WASHINGTON, D.C. – The small town of Acton, Massachusetts is pushing back against an anti-religious group’s attempt to exclude all church buildings from historic preservation programs. Massachusetts recognizes the importance of preserving historic landmarks—both religious and secular—and provides state funding for restoring and rehabilitating these buildings. Yet in Caplan v. Town of Acton, currently pending at Massachusetts’ highest court, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says preservation grants can be used for all sorts of historic buildings – just not churches and synagogues. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the churches’ right to receive preservation funds on an equal footing with non-religious buildings.

This case comes on the heels of June’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that said that the government can’t block churches from participating on an equal basis in widely available public grant programs. Yet Americans United says that allowing historic religious buildings to participate in the preservation grant program violates part of the Massachusetts Constitution known as the Anti-Aid Amendment. The Anti-Aid Amendment, like the notorious Blaine Amendments adopted in other states, was enacted on the back of widespread anti-Irish, anti-immigrant, and anti-Catholic feeling, and is used today by anti-religion groups to subject religious groups to unequal government treatment. When a Massachusetts trial court in 2016 allowed funds to go to two historic churches in Acton, Americans United appealed, relying on the Anti-Aid Amendment.

“If Americans United has its way, future tourists searching for the Old North Church where Paul Revere looked for ‘One if by land, two if by sea’ might end up finding a hole in the ground instead,” said Joseph Davis, legal counsel at Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Acton and the churches. “France wouldn’t let the Cathedral of Notre Dame fall into ruin, and Massachusetts shouldn’t let its historic colonial churches decay from neglect either.”

Through its Community Preservation Act, the state of Massachusetts makes preseveration funds available to both secular and religious structures for projects like replacing sagging roofs, reinforcing crumbling walls, and replacing faulty wiring, recognizing that these buildings are an important part of Massachusetts’ long history that should be preserved for future generations. Since 2000, more than 8,000 projects have been carried out on secular and religious buildings, including the birthplace of Abigail Adams, the Vilna Shul synagogue, and colonial-era Quaker meetinghouses.

“Historic churches don’t have to stop being churches in order to be preserved,” said Davis. “Religious buildings are just as much part of the deep fabric of Massachusetts history as any other historic building—every citizen of Massachusetts benefits from these pieces of history. Historic houses of worship deserve to be treated equally when it comes to state historic preservation funds.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear the case on September 7.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

Additional Information:

• Becket’s Amicus Brief (August 21, 2017)
• Case Page for Caplan v. Town of Acton (press releases, legal docs, news, images)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Native Americans in Oregon asked a federal court late Monday for justice after the government needlessly bulldozed their sacred burial ground during a highway widening project near Mount Hood. The project destroyed a stone altar, burial ground, campground, trees, and medicine plants used for religious rituals by members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde (watch video).

The government could have easily widened the highway and simultaneously protected the sacred site by widening the opposite side of the road or using a retaining wall—as it did to protect nearby wetlands and a tattoo parlor. But in 2008, the government ignored the tribal members’ request and destroyed one of their most sacred places. After years of failed negotiations, the government refuses to even remediate the site or return sacred artifacts. The tribal members now seek a ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the same law relied on by the Supreme Court to protect the owners of Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“When it’s an endangered species, wetlands, or even a nearby tattoo parlor, the government finds a way to protect it; but when it’s a Native American sacred site, they unleash the bulldozers and chainsaws,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm. “After taking this land from the tribes in 1855, the government now has the gall to claim that it can destroy it because it is ‘government land.’ But it’s not 1855 anymore.” 

Plaintiffs Wilbur Slockish and Johnny Jackson are Hereditary Chiefs of the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakima Nation. They are direct lineal descendants of a chief named Sla-kish—who was the last chief to sign the Yakama Treaty of 1855 and did so under protest. Plaintiff Carol Logan is an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde.  

“To me, this site was like a church. One that never had walls, or a roof, or a floor, but it was still just as sacred,” said Chief Jackson of the Cascade Tribe of the Yakima Nation. “If the government can callously destroy our place of worship, it could do the same to any other group.”

Wilbur, Johnny, and Carol are joined in their lawsuit by the Cascade Geographic Society and the Mount Hood Sacred Lands Preservation Alliance. They are represented by Becket, together with Seattle-based law firm Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch and Oregon City attorney James Nicita. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

Additional Information:   

• Becket’s Brief (August 7, 2017) 
• Case Page/Media Kit: Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration 

### 

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here). 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The former mayor of Boca Raton, prominent local business and religious leaders, the former Florida House Majority Leader, legal scholars, and national and international religious groups are standing up for the Chabad of East Boca Raton, Florida, a Jewish community that for ten years has fought to build a synagogue. Despite two court victories in less than a year, the Chabad must continue to battle for its synagogue in Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton, Fla.

A small group opposed the synagogue, claiming the city is establishing a religion by allowing the Chabad to build. The group recently appealed its losses to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, prolonging the decade-long battle to prevent the Chabad from building a permanent home. National and international groups and local citizen-leaders filed three friend-of-the-court briefs with the court defending minority rights and supporting the Chabad’s right to build. (watch this video about the Chabad’s experience.)

“It is encouraging to know that so many in our community and our nation support us and want to welcome us with open arms. We are hopeful that soon we will be free to live and worship side by side with our neighbors and friends here in East Boca Raton,” said Rabbi Ruvi New, head of the Chabad of East Boca Raton.

The brief from leading national and international Jewish groups and signed by noted Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called out the “the virulent and ugly opposition the Chabad has encountered over the past few years” and encouraged the court to fully enforce existing “constitutional and statutory safeguards to ensure minority religious groups are given equal property and land use rights.” Another brief, led by Jews for Religious Liberty and joined by several rabbis, stated that accepting “the Plaintiffs’ argument would turn religious believers into second–class citizens” and would “prevent governmental actors from doing things like providing chaplains or kosher food to Jews in prison or in the military.” And the brief by the former mayor, former House majority leader, a local Episcopal priest, and several other local community leaders said that allowing the Chabad to build its synagogue would “serve as a potent symbol of religious equality” in Boca Raton, where the Chabad has been a “valuable organization . . . for over fifteen years.”

“It’s a shame that a small opposing group has been hiding behind ugly legal claims to stall the synagogue’s right to build,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, which represents the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “The misguided legal attack on the Chabad is ultimately a threat to every religious group. And today, many of those other religious groups started pushing back.”

Becket has represented many religious institutions that have faced illegal opposition, including the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, a mosque in Tennessee, and the Church of Our Savior, an Anglican congregation in Jacksonville Beach, Florida.

The diverse amici were represented by leading lawyers and law firms, including Professor Dershowitz, Miles Coleman of Nelson Mullins, Howard N. Slugh, Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore, and Michael Lazaroff of Greenberg Traurig. The Chabad is represented by Becket and Kirkland & Ellis.

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night the nation’s oldest synagogue, Congregation Shearith Israel, won its long legal battle to keep ownership of the nation’s oldest synagogue building and centuries-old sacred Jewish artifacts. In Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, the court ruled that Shearith Israel’s contracts were enforceable in court, just like any other contract.  

The ruling by the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston states that Congregation Shearith Israel of Manhattan, the nation’s oldest synagogue, has sole ownership of the Touro Synagogue of Newport, Rhode Island, the nation’s oldest synagogue building. Written by retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the opinion declares that Shearith Israel owns both the synagogue building and colonial-era Jewish ritual objects in the synagogue. The opinion adopts the argument of a friend-of-the-court brief Becket filed on behalf of Shearith Israel. 

“Synagogues should get their day in court, just like any other American,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm. “This is an important victory for the rights of religious groups to establish enforceable contracts just like any other property owner.”

