WASHINGTON – The Catholic bishops of Washington asked a federal court late yesterday to block a new state law that forces priests to choose between breaking the sacred seal of confession or facing jail time before it takes effect on July 27. The law at issue in Etienne v. Ferguson requires clergy to report abuse if shared within the sacred confines of the confessional. WilmerHale and co-counsel Becket and First Liberty Institute represent Archbishop Paul Etienne, Bishop Thomas Daly, and Bishop Joseph Tyson who filed an initial lawsuit in federal court last week.  

As part of its commitment to Safe Environment, the Catholic Church already requires priests to report abuse and neglect to law enforcement and other state authorities. The only exception would be if the information is learned during the sacrament of confession. The new law singles out this specific privilege for clergy but allows protections to remain in place for lawyers. 

For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church has upheld the belief that confession is holy and must stay private. This principle—known as the seal of confession or sacramental seal—requires absolute secrecy from priests about anything said while administering the sacrament. A priest has a sacred obligation to keep everything he hears during the sacrament of confession completely confidential. The seal is so vital to the Catholic faith that any priest who violates it faces automatic excommunication. Over the centuries, priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal. Penitents today need the same assurance.  

Washington’s new law, slated to take effect on July 27, imposes penalties of up to 364 days in jail, a $5,000 fine, and potential civil liability on priests who uphold the seal of confession and obey God’s command. Although the state claims the law is designed to protect minors, it still permits attorneys and others to maintain confidentiality when given identical information. 

The Catholic Church in Washington has spent years strengthening its approach to protecting minors and vulnerable adults through its Safe Environment programs, background checks, and reporting policies. Across the Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Spokane and Yakima, priests—and all Church personnel—are already required to report suspected abuse to law enforcement or child protection agencies. These policies cover diocesan parishes, schools, and other ministries. The Church supports mandatory reporting except in the narrow instance of the sacrament of confession. 

A hearing in the case is likely to occur in the summer of 2025.  

Quotes for media use:  

“Washington state has no business intruding into the confessional—particularly when they give a free pass to lawyers who have legally protected confidential relationships with clients,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “Punishing priests for following the Catholic Church’s millennia-old faith traditions isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.” 

“Confession is a sanctuary for the human soul and must be kept private not only because it’s a sacred duty of Catholic priests, but also to ensure the faithful are free to participate in this act of reconciliation with their God,” said Jean Hill, Executive Director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. “We are hopeful that the court will recognize the law not only punishes priests but sets a dangerous precedent that erodes trust in sacred practices for all faiths.” 

“We are committed to protecting the sacrament of confession and believe the purposes of Washington’s mandatory reporting law can be achieved without infringing on the First Amendment rights of clergy,” said Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219 or John Manning at [email protected] or 972-941-4453. 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 today that Wisconsin cannot discriminate against Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior because of its religiously motivated care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last year that Catholic Charities’ ministry to the poor and needy was not “typical” religious activity. This meant that Catholic Charities could not join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s unemployment compensation program but was stuck paying into the state’s less efficient and more costly plan (Watch this video to learn more). Represented by Becket, Catholic Charities asked the Justices in March to protect its freedom to join the Church program.  

In the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision today, Justice Sotomayor wrote that Wisconsin violated the Constitution by “impos[ing] a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices.” Today’s decision further recognized that “whether to express and inculcate religious doctrine through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines.” 

“At the heart of Catholic Charities’ ministry is Christ’s call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We’re grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.”

Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic Social Teaching and is embodied in the Church’s “corporal works of mercy”—which include feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.  

Under Wisconsin law, nonprofits that are operated primarily for a religious purpose are generally exempt from the state’s unemployment compensation program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, ruled that Catholic Charities was not exempt in part because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. The court said, however, that Catholic Charities could qualify for an exemption if it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served to Catholicism—even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor cannot be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s teachings. 

