school she was in a same-sex union in violation of her contract and millennia-old Catholic teaching. The school then declined to renew her contract for the following year. Soon after, Fitzgerald sued the school and Archdiocese. Today the court threw out her lawsuit, stating that the law protects Catholic schools’ ability to choose leaders who will impart the faith to students. 

“Religious schools exist to pass on the faith to the next generation, and to do that, they need the freedom to choose leaders who are fully committed to their religious mission,” said Joseph Davis, counsel at Becket. “The precedent keeps piling up: Catholic schools can ask Catholic school teachers and administrators to be fully supportive of Catholic teaching.” 

This ruling is the latest in a string of court decisions protecting the leadership choices of the Archdiocese and other faith-based schools. Last summer, a federal court threw out a similar lawsuit by another guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Starkey v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis. Soon after, the Indiana Supreme Court did the same in Payne-Elliot v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis. These rulings build on Becket’s successful defense of religious groups’ leadership decisions at the Supreme Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical School v. EEOC. 

“Today’s ruling is common-sense: decisions about who conveys the Catholic faith to Catholic school children are for the Church, not the government,” said Davis. “Many parents entrust their children to religious schools precisely because those schools help to pass on the faith, and this victory ensures they remain free to do so.” 

Fitzgerald has 90 days to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme 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, Mandarin, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – A group of Jewish parents, children, and schools are headed to federal court next week to fight a California law that excludes religious schools from obtaining 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 want to serve children with disabilities. However, they are unable to do so because politicians in California exclude all “sectarian” schools from participating in the State’s funding program. 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 denying crucial benefits to Jewish children with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law ensuring all children with disabilities can receive an education that meets their unique needs. This funding helps pay for the cost of staff training, special education programs, assistive technology, and other services. IDEA is designed to ensure all children can receive free and appropriate education, including at private schools when public schools cannot meet their needs. However, in California, politicians have categorically excluded religious schools from participating.

Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Orthodox Jewish parents whose religious beliefs require them to send their children with disabilities to schools that will both equip them with an education that allows them to reach their full potential and one centered around the Jewish tradition. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish schools that offer excellent education and wish to serve children with disabilities. Becket and Teach California, an initiative of the Orthodox Union that advocates for equal funding in nonpublic schools, are working together to ensure that these religious parents, their children with disabilities, and these religious schools are given equal access to special education funding—a result that most Californians would approve of according to a recent poll.

What:  

Oral Argument in Loffman v. California Department of Education   

Arguing before the court:  

Laura Slavis, counsel at Becket 

 Nick Reaves, counsel at Becket   

When:  

Friday, July 21, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. PT  

Where:  

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California  

350 W 1st Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90012  

Before oral argument, Becket and Teach California will host a rally  at 8:30 am PT outside the courthouse. Speakers will include supporters, parents and representatives from Teach California. 

 Becket attorneys and Teach California representatives will be available for comment immediately following the hearing.  

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 — The Supreme Court ruled today that the government cannot force religious people to choose between their faith or their business. In 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, web designer Lorie Smith challenged a Colorado law that prevented her from expanding her business to create wedding websites in accordance with her Christian beliefs about marriage.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court wrote, “Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.”

As the owner of 303 Creative, a custom website design business, Smith wanted to expand her operation to include wedding websites. However, Colorado law prevented her from doing so unless she made wedding websites for same-sex couples, violating her Christian beliefs about marriage and forcing her to say something she did not believe.

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that religious speech, like political speech, is at the core of the freedom of speech and must be protected. The Court’s opinion picked up on this argument, saying that unlike “commercial advertising,” governments cannot compel speech “about a question of political and religious significance.”

“Religion and work are not at odds,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Yesterday, the Court protected religious workers in secular workplaces, and today the Court protected religious business owners. That is good news for religious Americans of all stripes.”

The ruling corrects a lower court decision that failed to respect speech with “political and religious significance.” Four times, the Court recognized the distinct “significance” of such speech.

“Colorado seems to be a reluctant student when it comes to the First Amendment,” said Rassbach. “How many cases will Colorado have to lose before it stops trying to squelch speech? The Court’s ruling today emphasizes just how quixotic it is to force conformity of thought on Americans.”

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 devoutly religious sidewalk counselor will soon ask the Supreme Court to restore her ability to offer compassionate support to women considering abortion outside abortion clinics. In Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, a federal appeals court held that sidewalk counselor Debra Vitagliano could ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its heavily criticized decision in Hill v. Colorado (2000), which allowed states and local governments to ban peaceful sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics. With the help of Becket, Debra—who is challenging a recently enacted law in Westchester County, New York, that is modeled on the law upheld in Hill—will soon ask the Supreme Court to do exactly that.