Shearith Israel was founded in 1654 in New York by Spanish and Portuguese Jews fleeing persecution. In the late 1700s, Shearith Israel took ownership of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island when the original Jewish congregation fled British colonial rulers. In the late 1800s, Jeshuat Israel, a newly-formed Jewish congregation, began leasing the Touro Synagogue from Shearith Israel, paying rent of one dollar a year. A few years ago, Jeshuat Israel decided to sell the synagogue’s ancient Torah scroll ornaments called rimonim to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. But Shearith Israel believed that selling the artifacts would violate both Jewish law and Jeshuat Israel’s lease agreement, which agrees to respect Shearith Israel’s ownership of the property. Jeshuat Israel then sued Shearith Israel, seeking ownership of both the rimonim and the Touro Synagogue itself.Last year, a federal district court in Providence ruled against Shearith Israel, saying that they were not the owners of the rimonim or the Touro Synagogue, giving control of both to Jeshuat Israel instead. Shearith Israel appealed. Last year, Becket filed an friend-of-the-court brief urging the appeals court to allow religious groups to settle disputes themselves using binding legal agreements like other property owners. Yesterday the court adopted Becket’s arguments that contracts showing Shearith Israel’s ownership should be enforced. 

Shearith Israel is represented by Louis Solomon and Nancy Savitt of Greenberg Traurig LLP.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Chabad of East Boca Raton, Florida is once again fighting for its right to build a synagogue. Despite two court victories in less than a year in Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton, Fla., the Chabad’s battle for a house of worship is once again back in court.  With the help of a New York lawyer famous for attacking religious civil rights law, a small opposition group is prolonging the lawsuit by appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In 2015, the Chabad received overwhelming support from the community and unanimous approval from the city of Boca Raton to begin construction of their new synagogue. But a New York attorney sued the city on behalf of a small group opposed to the synagogue. The suit claims that by allowing a single synagogue to be built on private land, the city is establishing the Jewish religion and discriminating against Christians. But the city ordinance they are suing over requires equal treatment for all faiths to build houses of worship. This latest appeal continues a decade-long battle to prevent the Chabad from building a permanent home.

“Enough is enough. It is past time to drop the legal shenanigans and let Boca Raton welcome the Chabad into the community,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, which represents the Chabad of Boca Raton. “This ugly attempt to turn a disagreement about zoning into a federal lawsuit sets a dangerous precedent, harmful to everyone in Florida. The attack on the synagogue here threatens houses of worship everywhere.”

Since 2007, the Chabad of East Boca Raton, an Orthodox Jewish center, has encountered heavy, well-funded opposition to its attempt to build a new center for its growing congregation. Opposition to the synagogue claimed that allowing the synagogue to build would overwhelmingly increase traffic, prevent emergency vehicle access to the area, and lead to “inevitable” flooding. Yet the site of the proposed 2-story synagogue is surrounded by much larger buildings, including strip malls, a 7-11, and massive 22-story condos.

Some groups launched a website against the Chabad that contained anti-Semitic posts. The Chabad also suffered a string of attacks in the last few years, including the destruction and theft of glass mezuzahs that contain sacred scripture, a smashed synagogue door, and a physical assault against a teenage member of the Chabad who was told to “go back to Auschwitz” and that “Hitler was right.”

“It’s sad that a very small group would rather have a tattoo parlor or a liquor store in their community than a synagogue. Houses of worship of all faiths should be free to live and worship in their communities,” said Blomberg. 

Becket has represented many religious institutions that have faced illegal opposition, including the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, a mosque in Tennessee, and the Church of Our Savior, an Anglican congregation in Jacksonville Beach, Florida.

The Chabad is represented by Becket and Kirkland & Ellis.

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

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here). 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of historic churches is defending their right at the New Jersey Supreme Court to participate in a historic preservation grant program to help repair beautiful, historic buildings. In FFRF v. Morris County Board of Freeholders, the Wisconsin-based atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing Morris County to stop historic churches from participating in a historic preservation grant, claiming allowing churches to use the grant violates the New Jersey Constitution.

Courts have consistently protected a church’s right to participate in widely available public benefit programs. Just three weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that a state can’t deny church schools from participating in a shredded-tire resurfacing program to make playgrounds safer for kids. Becket will file a friend-of-the-court brief today supporting the program and churches, stating, “excluding an otherwise eligible religious organization from a public benefits program solely because of its religious status ‘is odious to our Constitution . . . and cannot stand.’”

“Historic buildings are an important part of our country’s fabric, from Boston’s Old North Church where Paul Revere hung two lanterns to the Ebenezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King Jr. was pastor until his death,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at Becket, which is filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the program and churches. “Whether a historic building is used for religious or secular purposes should make no difference to whether the building gets public restoration funds.”

In 2002, Morris County created a historic preservation fund for historic buildings in the area and instituted a competitive grant program funded by property taxes. Between 2012 and 2015, the county provided grants to 55 religious and nonreligious recipients. The program requires applicants to establish the historic significance of the building, and grants for churches are limited to preservation of exterior building elements and the buildings’ structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.

But in December 2015 FFRF sued Morris County, complaining that allowing churches to participate in the program violates the New Jersey Constitution. In January 2017, a New Jersey court ruled in favor of Morris County, protecting the right of religious historic buildings to participate in the program. FFRF appealed that decision and the case is now before the New Jersey Supreme Court. Becket, along with Thomas A. Gentile of Wison Elser in Florham Park, New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Morris County and a group of Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and other churches. Oral argument for the case will take place in the next few months.

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

Additional Information:        

• Becket’s Amicus Brief (July 17, 2017)
• Case Page/Media Kit for FFRF v. Morris County Board of Freeholders

 ###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A federal court today protected a cross that has stood in a Florida city park for over 75 years. Last month, the court in Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola ordered the cross to be removed because of its religious nature, but in today’s ruling, the court acknowledged that the Mayor and City of Pensacola should be given time to appeal. An appeal will be filed soon, and a ruling is expected in the coming months.

A wooden cross was first placed in Pensacola’s Bayview Park in 1941 by the local chapter of the Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees)—a private, civic, nonprofit organization—as the United States prepared to enter World War II. The original wooden cross was replaced with the current cross by the Jaycees in 1969. For decades, the Jaycees and other groups have hosted community events at the memorial, including Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day remembrances. Today it continues to serve as a gathering place for both religious and nonreligious groups within the community and as a significant symbol of the city’s history.

“The Bayview cross has played an important role in the history of Pensacola for over 75 years,” said Ashton Hayward, mayor of Pensacola. “Our City welcomes people of all faiths and no faith at all, and we are glad that the citizens of Pensacola can continue to celebrate our remarkable history.”

Bayview Park consists of 28 acres overlooking the scenic Bayou Texar. In addition to a cross in the northeast corner of the park, there is a senior center, amphitheater, two dog parks, tennis courts, a bocce ball court, playground, multiple boat ramps and docks, walking trails, picnic areas, and a memorial to a local citizen who died in a waterskiing accident.

In May of 2016, four plaintiffs sued the city saying that the cross was offensive. Two of the plaintiffs live in Canada. One has used the cross himself for his own self-described “satanic purposes.” The fourth plaintiff lives outside Pensacola over seven miles from the cross but still says that seeing the cross would be offensive. Although a federal court recognized that the cross “is part of the rich history of Pensacola,” and that the cross “might well pass constitutional muster,” it ruled in June that the cross has a “religious purpose” and must be removed.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that religion is a fundamental part of our history and culture, and the government is welcome to acknowledge that fact,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, which is defending the City of Pensacola. “The Constitution has never required the government to scrub every religious reference from the public square.”

Becket, which is representing the city free of charge, also successfully defended a statue of Jesus in Montana memorializing soldiers who died during World War II. Last month, the city asked the court to allow the cross to remain in place while the city appeals, and today the court granted that request. The city is represented in the trial court by J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane.

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

 ###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court championed free speech today, ruling unanimously 8-0 in Matal v. Tam for The Slants, an Asian-American rock band. In 2011, the government rejected the band’s trademark application because their name was deemed “too offensive.” Today’s Court ruling bolsters the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, even speech that offends.

In 2011, Simon Tam, a political activist and lead musician of The Slants, tried to register the name of his band in the federal trademark system but the government rejected his application because “Slant” was deemed too derogatory to Asian Americans. Tam, who is Asian American, challenged the decision in court and won. The government then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which today ruled in his favor. Last year, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on his behalf highlighting that the “no disparagement” rule for religious speech is incompatible with true religious freedom, since one person’s blasphemy is often another person’s article of faith.

“The government defends free speech around the world because it knows when free speech is threatened, religious minorities suffer,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm. “Whether politically correct or not, speech should be protected here at home as well as abroad.”