“Wisconsin shouldn’t have picked this fight in the first place,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.”  

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The California Supreme Court late yesterday refused to protect a cake artist’s right to design cakes that reflect her faith, putting the case on track to the U.S. Supreme Court. In California Department of Civil Rights v. Tastries, California opened an investigation into custom cake artist Cathy Miller after she explained to a same-sex couple that her faith did not allow her to personally design their wedding cake. For almost a decade, California has ridiculed Cathy for her religious beliefs about marriage and argued that Cathy’s actions harm “the dignity of all Californians.” Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Thomas More Society are working to protect Cathy’s ability to design and create custom pieces in peace. 

Cathy Miller is a faithful Christian and custom cake artist. For over a decade, Cathy has brought her unique touch to custom cakes and cookies at Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield. As a former teacher, Cathy’s process for designing wedding cakes is unique: she meets with each couple for over an hour, and spends time teaching them the religious and symbolic meaning behind the wedding cake they’re commissioning to celebrate their union.  

“As the United States Supreme Court has made clear twice already, creative professionals like Cathy Miller shouldn’t have to choose between following their faith and practicing their art,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “California should have dropped its campaign against Cathy years ago and let her design in peace. We plan to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court to defend Cathy’s right to make custom creations that are consistent with her faith.”  

Early on, Cathy realized that sometimes customers would ask her to create designs that contradict her faith, so she developed written design standards to ensure that all of Tastries’ custom creations reflect her religious beliefs. For example, Tastries will not design custom bakery items that depict gory or pornographic images, celebrate drug use, or demean others. Cathy will also not design wedding cakes that celebrate ideals that violate the Christian sacrament of marriage. But in 2017, the California Civil Rights Department sued Cathy after she told a same-sex couple that she could not personally design and create their wedding cake, and offered to put them in touch with another custom baker. In the days and weeks that followed, Tastries was flooded with angry social media posts, death threats, and harassing emails and phone calls. In February of this year, a California appeals court ruled against Cathy. Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP and the Thomas More Society appealed the decision in March.

“Cathy has always been clear that she was only trying to follow her faith and her conscience in standing up for what she believes in—and did so in a respectful, polite, and loving way,” said Charles LiMandri, Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP and Thomas More Society Special Counsel. “While it is disappointing the California Supreme Court has refused to correct the injustice Cathy has endured, we hope the U.S. Supreme Court will chart a different path and restore Cathy’s religious liberty.” 

Cathy is represented by Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP and the Thomas More Society.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The State of California agreed in federal court today to stop excluding Jewish schools from special education funding that helps children with disabilities. Orthodox Jewish parents have long sought to send their children with disabilities to Orthodox Jewish schools that would best serve their children’s needs. But California politicians banned certain special-education funding from being used at religious private schools—even though they made that funding available to families whose children attend countless non-religious private schools (even expensive, out-of-state boarding schools). In Loffman v. California Department of Education, a group of Jewish parents and schools sued to stop this unconstitutional religious discrimination and in October 2024 the Ninth Circuit federal court of appeals ruled in their favor. In today’s settlement, California and the Los Angeles Unified School District are agreeing to a court order that permanently forbids excluding Jewish children and schools. 

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

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

Statements for media use: 

Maury Litwack, Founder, EPIC Coalition: 

“After decades of denying Jewish children with disabilities the crucial support they deserve, California has finally thrown in the towel. This is a triumph for religious schools, the families they serve, and for common sense across the Golden State.” 

Daniel Mitzner, Director of Government Affairs, Teach Coalition: 

“For too long, California has discriminated against children with disabilities simply because of their faith. This settlement puts that injustice to an end and ensures that Orthodox Jewish families can access the same disability funding as everyone else.”  

Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket: 

“California spent decades treating Jewish kids like second-class citizens. Today’s settlement ensures that Jewish kids with disabilities can access the resources they need and deserve—just like everyone else.”   