Motivated by her Catholic faith and experience as an occupational therapist for children with disabilities, Debra Vitagliano has been called to offer compassionate, face-to-face support to women considering abortion. Debra desires to counsel these women outside abortion clinics, but Westchester County recently passed a law restricting discussions about abortion, its alternatives, and resources available to women in need, among other things, on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics. The law establishes a 100-foot zone around abortion clinics—including public sidewalks—and prevents anyone from approaching within eight feet of another person in that zone unless given explicit consent.

“My faith calls me to offer help to pregnant women considering abortion. In her most vulnerable state, a woman considering an abortion needs to know that she is loved and that there are other options for her and her child,” said Debra Vitagliano, a sidewalk counselor and resident of Westchester County. “I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will hear my plea and allow me to help these women.”

The County’s law is closely modeled on the Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld in Hill. But legal scholars and judges have severely criticized Hill, and in 2022 five Justices of the Supreme Court stated that Hill “distorted First Amendment doctrines.” This case presents an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court to right Hill’s wrong and protect all those who want to counsel women considering abortion. The Second Circuit ruled that Debra suffered harm from the County’s law, giving her the right to “pursue [her] appeal in the hope that the Supreme Court will revisit and overrule Hill.” The Second Circuit even recognized that Hill “appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions.”

“Americans like Debra have every right to engage in peaceful, face-to-face conversations with women in need on public sidewalks,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO at Becket. “Nobody should have to risk jail time and go to court for a peaceful conversation on public sidewalks—even when local government disagrees with them. We are hopeful that the Court will take this case and protect Debra’s ability to serve women in need.”

With the help of Becket, Debra will ask the Supreme Court to protect her ministry as early as next month.

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 Biden Administration yesterday declined to appeal a federal court ruling that stops the government from forcing religious doctors and hospitals to perform controversial gender-transition procedures against their conscience and professional medical judgment. The decision in Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra is now the second time a federal appeals court has blocked the Administration’s mandate, and the second time the Administration has chosen not to seek Supreme Court review. The rulings mark a victory for compassionate, evidence-based healthcare and protect religious doctors and hospitals across the country from suffering multimillion-dollar penalties for following their religious beliefs, conscience, and informed medical judgment.  

In 2016, the federal government reinterpreted the Affordable Care Act to require doctors and hospitals across the country to perform controversial gender-transition procedures, including on children, even when doing so would violate doctors’ consciences and could harm the patient. A coalition of Catholic hospitals, a Catholic university, and Catholic nuns who run health clinics for the elderly and poor sued the federal government to stop the mandate, and a federal court agreed that the mandate was unlawful and permanently blocked it from taking effect. When the Biden Administration appealed that decision, the Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision. Today, the government let the final deadline for appealing to the Supreme Court expire, putting this harmful and unlawful mandate to rest. 

“After multiple defeats in court, the federal government has thrown in the towel on its controversial, medically unsupported transgender mandate,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Doctors take a solemn oath to ‘do no harm,’ and they can’t keep that oath if the federal government is forcing them to perform harmful, irreversible procedures against their conscience and medical expertise.”  

This case is Becket’s second successful challenge to the transgender mandate. In Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, Becket defended a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. Becket won a victory for its clients at the Fifth Circuit, and the Biden Administration also declined to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.   

“These religious doctors and hospitals provide vital care to patients in need, including millions of dollars in free and low-cost care to the elderly, poor, and underserved,” said Goodrich. “This is a win for patients, conscience, and common sense.”  

The government’s deadline to appeal the case to the Supreme Court was June 20. 

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 state of Minnesota promised today not to enforce a newly amended law that strips some faith-based schools of their ability to offer free college credits to high school students using the Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. In Loe v. Walz, a group of Christian families and schools recently filed a lawsuit challenging an amendment to the program that excludes schools from participating if they require a statement of faith from students. Today, Minnesota agreed to a federal court order that bars state officials from enforcing the new law while the legal process is ongoing. Students across the state can now continue to learn at faith-based schools and join communities that uphold their beliefs.

Minnesota created the PSEO program nearly 40 years ago to encourage and enable high school juniors and seniors to earn college credit for free. Through this program, students have been able to attend any eligible school in the state, public or private. Melinda and Mark Loe and Dawn Erickson are parents in Minnesota whose older children have used 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 hope to do the same, but last month Governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law that bans colleges like Northwestern and Crown from the program because they ask on-campus students to sign statements of faith in order to build Christian communities.

With Becket’s help, these families and schools challenged the law in federal court to stop Minnesota from punishing religious students and the faith-based schools they want to attend because they are religious. The Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed that public benefits that are open to private organizations cannot exclude organizations because they are religious.