For more than a decade, Becket and the U.S. government have fought laws banning “insulting” and “defaming” religious speech at the United Nations and in places like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Australia, where minority groups are silenced and marginalized for expressing their beliefs. These blasphemy laws are widely abused to target religious minorities like Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman sitting on death row for allegedly insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The U.S. government has long opposed blasphemy laws that ban offensive speech against beliefs and institutions abroad, yet here at home has blocked allegedly “disparaging” names from the federal trademark system.

In its ruling, the court stated: “We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

“When it comes to religious speech, one person’s blasphemy is often another person’s testimony. No government should have the power to punish speech to protect beliefs, institutions, or people from criticism,” said Smith.

Tam is represented by Eugene Volokh and Stuart Banner of the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, and John Connell of Archer & Grenier, P.C. Last December, Becket told the Supreme Court that the U.S. government should practice at home what it preaches abroad: free speech for all, even speech that offends.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Peter Bormuth, a self-proclaimed pagan activist with a long history of suing local government entities and nonprofits, is suing a county commission to end their right to pray before public meetings. Today, the full 15-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard his case, Bormuth v. County of Jackson, in a packed Cincinnati courtroom. Rejecting Bormuth’s lawsuit could dramatically clarify and improve religious liberty law, and may set the stage for Supreme Court review due to a likely conflict with a similar pending case in North Carolina.

In 2014, the Supreme Court protected the tradition of legislative prayer in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision, which required courts to consult history to interpret the Establishment Clause. But Bormuth is trying to dodge that ruling by using the discredited Lemon test. Named after the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case, the test ignores history and encourages anti-religious activists to file lawsuits against religious expression. Activists have attacked monuments to fallen soldiers and tried to scrub “In God We Trust” from currency. Justice Scalia famously compared the Lemon test to a zombie—popping up unexpectedly to frighten the small towns with lawsuits, often defeated in judicial opinions, but never quite dead.

“The Supreme Court’s 2014 Town of Greece landmark opinion finally put the zombie Lemon six feet under, where it belongs,” said Daniel Blomberg, a Becket attorney who attended oral argument today, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “Small-town officials and weary judges shouldn’t be held hostage to activists determined to fight over anything that hints at religion in public life.”

Legislators have opened meetings in prayer since before the founding of the country and none of the Founding Fathers would have thought that violated the Establishment Clause. The Founders understood an establishment of religion to consist of serious problems like government control of the church, coercive attempts to push people into and out of churches, or giving certain public financial support to the church. They were not worried about a few words that someone prays at the beginning of a meetings, words that no one is forced to agree with or listen to.

In May 2017, Becket teamed up with leading religious liberty scholar and Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell in a friend-of-the-court brief to explain that under the Supreme Court’s new rule, the Establishment Clause must be interpreted in the same way as the rest of the Constitution: by analyzing it through its historical context.

A decision in the case is expected later this year.

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

 ###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today in Advocate Healthcare Network v. Stapleton, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-0 to protect. religious hospitals founded and run by nuns, allowing them to continue providing generous benefits for their employees as well as free health services to their inner city communities. The ruling rejects absurd claims from class-action lawyers that these Catholic and Protestant religious hospitals had to use the same sort of for-profit pension plans used by corporations such as Exxon or Walmart. That would have forced these hospitals to divert crucial funds from their charitable programs or even permanently close their doors.

Churches were the first organizations in the U.S. to provide pension plans to their employees. Today, these faith-driven hospitals provide generous benefits to their employees through comprehensive church pension plans as well as much needed health services to their surrounding communities. This ruling confirms what government agencies like the IRS have recognized for more than 30 years: that hospital ministries are part of the larger church and can offer tax-exempt church pension plans under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

“The Supreme Court got it right,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at the religious liberty law firm Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the hospitals. “Churches—not government bureaucrats and certainly not ambulance chasers—should decide whether hospitals are part of the church. It is simple common sense that nuns, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, seminaries, nursing homes, and orphanages are a core part of the church and not an afterthought.”

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court recognized that the IRS’s artificial distinction between houses of worship and religious organizations that serve the poor “disfavors” religious social service organizations. Over the past four years, class-action lawyers have brought nearly 100 lawsuits against various Catholic and Protestant hospitals around the country, arguing that these nonprofit hospitals had broken the law by participating in nonprofit church pension plans instead of using lower-benefit pension plans designed for large for-profit corporations like Exxon and Walmart.

The lawyers argued that serving others is not part of being a “church” and therefore religious hospitals and other religious ministries cannot use church pension plans. This ignores a core part of what churches do, includes going into the community to feed the hungry, serve the homeless, distribute refugee relief, and more. This is why, for decades, Congress and the IRS have allowed religious non-profits to provide church pension plans for their employees instead of for-profit pension plans. Had the class-action lawyers prevailed, they would have received millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees, robbing the hospitals of funds needed to help the poor and needy.

“Faith for most religious Americans means being out in the community serving with and for others, particularly the least among us,” said Rassbach. “Thanks to this ruling, these hospital ministries can continue following their faith, helping their communities, and providing generous pension plans for their employees.”

Becket filed an amicus brief defending Advocate Health Care Network and other religious hospitals in January 2017.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

 Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

For Immediate Release:  May 12, 2017
Media Contact: Ryan Colby | media@becketlaw.org | 202-349-7219

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Kentucky court championed free speech today, ruling that the government cannot force t-shirt printer Blaine Adamson to create gay-pride t-shirts in violation of his religious beliefs. The court agreed with Becket, top legal scholars, and LGBT business owners, who all stood up for the rights of artists to choose what messages they would promote, without fear of government punishment. Today’s ruling emphasized that “the ‘service’ [the printer] offers is the promotion of messages. The ‘conduct’ [the printer] chose not to promote was pure speech.”

Adamson is the owner of Hands On Originals, a small print shop in Lexington, Kentucky. Adamson regularly employs and serves LGBT individuals, and serves everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. He also cares deeply about the messages he promotes. Just as pro-choice printers have declined to print pro-life messages, and LGBT printers have declined to print anti-gay messages, Adamson does not print messages that violate his beliefs. Following common printing industry practice, he only creates messages that align with his views, and has declined to create t-shirts promoting strip clubs, violence, and sexually explicit videos. That’s why LGBT business owners stood up for Mr. Adamson’s right to choose the messages he promotes.

“It doesn’t matter what the speech is—pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-immigration, anti-immigration—the government can’t force you to print it,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm. “That’s the beauty of free speech: It protects everyone.”

In 2012, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) asked Mr. Adamson to print shirts promoting the local gay-pride festival. Because Mr. Adamson believes in traditional marriage, he could not in good conscience print the shirts. Instead, he referred GLSO to other printers who would match his price. Although GLSO received many offers to print the shirts and ultimately obtained them for free, it filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, which ordered Mr. Adamson to print the shirts and attend government-mandated “diversity training.” Today’s ruling makes clear that this violated Adamson’s freedom of speech.

“Free speech is most important on the most divisive issues,” said Goodrich. “That is the last place the government should ever be allowed to demand conformity.”

Mr. Adamson is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. In October 2015, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending Mr. Adamson with renowned scholar and University of Virginia Law Professor Douglas Laycock, and Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLCS.

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

Additional Information:

• Court Opinion (May 12, 2017)
• Amicus Brief (October 29, 2015)
• Media Kit (Press releases, legal documents, images, news and more)

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

NEW YORK, NY – Over 500 leaders and religious liberty advocates honored Leonard Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society, last night at the 22^nd annual Canterbury Medal Gala. Leo received the 2017 Canterbury medal—Becket’s highest honor—for his lifelong advocacy for religious freedom in our courts and abroad. Law firm McDermott, Will & Emery received Becket’s Legal Award and attendees enjoyed a one-night only, exclusive photography exhibit capturing America’s distinct and divergent religious expressions (watch tribute video).

“Leonard has gone about what he’s done with saint-like qualities, modesty, serving in his own life as a quiet example of faith and courage. All of us here should feel gratitude for what Leonard has done,” said Eugene Scalia, son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and presenter of the Canterbury Medal.