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – His Eminence, Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, has been named Becket’s 2025 Canterbury Medalist for his lifelong commitment to the cause of religious liberty. The Canterbury Medal, religious liberty’s highest honor, recognizes an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment to defending religious freedom in America and around the globe. As a shepherd of the Church, a national Catholic leader, and former president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—where he also served as chairman of its Committee for Religious Liberty—Cardinal Dolan’s career has been marked by an unwavering defense of religious liberty for all. Becket will honor Cardinal Dolan with the 2025 Canterbury Medal at its annual gala in New York on Thursday, May 22. 

Cardinal Dolan has led the Archdiocese of New York since 2009 and is widely recognized as one of the most influential Catholic voices in America. He served as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from 2010 to 2013, served a term as chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, and has been an advocate for the rights of religious institutions and individuals alike. This month, Cardinal Dolan was chosen to join the newly established presidential commission on religious liberty, dedicated to protecting and advancing America’s core principle of religious freedom. Whether testifying before Congress, engaging with the press, or shepherding one of the largest Catholic populations in the country, Cardinal Dolan has staunchly defended the right of all people to live out their faith freely and publicly. 

“Religious freedom isn’t just about protecting what happens in church on Sundays—it’s about defending the right of every person to live their faith openly, every day of the week,” said His Eminence, Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan. “It’s a gift from God—not from government—and it must be protected for people of all faiths. I’m grateful to receive the Canterbury Medal as part of this vital mission.” 

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

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

“His Eminence has been a towering figure in the fight for religious liberty, not just for Catholics, but for people of all faiths,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “Cardinal Dolan’s leadership in the public square has shaped the national conscience on religious freedom and strengthened the resolve of those who defend it.” 

At every Canterbury Medal Gala, Becket also bestows an individual or group with the Legal Service Award, thanking them for their efforts to advance the cause of religious liberty for all. This year’s award will be given to Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, for its pro bono work with Becket and Clement Murphy PLLC to combat antisemitism on college campuses in Frankel v. Regents of the University of California.

WASHINGTON – A federal court today blocked the U.S. government from plowing ahead with plans to hand over the Western Apaches’ most sacred site at Oak Flat to a multinational mining giant for destruction. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, the federal government recently announced that as early as June 16, 2025, it would transfer Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a Chinese-owned mining company that plans to turn the site into a massive mining crater, ending Apache religious practices forever (Watch this short video to learn more). Apache Stronghold—a coalition of Western Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies—filed an emergency request to halt the transfer while the Supreme Court considers its case. A federal court granted that request today, with Judge Steven P. Logan concluding, “There is no close question in this matter. It is abundantly clear that the balance of equities ‘tips sharply’ in Plaintiff’s favor, and … they have presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court’s careful scrutiny.” 

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

“The federal government and Resolution Copper have put Oak Flat on death row—they are racing to destroy our spiritual lifeblood and erase our religious traditions forever,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We are grateful the judge stopped this land grab in its tracks so that the Supreme Court has time to protect Oak Flat from destruction.” 

Apache Stronghold filed this lawsuit in January 2021 seeking to halt the proposed mine at Oak Flat. The mine is opposed by 21 of 22 federally recognized tribal nations in Arizona, by the National Congress of American Indians, and by a diverse coalition of religious denominations, civil-rights organizations, and legal experts. Meanwhile, national polling indicates that 74% of Americans support protecting Oak Flat. The Ninth Circuit ruled 6-5 last year that the land transfer is not subject to federal laws protecting religious freedom. But five judges dissented, writing that the court “tragically err[ed]” by refusing to protect Oak Flat.   

“The feds have absolutely no reason to ram through the transfer of Oak Flat while our case is standing on the doorstep of the Supreme Court,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “This ruling ensures that Oak Flat remains protected as the legal process continues, giving the Supreme Court time to decide if cherished Apache rituals can continue for future generations.” 