Today, Minnesota’s attorney general saw the writing on the wall and agreed not to enforce the law while the case is ongoing. Minnesota schools now have the freedom to continue shaping their campus environments according to their religious beliefs, and students have the choice of an education that aligns with their beliefs.

Statements for media use:

Mark and Melinda Loe:

“We are glad that Minnesota has agreed not to punish our children and many students like them for wanting to learn at schools that reflect their values. They should be able to pursue the same great opportunities as all other students in the state without politicians in St. Paul getting in the way. We hope the court will eventually strike this law down for good and protect all religious students and the schools they want to attend.”

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

“The entire Northwestern community is grateful to continue to foster a Christ-centered community on campus that serves all our students, including our PSEO students. The state cannot single out schools such as Northwestern due to our campus culture and the integration of faith and learning. We hope the court will permanently recognize that and continue to permit us to help on-campus PSEO students flourish in their faith and education.”

Andrew Denton, president of Crown College:

“We are thankful that Crown can continue welcoming PSEO students who seek to join our Christian community and earn college credit without taking on debt. The law protects our current and future PSEO students’ ability to use PSEO funds at schools that reflect their beliefs and values. The state should never have singled us out for our faith. We remain steadfast in our commitment to upholding our mission of providing PSEO students a boldly Christian, biblically based education, and we are hopeful the court will permanently protect our faith-based culture and the students we serve.”

Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket:

“It’s not every day that a state asks a federal court to tie its hands to prevent it from enforcing its own anti-religious law—but Minnesota has done just that. As this effort to walk back demonstrates, the state didn’t do its homework before it passed this unconstitutional law. The next step is for the court to strike down this ban for good.”

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 family of five and a Catholic high school filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging Maine’s exclusion of faith-based schools from a state tuition assistance program that has served rural families for over a century. Even though the Supreme Court struck down Maine’s religious ban last year, bureaucrats in the state are continuing to exclude faith-based schools and families who rely on the program. In St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, the Radonis family and St. Dominic Academy, a high school operated by the Catholic Diocese of Portland, are fighting for their ability to help rural families educate their children in accordance with their beliefs.

Keith and Valori Radonis are organic farmers in rural Maine who want to send their children to schools that uphold their Catholic beliefs. Both Keith and Valori grew up in Catholic homes, and they believe it is their religious duty to help plant, nurture, and cultivate the seed of faith in their own children. For years, Catholic schools in the Diocese of Portland—including St. Dominic Academy—assisted families like Radonises in providing their children with an education that reflects their beliefs through Maine’s tuition assistance program.  This program allows parents in rural school districts to educate their children at private schools with no public schools nearby. That changed in 1982 when Maine began disqualifying faith-based schools and the families they serve from the program. Today, Maine is willing to pay for families in rural areas to send their kids to out-of-state boarding schools and public schools in Canada, but it won’t pay a penny for parents that choose a religious school in Maine.

“As Catholic parents, we want to provide our children with an education that helps them grow in heart, mind, and spirit, preparing them for lives of service to God and neighbor,” said Keith and Valori Radonis. “All families should have the option to provide the education that’s right for their children using Maine’s tuition program, including religious families like ours.”

Fortunately, the Supreme Court said last year in Carson v. Makin that Maine could no longer exclude faith-based schools from the program. But Maine bureaucrats tried to do an “end run” around the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court was considering Carson, Maine passed a new law to reimpose the same restriction challenged in Carson—and add a few new ones for good measure.

Maine’s new laws block schools that receive tuition funds from allowing any religious expression unless they allow every kind—meaning that a Catholic school like St. Dominic can’t have Mass unless it also allows a Baptist revival meeting. It also gives the state’s Human Rights Commission—not parents and schools—the final word on how the school teaches students to live out Catholic beliefs regarding marriage, gender, and family life. As a result, faith-based schools are still being barred from serving rural families through the program.

With the help of Becket, the Radonis family and St. Dominic are asking a federal court to strike down Maine’s anti-religious policy. The state cannot deny parents the choice to educate their children at religious schools simply because they provide an education rooted in faith. It also cannot sidestep the Supreme Court by changing its law to stop religious schools from being religious.

“Maine is willing to pay for kids to go to all-girls boarding schools in Massachusetts and public schools in Quebec, but parents who choose Catholic schools like St. Dominic—which have been educating Maine kids for more than a century—are still out in the cold,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “Maine lawmakers boasted about changing the law to avoid the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson. That’s illegal and unfair. We are confident that Maine’s new laws will be struck down just like their old ones were.”

Becket will ask the court to halt Maine’s ban on faith-based education immediately while the court considers the case.

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 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.