“Freedom of religion protects the right of conscience, not just in houses of worship but in workplaces, schools, hospitals, government offices, and anywhere else we go in this world,” said Leonard Leo, 2017 Canterbury Medalist. “Happily, we in the United States are still a world away from those other places where freedoms are rarely honored because of a fierce independence that refuses to be ordered about, pushed around, or told when your faith is welcome and when it’s not. This is the most American of qualities.” (Full transcript and video of his speech).

Leonard Leo is a champion of global religious liberty, having served as chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) as well as delegate to the UN Council and UN Commission on Human Rights. In the U.S., he promotes civil liberties as executive vice president of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Leo is also an active leader in Catholic organizations, serving on the boards of the Catholic Information Center, Catholic University of America, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is a founding board member of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Law firm McDermott Will & Emery was also recognized at the Gala, receiving Becket’s Legal Service Award for their outstanding and crucial contributions on behalf of the Sikh community. For decades, observant Sikhs have been almost entirely excluded from U.S. military service because of regulations that prohibited them from maintaining their religiously mandated dress and grooming. McDermott Will & Emery’s partnership with Becket, along with the Sikh Coalition, culminated in new regulations that now allow observant Sikhs to serve their country without forfeiting their faith.

The 2017 Canterbury Medal Gala included an exclusive, one-night-only photography exhibit entitled Religion in America. The stunning exhibit allowed viewers to experience the diverse religious landscape of America through intimate photographs depicting how different faiths worship in modern American society. The rituals of various faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Native Americans, were depicted in the 30+ photos of the event.

Becket’s annual gala is a black-tie event held at the Pierre Hotel in New York and is attended by the most distinguished religious leaders and religious liberty advocates throughout the world. This year’s Canterbury Medal Gala chair was Sean Fieler, Chairman of both the American Principles Project and Chiaroscuro Foundation and President of Equinox Partners, LP. Notable guests included: Mother Loraine, Mother Provincial of Little Sisters of the Poor, Captain Simratpal Singh, Sikh U.S. Army Captain, Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Dr. Ossama Bahloul, Imam and recognized scholar in the Foundations of Islam, and Robert Soto, Lipan Apache leader.

The Canterbury Medal recognizes courage in the defense of religious liberty and is given to a leading figure who champions a robust role for religion in society. Past medalists include the late Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, Cuban poet and former political prisoner Armando Valladares, Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., New York Times bestselling author and radio host Eric Metaxas, Learned Hand Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

Additional Information:

• Press Images (photo credit: Becket)
• Leonard Leo Tribute Video
• Leonard Leo’s speech transcript and video
• The 2017 Canterbury Medal Gala (website)

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – For the second time in three years the longstanding tradition of local legislative prayer could be sent back to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Pagan activist sued to stop county commissioners in Jackson County, Michigan from opening their meetings with voluntary prayer, arguing that it establishes religion even though the Supreme Court already unanimously protected legislative prayer in 2014. Becket, along with leading religious liberty scholar Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, filed a friend-of-the-court brief today explaining that local legislative prayer does not violate the Constitution.

A Pagan activist, Peter Bormuth has sued more than six times in the past few years against various governmental bodies and nonprofits, including suing a community college because it did not give him special treatment as a “druidic bard” at poetry readings, and suing a local nonprofit nature center after he sent an email threatening staff because he thought they shouldn’t use a golf cart. His latest lawsuit, Bormuth v. Jackson County, tries to force individual county commissioners to stop praying.

“Just three years ago the Supreme Court unanimously supported legislative prayer,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, and lead attorney in this case. “There’s nothing unconstitutional about opening a meeting in prayer. And some people would say that government needs all the help it can get.”

The case, which will be heard at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, could come into conflict with Lund v. Rowan County, another legislative prayer case currently at the Fourth Circuit. If the two courts rule differently, another Supreme Court case is very likely, even though the Court unanimously supported legislative prayer in Town of Greece v. Galloway just three years ago.

In this case, Bormuth, who represents himself, lost in federal district court, but won in a 2-1 decision at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The full Sixth Circuit then spontaneously scheduled the case for argument before the entire 14-judge court.

“Sometimes the squeaky wheel shouldn’t get the grease,” added Blomberg. “Disagreements about religion cannot be used as an excuse to banish religious activity entirely from public life. If courts would simply reconnect the First Amendment with its historical roots, there wouldn’t be so many divisive church-state lawsuits.”

The full 14-judge Sixth Circuit will hear the case on June 14 in Cincinnati.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

Additional Information:                                                           

• Amicus Brief (May 3, 2017)
• Case page (all legal docs, press releases, background, pictures)

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Leonard Leo will be honored next week at Becket’s Canterbury Medal Gala in recognition of his efforts behind Judge Neil Gorsuch’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation and his international religious freedom work with U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Becket’s highest honor, the Canterbury Medal recognizes an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment in the defense of religious liberty in America and around the world (watch video here).

“Leonard is driven by a profound belief that freedom of religion, conscience and belief is a bedrock right. That all the other precious liberties that we value and cherish to some degree flow from a protection of this very basic right. This belief animates everything he does,” said Katrina Lantos Swett, President of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice, and former Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In 2007, Leo was appointed by President George W. Bush to the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). He served as chairman for three years, traveling to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan and Vietnam to assess country conditions on religious freedom. Leo is the executive vice president of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. While on leave from the Federalist Society in 2005, 2006, and 2017, Leo organized efforts in support of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch. He has been a U.S. Delegate to the UN Council and UN Commission on Human Rights as well as the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe and World Health Assembly of the WHO.

“Leonard Leo has accomplished valuable work in our courts and around the globe that continues to strengthen the landscape of religious liberty. His extraordinary dedication to freedom and the law has rightfully earned him this year’s Canterbury Medal,” said Bill Mumma, president of Becket.

Leo is active in many Catholic charitable organizations, serving as a founding board member of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and sits on the Board of Directors at the Catholic Information Center, and the Board of Trustees at the Catholic University of America. He is a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The Canterbury Medal draws its name from one of history’s most dramatic religious liberty stand-offs, between Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket, the law firm’s namesake, and King Henry II of England. Becket’s annual Canterbury Gala is a black-tie event held at the Pierre Hotel in New York and is attended by the world’s most distinguished faith leaders and defenders of religious freedom. Past medalists include the late Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, Cuban poet and former political prisoner Armando Valladares, Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., New York Times bestselling author and radio host Eric Metaxas, Learned Hand Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish

Additional Information:

• Video: About Leonard Leo
• The 2017 Canterbury Medal Gala (Media, Tickets & Sponsorship Information)

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – McDermott Will & Emery will receive Becket’s 2017 Legal Service Award for outstanding contributions to religious liberty. Since 2009, McDermott has donated thousands of hours and more than a million dollars in attorneys’ fees advocating with the Sikh Coalition to end religious discrimination against Sikh Americans who wish to serve in the U.S. military. McDermott will be presented with the award at Becket’s annual Canterbury Medal Gala on May 4 in New York City.

Despite a storied history of valiant military service, including in the United States from at least World War I through the Vietnam War, observant Sikhs have been almost entirely excluded from the U.S. military for the last thirty-five years due to tightened grooming regulations issued in 1981 that prohibited them from maintaining their religiously mandated turbans, unshorn hair, and beards (watch video). In 2015, McDermott partnered with Becket and the Sikh Coalition to file two lawsuits on behalf of four Sikh soldiers for the right to serve with their articles of faith intact.

“McDermott is a leader among law firms in defending civil rights,” said Montserrat Alvarado, executive director of Becket. “Its work to end religious discrimination in the military has been indispensable not only for Sikh Americans, but for all soldiers whose faith sustains them in their service to our country.”

The two lawsuits capped more than six years of tireless effort by McDermott laying the groundwork to show that allowing Sikhs to serve without relinquishing their articles of faith would enhance, not hamper, the Army’s mission. Through McDermott’s initial efforts with the Sikh Coalition, led by partner Amandeep Sidhu, the Army granted three observant Sikhs individual religious accommodations to serve in the Army. The lawsuits sought the same right for all Sikhs and culminated in new regulations issued in January 2017, presumptively allowing Sikhs to serve without having to forfeit their faith.

“We are honored by this award and what it symbolizes for the Sikh community at large,” said Guy Collier, a partner at McDermott, Will & Emery, who spearheaded the firm’s work on behalf of Sikh Americans. “Our partnership with Becket and the Sikh Coalition symbolizes the importance of religious freedom for all and the good that can be accomplished through attorneys’ pro bono services.”