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A coalition of Western Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies was in federal district court today to stop the U.S. government from handing over their sacred site at Oak Flat to a multinational mining giant for destruction. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, the federal government recently announced that as early as June 16, 2025, it will transfer Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a Chinese-owned mining company that plans to turn the site into a massive mining crater, ending Apache religious practices forever (Watch this short video to learn more). Apache Stronghold filed an emergency appeal in the lower court to block the transfer while the Supreme Court considers the case. The judge said that he would issue a ruling by May 14.  

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

“The federal government and Resolution Copper have put Oak Flat on death row—they are racing to destroy our spiritual lifeblood and erase our religious traditions forever,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “In the courtroom, we asked the judge to immediately block the land grab so that the Supreme Court can protect Oak Flat before it’s too late.”  

Apache Stronghold filed this lawsuit in January 2021 seeking to halt the proposed mine at Oak Flat. The mine is opposed by 21 of 22 federally recognized tribal nations in Arizona, by the National Congress of American Indians, and by a diverse coalition of religious denominations, civil-rights organizations, and legal experts. Meanwhile, national polling indicates that 74% of Americans support protecting Oak Flat. The Ninth Circuit ruled 6-5 last year that the land transfer is not subject to federal laws protecting religious freedom. But five judges dissented, writing that the court “tragically err[ed]” by refusing to protect Oak Flat.  Now the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear the case.   

“The feds are brazenly rushing to hand Oak Flat over to Resolution Copper, even while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the case,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We are asking the court to protect Oak Flat while the Justices consider whether to take the case.” 

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard arguments today in St. Isidore of Seville v. Drummond, a case involving a Catholic school in Oklahoma seeking to join the state’s charter school program. Last year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School from joining the charter school program simply because it is religious. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of St. Isidore and on behalf of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (“Orthodox Union”), arguing that a ruling against St. Isidore could allow states to bar religious schools from programs that help disabled students and more. Becket warned that if the Supreme Court agrees with Oklahoma, it could make it harder for Jewish parents and other religious communities seeking a faith-based education for their children. 

Families in Oklahoma, especially in areas with poorly performing schools, are looking for the best school options for their children. For over a century, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa have operated Catholic schools to serve Oklahoma families. To extend this rich tradition to more Oklahomans, the dioceses launched a virtual charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved St. Isidore to join the over 30 privately run charter schools in the state. But soon after, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the charter school board, arguing that St. Isidore should not be allowed to participate in the charter school program because it is religious. The Oklahoma Supreme Court then blocked the school board from allowing St. Isidore to participate in the program. 

“State officials are blocking St. Isidore from offering more educational options to Oklahomans simply because of its faith,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “That’s unnecessary and unconstitutional. The state’s own charter school board vetted St. Isidore and gave it the green light to participate—there’s no reason to second-guess that decision because it’s a religious school.” 

St. Isidore and the charter school board asked the Supreme Court to step in, and in early 2025 the Justices agreed to hear the case. Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief in support of St. Isidore is on behalf of the Orthodox Union, the nation’s largest Jewish synagogue organization representing more than 2,000 congregations and more than 400 Jewish K-12 schools across the United States. For many Orthodox Jews, sending children to Jewish day school is a requirement of the faith, and many Orthodox Jewish families use public funding to help cover tuition. Like other schools in America, Orthodox Jewish schools often rely on government funding to provide additional security measures and much-needed assistance to students with disabilities. If states like Oklahoma are allowed to continue skirting the law by excluding religious schools, Orthodox Jewish communities will be harmed.  

“How many times does the Supreme Court need to say the same thing? You can’t exclude religious schools from state programs just for being religious,” said Windham. “We are confident the Supreme Court will do that once more in this case and protect families’ right to more educational choices, including religious schools.” 

A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A coalition of Western Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies asked a federal court late yesterday to stop the U.S. government from handing over their sacred site at Oak Flat to a multinational mining giant as early as June 16, 2025. In Apache Stronghold v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year refused to stop the federal government from transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a Chinese-owned mining company that plans to turn the site into a massive mining crater, ending Apache religious practices forever (Watch this short video to learn more). The emergency appeal comes after the government announced last week it will forge ahead with the transfer even though the case is currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

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

“The feds are barreling ahead to give Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, even as the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the case,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We’re asking the courts to stop this move in its tracks and ensure justice can be delivered before Oak Flat is permanently destroyed.” 

Apache Stronghold filed this lawsuit in January 2021 seeking to halt the proposed mine at Oak Flat. The mine is opposed by 21 of 22 federally recognized tribal nations in Arizona, by the National Congress of American Indians, and by a diverse coalition of religious denominations, civil-rights organizations, and legal experts. Meanwhile, national polling indicates that 74% of Americans support protecting Oak Flat. The Ninth Circuit ruled 6-5 last year that the land transfer is not subject to federal laws protecting religious freedom. But five judges dissented, writing that the court “tragically err[ed]” by refusing to protect Oak Flat.   

“Oak Flat is our spiritual lifeblood—the sacred place where generations of Apache have connected with our Creator,” said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. “We are asking the courts to protect Oak Flat just as they have protected the sacred places of other faiths across the country.”  

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A diverse group of religious parents was at the Supreme Court today asking the Court to restore their right to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during health class. Becket represents a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who challenged the opt-out ban in 2023 (Watch this short video to learn more.)

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. 

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their children, and inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Last year, the parents asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to notice and opt-outs so they can help guide their children’s education in accordance with their faith—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Americans support.  

A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June. 

Statements for media use:  

Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First: 

“The School Board is pushing inappropriate gender theory on children and running roughshod over parental rights. Today, we urged the Court to let kids be kids, and let parents guide their religious future. A child’s innocence, once lost, is gone forever.”  

Billy Moges, director of Kids First:  

“Schools should be working with parents, not against us. We are our children’s primary teachers, not obstacles to be avoided. Today, we asked the Court to remind Montgomery County—and the entire nation—of this fundamental truth.” 

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket: 

“In this country, we’ve always trusted families to decide when their kids are ready for sensitive topics. Children shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, and gender transitions without their parents’ permission. Today, we fought for common sense and parents’ right to guide the upbringing of their children.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

 WASHINGTON – UCLA argued during a federal court hearing yesterday that it did not break the law when it helped a group of antisemitic agitators ban Jews from campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, a federal judge ordered UCLA last year to stop assisting the agitators, calling the exclusion of Jews from campus “abhorrent” and “unimaginable.” But the University has responded by continuing to insist in court that it bears no responsibility for the rampant antisemitism it facilitated. 

“Jews at UCLA deserve better than a university administration that speaks out of both sides of its mouth,” said Yitzchok Frankel, father of four and a third-year law student at UCLA. “UCLA should own up to the harm it caused and promise it won’t happen again. We hope the court will ensure that no Jew ever again faces this kind of vicious targeting.” 

Last year, federal judge Mark C. Scarsi ordered UCLA to stop assisting antisemitic agitators who set up a Jew Exclusion Zone on campus, blocking Jews from accessing classes, the library, and other critical areas of campus. UCLA helped the agitators by providing metal barriers, stationing security to shoo Jews away, and catering to the wishes of the agitators instead of ensuring safe passage for Jewish students. These actions were documented in a report filed by UCLA’s own Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias, which admitted the University had fostered an antisemitic environment. Indeed, the Task Force condemned UCLA’s behavior as “de facto or structural antisemitism” and “fail[ing] in its legal obligation to protect First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.” In public releases, UCLA praised the work of the Task Force and commissioned a new “Initiative to Combat Antisemitism” to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.  