Prior recipients of Becket’s Legal Service Award include Proskauer Rose, Locke Lord LLP, and Paul Clement, now at Kirkland & Ellis. McDermott will be honored at Becket’s Canterbury Medal Gala alongside this year’s Canterbury Medal Award recipient, Leonard Leo, an internationally recognized champion of religious liberty (watch video here).

For more information please contact Melinda Skea at mskea@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100 percent win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court heard argument this morning in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, involving a Lutheran preschool, which was blocked from participating in a Missouri program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds safer for kids. The case will determine whether the government can blacklist religious organizations from participating in public safety programs simply because they are religious. This is the first religious liberty case heard by newly confirmed Justice Gorsuch.

The state of Missouri created a program to protect schoolchildren from injury by helping nonprofit organizations resurface their dilapidated playgrounds. The program would replace old, hard gravel playground surfaces with new, safer and softer recycled shredded tire material. Trinity Lutheran preschool met all the state’s criteria for a new playground surface. Yet the school was rejected from the program because, according to the state, letting churches participate in the program violated an old, discriminatory state law designed to block funding to Catholic schools. Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief, argued it is discriminatory to block religious groups from generally available public safety programs.

“What the state is saying here is that it wants kids to play safe on playgrounds, just not church-owned playgrounds,” says Hannah Smith, senior counsel at Becket. “But the government can’t deny safety benefits to kids at a Lutheran preschool simply because their school is religious—that’s not good for kids and it’s not good law.”

Trinity Lutheran’s playground, currently covered with a mix of gravel and grass, is used not only by its own schoolchildren but by children from the surrounding community. Missouri ranked Trinity Lutheran’s application fifth out of 44 applications based on numerous secular criteria, including overall quality of the project, the benefit to the surrounding community, and the school’s recycling education programs. But, citing Missouri’s discriminatory Blaine Amendment, the state denied Trinity Lutheran’s application solely because the preschool is run by a church.

Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was enacted in the late 1800s during a time of anti-religious bigotry and was originally designed to block funding to Catholic schools. Since then, Blaine Amendments like Missouri’s, have been used to discriminate against people of all faiths including a Florida prisoner ministry, a Catholic orphanage, and several religious schools, preventing them from participating in public benefit programs. Trinity Lutheran sued the state of Missouri in 2013 for this blatant discrimination.

“All of the children who play on Trinity Lutheran’s playground—its own students and the neighborhood kids—are just as important as any others,” says Smith. “They deserve the same protections that Missouri is making available to others around the state.”

Becket, along with Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief defending Trinity Lutheran’s right to participate in the state’s program on equal footing with all other applicants.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Kristina Arriaga, senior advisor to Becket’s board and member of U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, will be honored tonight at the Newseum’s 2017 Free Expression Awards. Arriaga was chosen for the Religious Freedom Award for her lifelong work protecting the free expression of all religious traditions in the United States and around the world.  The Newseum presents the awards annually to those who exhibit passion for and dedication to free expression.

“The only way to protect our right to live according to our deeply held convictions is if we all become a little less concerned with being offended and a lot more concerned with challenging ourselves to have a robust debate of ideas,” said Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, recipient of the 2017 Newseum Institute Free Expression award. “It is our birthright to have religious freedom but it is also our duty to protect that right for everyone–even for those with whom we disagree.”

Arriaga’s career began in D.C. working for U.S. Ambassador José Sorzano at the Cuban American National Foundation. She went on to become an advisor to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission where she worked on raising awareness of the plight of Cuban political prisoners with former political prisoner, Ambassador Armando Valladares.

Arriaga served as the executive director of Becket from 2010 to 2017, where she led a team of lawyers and communications professionals to victory in groundbreaking Supreme Court religious liberty cases including the recent case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns who take care of the elderly dying poor, Holt v. Hobbs, a case about the rights of prisoners, Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, a case involving separation of Church and State, and Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, a case regarding the right to run a family business. Arriaga was recently appointed to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

“No one is more deserving of this award than Kristina. She has successfully fought for the religious freedom of individuals around the world,” said Bill Mumma, president of Becket. “Under her leadership, Becket has protected the rights of diverse individuals of faith to practice according to their conscience. As a current commissioner of USCIRF, her efforts are invaluable to the cause of religious liberty.”

The Award ceremony will take place tonight at the Newseum. For more information, visit www.newseum.org/freeexpressionawards.com.

For more information please contact Melinda Skea at mskea@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100 percent win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Becket will unveil an exclusive photo exhibit, Religion in America, as part of its 2017 Canterbury Medal Gala next month. The one-night-only exhibit will take place May 4 and will give an intimate look at how diverse people of faith worship in modern American society. From daily routines to sacred ceremonies and celebratory milestones, the exhibit recognizes that expressions of faith throughout America are diverse and inextricably woven into our lives–and cannot be confined to the four walls of a temple or church. The photographs include Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, and more.

For people of faith, rituals are an essential element of religious expression. From the daily routines of prayer, meditation, scripture study, and song, to celebrations of life’s most significant moments—birth, marriage, coming-of-age, and death—rituals express our deepest beliefs about transcendent truth. These rituals, both big and small, reflect the deeply rooted human desire for something higher.

“All human beings are born with a thirst for transcendent truth and a desire to express the truth as they understand it. From the prayers they utter, to the garments they wear, to the sacred ceremonies they observe – religious rituals reflect our longing for God,” said Melinda Skea, curator of the exhibit and communications director at Becket. “Although each faith is different, they all tell a story of longing for God, and that is the story told though this exhibit.”

Becket’s annual Canterbury Medal Gala honors an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment in the defense of religious liberty in America and around the world. This year’s medalist is Leonard Leo, an internationally recognized champion of religious liberty (watch video here).

“I have tried to dedicate my life’s work to protecting the rights of each individual to express their faith freely,” said Leonard Leo, the 2017 Canterbury Medalist. “It is vital we stand together to protect religious freedom in order to preserve the dignity and worth of every human being.”

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

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

Additional Information:

• Video: 2017 Medalist Announcement
• Tickets & Sponsorship Information

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Becket, the leading religious liberty law firm, launched its new website becketlaw.org, featuring a comprehensive database for every case, issue and resource on religious liberty, displayed with bold images and cutting-edge design. The launch coincides with its new brand: Becket – Religious Liberty for All, to reintroduce Becket’s timeless mission to defend religious liberty for all faiths and in all areas – from individual rights to the public square – with a sleek, media-savvy look.

The interactive site can be viewed from all platforms, with a streamlined design that makes for straightforward and engaging access. New features include:

• A new Track This Case feature allows you to stay up-to-date on latest case developments.
• A comprehensive legal library spanning virtually every religious liberty case categorized by area of practice, such as free speech, education, the public square and more.
• Becket’s top Supreme Court victories and other precedent-setting cases, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, Holt v. Hobbs, Hobby Lobby and Hosanna Tabor, called by the Wall Street Journal “among the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”
• Hundreds of case pages that delve into the stories of Becket’s clients of diverse faiths, such as Pastor Robert Soto of the Lipan Apache Tribe, a faithful Sikh Army Captain, two Muslim police officers, and a Santeria priest.
• A wealth of primary legal sources and press releases for Becket cases.
• Revamped resource databases such as HHS Information Central and RFRA Central, which each provide in-depth information and infographics regarding all lawsuits against the Health & Human Services mandate and all cases brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“As the go-to source for religious liberty, Becket is proud to provide the same wealth of information but in a more visually dynamic way, creating a more intuitive experience,” said Melinda Skea, communications director of Becket. “Our legal work has always been cutting edge, and now our website reflects the modern urgency and importance of our mission to defend religious liberty for all.’”

In February Becket unveiled a bold, modern logo with refreshed colors and updated its name to a shorthand and tagline: Becket – Religious Liberty for All. The new brand serves to reintroduce its timeless mission to protect religious freedom in a modern, media-savvy society.

Founded in 1994 by Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, Becket is the premier non-profit, public-interest religious liberty law firm in the U.S. and the only firm that protects the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket is supported by charitable donations and has a 100 percent win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.

For more information please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100 percent win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A non-profit pregnancy center helping low-income women is being targeted by a discriminatory city ordinance. The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, which provides help to women facing unplanned pregnancies, is being forced to display government abortion messaging on the walls of their church-owned property. Fighting to be treated on equal terms with other pregnancy counselors in the area, the Center today asked the court for protection.

In 2009, the city of Baltimore targeted the Center, which operates out of Catholic Church-owned property, demanding they display a sign stating that they “do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services,” even though they already inform women in welcome papers and a lobby sign that they do not offer abortions. Yet the city of Baltimore did not require abortion clinics to display the services they do not offer, such as adoption or prenatal care. This double standard by the city threatens the mission of the Center and their goal to create a comforting and supportive environment for women at a vulnerable time in their lives.

“We spend our time offering love and support to women in need,” said Carol Clews, Executive Director of the  Center for Pregnancy Concerns. “That’s help the City should be celebrating, not silencing. I hope that the City will let us get back to serving the women and children of Baltimore.”

The Center helps nearly 10,000 women a year facing unplanned pregnancies. Volunteers help over 1,200 women for free with basic services like pregnancy tests, baby and maternity clothes, parenting classes, and job placement. The Center also counsels over 8,000 local women per year through its 24-hour helpline.

“The Constitution protects the rights of the Center’s small staff and volunteers to practice and express their faith, which includes not only what they say, but also how they say it,” said David Kinkopf, partner at Gallagher Evelius & Jones, which represents the Center.

“The City can say whatever it wants to about abortion.  But it can’t use the walls of a church to say it,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm also representing the Center.

The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns is also represented by Peter Basile from Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew, P.A.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  A group of religious hospitals today asked the Supreme Court for protection from lawyers claiming that the hospitals are not part of a church. In Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton a group of class-action lawyers argue that several religious hospital networks shouldn’t be allowed to provide their employees with church pension plans rather than for-profit pension plans similar to those used by corporations like Exxon or Walmart. If Advocate and hundreds of other religious hospitals around the country were forced to follow for-profit rules, money currently used to serve the poor and inner city communities would be lost and many would be forced to shut down.

Churches were the first organizations in the U.S. to provide pension plans to their employees. Today these faith-driven hospitals provide generous benefits to their employees, including pensions through the hospitals’ comprehensive church pension plans. Yet their beliefs and the charitable work they do are being threatened by a group of class-action lawyers who are targeting religious hospitals claiming that hospital ministries are not religious enough to have a tax-exempt church pension plan under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). However, the IRS has viewed these ministries as part of a larger church for more than 30 years.

“If you find yourself arguing that the Franciscan Sisters of the Poor are not part of the Catholic Church you are doing it wrong,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at the religious liberty law firm Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the hospitals. “Lawyers have no place saying that nuns are not part of the church—not to mention soup kitchens, homeless shelters, seminaries, nursing homes, and orphanages. These nonprofits are a core part of the church, not an afterthought.”

Over the past four years, class-action lawyers have brought nearly 100 lawsuits against various Catholic and Protestant hospitals around the country, arguing that these nonprofit hospitals had broken the law by participating in special church pension plans instead of using lower-benefit pension plans designed for large for-profit corporations like Exxon and Walmart. If the class-action lawyers prevail, they will receive millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees. In essence, these lawyers argued that serving others is not part of being a “church” and therefore religious hospitals, and other religious ministries, cannot use church pension plans. But a core part of what churches do includes going into the community to feed the hungry, serve the homeless, distribute refugee relief, and more. This is why, for decades, Congress and the IRS have allowed religious non-profits to provide church pension plans for their employees instead of for-profit pension plans.

“For most religious Americans, faith is not some secretive activity conducted behind closed doors,” said Rassbach. “Faith for them means being out in the community serving with and for others, particularly the least among us. The Supreme Court should recognize that fact.”

The Supreme Court is anticipated to decide the case by the end of June.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

 ###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Leonard Leo, an internationally recognized champion of religious liberty, is the 2017 Canterbury Medalist, Becket’s highest honor. Becket’s annual Canterbury Medal honors an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment in the defense of religious liberty in America and around the world (watch video here).

“Leonard Leo has been a steadfast and vigilant champion of religious freedom, at home and abroad,” said Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law.

In 2007, Leo was appointed by President George W. Bush to the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). He served as chairman for three years, traveling to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan and Vietnam to assess country conditions on religious freedom. Leo is the executive vice president of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. He is currently on leave to support Neil Gorsuch’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation. While on leave from the Federalist Society in 2005 and 2006, Leo organized efforts in support of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito. He has been a U.S. Delegate to the UN Council and UN Commission on Human Rights as well as the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe and World Health Assembly of the WHO.

“Leonard Leo is a lionhearted defender of law and freedom. His dedication to religious liberty is profoundly important to our country and for religious believers worldwide,” said Bill Mumma, president of Becket.

Leo is active in many Catholic charitable organizations, serving as a founding board member of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and sits on the Board of Directors at the Catholic Information Center, and the Board of Trustees at The Catholic University of America. He is a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The Canterbury Medal draws its name from one of history’s most dramatic religious liberty stand-offs, between Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket, the law firm’s namesake, and King Henry II of England. The annual Canterbury Gala to honor the award recipient is a black-tie event held 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, Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., New York Times bestselling author and radio host Eric Metaxas, Learned Hand Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Bishop Ed Peecher, a South Side, Chicago-based pastor asked the court yesterday to end a discriminatory lawsuit aimed at barring his ability to live in and serve his community.  A swift court ruling in this case, Gaylor v. Lew, would preserve the long-standing federal tax provision – called the parsonage allowance – protecting religious leaders who receive housing allowances just like other secular employees.

Atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the government in 2014 to prevent churches from receiving the same tax treatment on their employee housing allowances that many other non-profit organizations and businesses do. FFRF argues that unless the IRS bars faith organizations from this same tax treatment, it is violating the Constitution. Yet for much of the past century, pastors, rabbis, imams and other faith leaders – whose jobs require them to live close to their church or in an underserved community – have been eligible for the parsonage allowance provided by their church.  This is the same principle that allows businesses to reimburse travel and overseas housing costs tax-free and provides housing to teachers and police who live in the communities they serve.

The founder of a predominantly African-American congregation, Bishop Peecher devotes his life to serving his community to decrease gang violence, mentor at-risk youth, and feed and clothe the homeless in Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods. Becket attorneys defended Bishop Peecher in the case arguing that imposing additional taxes on Bishop Peecher’s housing allowance would interfere with the church’s ability to carry out its religious mission by diverting scarce resources away from vital community ministries. And taxing Bishop Peecher’s housing allowance could force him to move further away from his congregation or take up a second job, robbing the community that needs him.  Other religious leaders could be forced to leave their church altogether, or the church itself may be forced to close. The court recently stated, “No other group of people has the potential to be more significantly affected by this case than ministers such as [Bishop Peecher].”

“The Establishment Clause protects the separation of church and state. Ironically, if Freedom From Religion Foundation gets its way, government would be forced into religion,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the non-profit religious liberty law firm Becket. “If the court were to take away the parsonage allowance, faith leaders around the country would be affected. Hardest hit would be small churches like Bishop Peecher’s, which would be forced to cut vital ministries and, in some cases, shut down. That’s not what the Constitution requires.”

Becket filed a motion to intervene in December on behalf of Bishop Edward Peecher of Chicago Embassy Church, Father Patrick Malone of Holy Cross Anglican Church, and the Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and in January the motion was granted.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

New York, N.Y. – St. Anthony School and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York went to a Manhattan court today to defend their right to choose a school principal without government interference, against a lawyer who says protecting Catholic schools may aid “potential jihadists.”

The lawyer suing St. Anthony’s claims that the school is not allowed to hire the principal who would best promote the Church’s teachings. Yet religious schools already won this fight five years ago in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor, when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously protected a Lutheran school’s right to choose teachers free from government meddling.  Becket won that case, and the precedent it set applies even more clearly here since St. Anthony’s hires its principal to be a religious leader who directs the religious education of the entire school and regularly leads students in prayer.

“It is important that church-sponsored schools like St. Anthony’s be able to ensure that each student receives the best education in math, science, art as well as the Catholic faith,” said Mercedes Lopez Blanco of the Archdiocese of New York. “To do that, we must have the freedom to choose leaders – without government interference – who are dedicated to our mission.”

As principal of St. Anthony’s, Joanne Fratello was a religious leader responsible for leading students in daily prayer, inviting and accompanying them to Mass, ensuring their curriculum and teachers expressed Catholic faith, and hosting them at religious ceremonies. When the school believed she was no longer effective at advancing the school’s Catholic values, St. Anthony’s simply did not renew her contract.

The attorney suing the school on behalf of Ms. Fratello has publicly accused the Catholic Church of being “dangerous to society,” hypothesized about Russian Orthodox churches “indoctrinating children with Stalinist communism,” and attacked the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision as an aid to “potential jihadists.”

“Talk about shameless. This blatantly anti-Catholic lawsuit is nothing but a scheme to take money away from needy New York schoolkids and put it in an attorney’s pockets,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm, who argued the case for St. Anthony’s and the Archdiocese. “Not only are these attacks uncalled-for, they are ignorant. The Supreme Court has already said that the Church, not the State, should pick religious leaders.”

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to announce its decision in the case by summer.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is embracing “out with the old and in with the new” by welcoming 2017 with a new logo and a shortened name: Becket.

The new logo combines the organization’s shortened name with a tag line summarizing its mission: Becket – Religious Liberty for All.  The streamlined logo and bold design signal Becket’s timeless mission in a modern, media-savvy society.

“Time and logo wait for no man, and we needed our look to fully integrate into the digital age,” said Melinda Skea, communications director of non-profit, religious liberty law firm Becket. “Our legal work has always been cutting edge, and now our brand reflects the modern urgency and importance of our mission. ‘Religious liberty for all’ is a promise to protect our most vital constitutional freedom – wherever, whenever, and for whomever it is threatened.”

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. It has a 100 percent win-rate before the United States Supreme Court, including cases like the Little Sisters of the Poor , Holt v. Hobbs, Hobby Lobby and Hosanna Tabor– which the Wall Street Journal labeled one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Founded in 1994 by Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, Becket has become the premier nonprofit, public interest religious liberty law firm in the U.S. It represents all clients pro bono and is the only firm that protects the free expression of all religious traditions. It is named after Thomas à Becket (1118-70 AD), who stood resolutely at the intersection of church and state. He was a friend of King Henry II and Chancellor of England; but as Archbishop of Canterbury, he steadfastly refused to allow the King 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.

The new logo and name coincide with a change of Becket’s URL: www.becketlaw.org. Learn more about Becket’s work and make a charitable donation online.

For more information, contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Thanks to a new court order, Bishop Ed Peecher, a South Side, Chicago-based pastor, along with other religious leaders and churches will join the fight against the atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is suing the government to prevent churches from providing employee housing benefits available to other non-profit organizations and businesses. The court stated, “No other group of people has the potential to be more significantly affected by this case than ministers such as the proposed intervenors and those they represent.”

The founder of a predominantly African American congregation, Bishop Peecher devotes his life to serving his community in order to decrease gang violence, mentor at-risk youth, and feed and clothe the homeless in Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods. This work is possible because the church supports Bishop Peecher through a small housing allowance, called a parsonage allowance, permitting him to focus on and live just minutes from his congregation and the surrounding communities in need.

“My life’s mission is to care for my flock, which includes our congregation, the community, and all those in need,” said Bishop Ed Peecher of the Chicago Embassy Church. “I could not do this without the support of my congregation through the parsonage allowance.”

For much of the past century, pastors, rabbis, imams and other faith leaders – whose job requires them to live close to their church or in an underserved community – have been eligible for the parsonage allowance, a tax-exempt housing allowance provided by their church, under the same principle that allows businesses to reimburse travel and overseas housing costs tax-free, and provides housing to teachers and police who live in the communities they serve. The practice is a benefit for non-profit and business employers alike to ensure they can keep their employees nearby.

But the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) argues that unless the IRS explicitly bars faith organizations from accessing this benefit, it will be in violation of the Establishment Clause. Without his housing allowance, Bishop Peecher may be forced to move further away from his congregation or even take up a second job, robbing the community that needs him of his full-time pastoral care.

“FFRF’s attempt to single out ministers for negative treatment is discrimination plain and simple,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the non-profit religious liberty law firm Becket. “The court decided that these diverse ministers and churches must have a voice in this lawsuit to stand up for their right to receive housing allowances like so many other secular non-profits and businesses do.”

Becket filed a motion to intervene in December on behalf of Bishop Edward Peecher of Chicago Embassy Church, Father Patrick Malone of Holy Cross Anglican Church, and the Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Late Friday that motion was granted. In 2014, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a diverse group of Southern Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, and Muslim organizations that have been able to thrive and effectively serve their communities because of the parsonage allowance.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda  Skea  at  media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more  here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago a Texas court protected the rights of families and their doctors to make medical decisions for their child free from government bureaucrats’ interference.

The court ruling comes after eight states, an association of almost 18,000 doctors, and a Catholic hospital system challenged a federal regulation that requires doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor believes the treatment could harm the child. Doctors who followed their Hippocratic Oath to act in the best interest of their patient would have faced severe consequences, including losing their job.

“This is a common-sense ruling: The government has no business forcing private doctors to perform procedures that the government itself recognizes can be harmful, particularly to children, and that the government exempts its own doctors from performing,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which filed a lawsuit against the new federal regulation. “Today’s ruling ensures that doctors’ best medical judgment will not be replaced with political agendas and bureaucratic interference.”

The new regulation applied to over 900,000 doctors—nearly every doctor in the U.S.—and would have cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion. The government itself does not require its own military doctors to perform these procedures. It also does not require blanket coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid—even in adults—because HHS’s experts admitted research is “‘inconclusive’ on whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes,” with some studies demonstrating that these procedures were actually harmful. But a doctor citing the same evidence and using their best medical judgment would have faced potential lawsuits or job loss.

A recent website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on, demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy lives without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens.

“This court ruling is an across-the-board victory that will ensure that deeply personal medical decisions, such as gender transition procedures, remain between families and their doctor,” said Windham.

Becket defended Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations from the new government regulation. The States of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Mississippi joined Becket’s legal challenge. More information can be found at www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago, a Texas court heard the case of eight states, an association of almost 18,000 doctors, and a hospital system challenging a federal regulation that requires doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor’s best medical judgment is that treatment could harm the child. A court ruling on this regulation can be expected before January 1, when significant aspects of this law will take effect.

“We made the argument that it’s incredibly improper for the government to invade the important doctor-patient relationship, and it shouldn’t be mandating doctors to perform procedures against their best medical judgement,” said  Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at Becket, which filed a lawsuit against the new federal regulation on behalf of the doctors and hospital system. “Personal medical decisions about the welfare of a child should be free from political agendas and interference by bureaucrats.”

The new regulation applies to over 900,000 doctors—nearly every doctor in the U.S.—and will cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion. The government itself does not require its own military doctors to perform these procedures. It also does not require coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid—even in adults—because HHS’s experts “admit clinical literature is ‘inconclusive’ on whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria,” with some studies demonstrating that these procedures were actually harmful. Yet any doctor relying on the same research or their own medical judgment would be in violation of the new regulation and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

A recent website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on, demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy lives without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens.

“We’re optimistic that the court will remind the government it simply has no authority to pass this type of law and that it has no business telling licensed medical professionals what procedures are in the best interests of their patients, let alone a child,” said Rienzi.

Becket is defending Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations from the new government regulation. The states of Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Nebraska, Texas, and Wisconsin joined Becket’s legal challenge. More information can be found at www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The State of North Dakota along with several hospitals, a university, and health clinics, filed a lawsuit today challenging a new federal regulation. The new regulation forces doctors to ignore science and their medical judgment and perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor believes the treatment could harm the child.

The government does not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover these same procedures, because Health & Human Services’ (HHS) own medical experts found the risks were often too high and benefits too unclear. Yet any private doctor who made the same decision about the risks would be in violation of the new mandate and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

“No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure that he or she believes will harm a child,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel of Becket Law. “Decisions on a child’s medical treatment should be between families and their doctors, not dictated by politicians and government bureaucrats.”

A new  website  provides leading research on this issue, including studies the government itself relies on finding that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and will not need surgery or lifelong hormone regimens.  Studies also show that there are numerous negative effects when children undergo hormone regimens, such as increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer.

This regulation will cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion and affect up to 900,000 doctors — virtually every doctor in the U.S., many of whom have chosen the medical profession because they are inspired by their faith to serve those in need. But this regulation violates doctors’ ability to exercise both their best medical judgment and their religiously-inspired desire to care for society’s most vulnerable.

“HHS’ regulation is an unparalleled government overreach. This law not only forces doctors to violate the Hippocratic oath, but also removes their professional right to be the final decision-makers on the best medical care for their patients,” said  Windham.

Becket Law filed a lawsuit today in North Dakota federal district court defending the state of North Dakota, the Sisters of Mercy, the University of Mary, and SMP Health System, a non-profit hospital system founded by nuns in North Dakota. Last month, Becket, joined by eight other state governments, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, defending them from the new government regulation. More information can be found at  www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda  Skea  at  media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more  here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight states, a group representing thousands of doctors, and a Catholic hospital system urged a federal court on Friday to stop the new transgender mandate, an unprecedented federal regulation that requires doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor believes the treatment could harm the child.

The motion argued that the new mandate “has created massive new liability for thousands of doctors unless they cast aside their convictions and perform procedures that can be deeply harmful to their patients.” Last week, over 45 members of Congress wrote a letter criticizing HHS’ interference with doctor-patient relationships and failure to protect doctors’ medical judgment.

“It is absurd for the government to think it can better decide what is best for a child over parents or a medically trained professional,” said  Lori Windham, senior counsel of Becket, which filed a lawsuit against the new federal regulation. “Doctors should be free to use their best medical judgment and do what is in the best interest of a child, free from political agendas and interference by bureaucrats.”

A new website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on, demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy lives without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens.

The new regulation applies to over 900,000 doctors—nearly every doctor in the U.S.—and will cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion. The government itself does not require coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid—even in adults—because HHS’s experts “admit clinical literature is ‘inconclusive’ on whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria,” with some studies demonstrating that these procedures were actually harmful. But any doctor citing the same evidence and his or her judgment in an individual case would be in violation of the new regulation and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

“The government itself admits that these procedures are harmful and exempts its own Medicare and Medicaid plans from having to provide them, yet is forcing private doctors to ignore their medical judgment and potentially harm children,” said Windham.

Becket is defending Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations from the new government regulation. The States of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Mississippi joined Becket’s legal challenge. More information can be found at www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Over 45 concerned Congressional representatives, led by Congressman Joe Pitts, wrote a letter to Health & Human Services (HHS) demanding clarification on its recent transgender mandate and how it will interfere in doctor-patient relationships and harm children, especially gay and lesbian children.

The letter voices concern that the new HHS transgender mandate forces doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor believes they could be harmful to the patient, and disregards published medical science and best medical judgment. Members of Congress also highlight the irony of HHS’s refusal to protect decisions that should be left between a family and their doctor considering the government’s own military health plan explicitly protects a doctor’s medical judgement regarding gender transition procedures for service men and women.

“Sensitive, difficult medical decisions should be between a family and their doctor, not government bureaucrats,” said  Lori Windham, senior counsel of Becket, which filed a lawsuit against the new federal regulation. “Doctors should be free to use their best medical judgment, informed by science and led by their Hippocratic Oath, to do what is in the best interest of a child.”

A new website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on, demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy leaves without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens. Studies also show that there are numerous negative effects when children undergo hormone regimens, such as increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer.

The new regulation applies to 900,000 doctors—virtually every doctor in the U.S. and will cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion. The government itself does not require coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid—even in adults—because HHS’s experts “admit clinical literature is ‘inconclusive’ on whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria,” with some studies demonstrating that these procedures resulted in patients being harmed. But any doctor citing the same evidence and his or her judgment in an individual case would be in violation of the new regulation and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

“The government continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth. The military rightly gives doctors freedom to care for patients according to their medical judgment because it acknowledges the risks of transgender medical procedures, particularly for children; yet HHS tramples on doctors’ medical judgment, even for potentially harmful procedures for children,” said Windham.

Becket is currently defending Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations from the new government regulation. The States of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas also joined Becket’s legal challenge. More information can be found at www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

Washington, D.C. – Doctors, hospitals and five states will file a lawsuit today against a new federal regulation that would force doctors to ignore science and their medical judgment and perform gender transition procedures on children. The government does not even require Medicare and Medicaid to cover these same gender transition procedures because the Health & Human Services’ (HHS) medical experts found the risks were often too high and benefits too unclear. But any doctor citing the same evidence and their judgment in an individual case would be in violation of the new mandate and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

“No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure that he or she believes will harm a child,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel of Becket. “Decisions on a child’s medical treatment should be between families and their doctors, not dictated by politicians and government bureaucrats.”

A new website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and will not need surgery or lifelong hormone regimens. Studies also show that there are numerous negative effects when children undergo hormone regimens, such as increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer.

The government itself does not require coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid — even in adults — because it has acknowledged that such procedures can be harmful. This rule would be the first time a law forces doctors to break their Hippocratic Oath and is also unique in placing mental health professionals as the final decision-makers on what medical care doctors must provide for their patients.

The new regulation applies to 900,000 doctors — virtually every doctor in the U.S., many of whom have chosen the medical profession because they are inspired by their faith to serve those in need and to heal others. They have taken an oath to put the needs of each patient first and do no harm. But this regulation violates doctors’ ability to exercise both their best medical judgment and their religiously-inspired desire to care for society’s most vulnerable. It will also cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion.

“This regulation is blatantly hypocritical: The government exempts coverage of gender transition procedures from Medicare or Medicaid because it admits that they may be harmful; but it then tries to force private doctors to perform the same procedures on young children,” said Windham.

Becket will file a lawsuit today in federal district court in Wichita Falls, Texas, on behalf of Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, defending them from the new government regulation. The States of Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wisconsin also joined Becket’s legal challenge. More information can be found at www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

President William Armstrong was a vigorous defender of religious liberty. As a United States Senator he sponsored crucial legislation protecting the rights of religious organizations. As the President of Colorado Christian University he was among the first to challenge government efforts to force employers to provide healthcare plans that violated their religious convictions. As a devout Christian, he was always bold in sharing his own beliefs, yet unequivocal in defending the beliefs of others.

“His courage was inspiring,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel at Becket, which represented Colorado Christian University in challenging the HHS healthcare mandate. “Where others hesitated, he enthusiastically joined the fight. He made the biggest challenges joyful!”

With President Armstrong’s passing, America has lost a truly great example of what religious freedom means in a pluralistic society:  we can fully live our faith while also defending the faith of others.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today Becket issued statements to correct a number of inaccuracies respecting the religious freedom work undertaken by one of its former attorneys, Joshua Hawley, specifically regarding two of its precedent-setting Supreme Court cases: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs.

The following statement can be attributed to Peter Dobelbower, General Counsel of Hobby Lobby:

“I was very grateful to have Josh as part of the legal team that represented us before the Supreme Court. He provided unique insight into the arguments that made our case so successful.”

The following statement can be attributed to the Kristina Arriaga, the executive director of Becket:

“It saddens us at Becket that the citizens of Missouri are being misguided regarding the work of Josh Hawley. Josh is an exceptional lawyer who tirelessly worked on precedent-setting cases that protect religious liberty. He is one of the reasons Associated Press dubbed us a ‘powerhouse law firm’ and Time Magazine called us ‘God’s ACLU.’ His devotion to the cause of freedom is virtually unparalleled.”

“Regarding the Holt case, which involved Becket’s successful defense of religious freedom principles applicable to all people of faith through representation of a Muslim inmate seeking to keep his beard for reasons of religious conscience, Becket again confirmed that Hawley did not play a role in this particular matter. As we have previously stated, Josh was not involved in the Holt case. He did not represent Mr. Holt or serve as his attorney. Statements to the contrary are false. Regrettably, Josh’s name was mistakenly included in a list of other Becket attorneys on one filing in the case. This clerical error was corrected in subsequent filings and can easily be verified online.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.