Unfortunately, when it came time to own up to its mistakes, UCLA refused. Instead, it argued in court on Monday that it bore no responsibility for its actions facilitating a Jew Exclusion Zone on campus. But that claim directly contradicts both Judge Scarsi’s ruling and the findings of its own task force report. 

“UCLA’s public acts of contrition ring hollow when its attorneys continue to argue in court that the University bears no responsibility for facilitating a Jew Exclusion Zone,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students and professor. “UCLA knows it broke the law, and no amount of deflection will change that. We are confident the court will ensure that Jewish students at UCLA will never again face exclusion or segregation on their own campus.”  

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected] or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – A federal court yesterday ruled in favor of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), confirming the Church’s ability to freely discuss and decide who should be its bishops. In Belya v. Metropolitan Hilarion, a defrocked priest sued his former church over a church disciplinary letter that questioned whether he met the qualifications necessary to be elected as a bishop. Becket, representing ROCOR, defended the Church’s freedom to select, discipline, and remove its leaders.   

ROCOR began in the 1920s after the Bolshevik government’s interference in and outright oppression of the Church forced many faithful Russian Orthodox bishops, priests, and church members into exile. Many fled to the nations of the free world, including the United States. Ever since, ROCOR continues to grow throughout the globe, with over 500 parishes worldwide and nearly 300 within the United States.  

“We are grateful that our sacred responsibility of bringing God’s truth into the world has been reaffirmed,” said His Eminence Nicholas, Metropolitan of Eastern America & New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. “Our church leadership should be free to prayerfully decide who should be entrusted with the heavy responsibility of the bishopric, relying only on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and protected from outside interference.” 

Father Alexander is a now-defrocked ROCOR priest. In the midst of an internal ecclesiastical uproar about whether he met the qualifications necessary to be elected bishop, Father Alexander’s diocesan leaders wrote a letter to the ROCOR Synod describing complaints about Father Alexander’s conduct that violated church laws and explained that he had not been elected pursuant to church requirements. The letter called on the Church to suspend Father Alexander and to open an investigation. Father Alexander then left ROCOR and sued the Church for defamation. The Church has been in court defending its freedom to decide matters of church governance for over five years. 

“Priests don’t get to drag their former churches to trial over internal disciplinary deliberations,” said Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket. “The court’s ruling ensures this remains true and protects churches’ freedom to live, teach, and govern without being sued for how they communicate internally about clerical decisions.” 

The Church is also represented by Donald J. Feerick, Jr. and Alak Shah at Feerick Nugent MacCartney, PLLC.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – Members of Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were at the Supreme Court today asking the Court to confirm that its care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled is part of its religious mission. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last year that Catholic Charities’ ministry to the poor and needy was not “typical” religious activity. This meant that Catholic Charities could not join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s unemployment compensation program but was stuck paying into the state’s less efficient and more costly plan (Watch this video to learn more). Represented by Becket, Catholic Charities asked the Justices to protect its freedom to join the Church program.  

Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic social teaching and is embodied in the Church’s beliefs about the “corporal works of mercy”—like feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.   

“For over a century, Catholic Charities has been a Good Samaritan to the poor, elderly, and disabled throughout northern Wisconsin,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We pray the Court protects this vital work of improving the human condition, recognizing it as central to our duty as Catholics.”  

Under Wisconsin law, non-profits that are operated primarily for a religious purpose are generally exempt from the state’s unemployment compensation program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, ruled that Catholic Charities was not exempt because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. The court said that Catholic Charities could qualify for an exemption if it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served to Catholicism—even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor cannot be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s teachings.   

“It doesn’t take a degree in theology to figure out that when Catholics help the needy it is an act of faith,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Yet Wisconsin says Catholic Charities isn’t doing anything religious at all. That wrongly punishes both Catholic Charities and the poor, the elderly, and the disabled they serve. We hope the Court will reject Wisconsin’s backwards logic.” 

At oral argument, a majority of the Justices appeared to support Becket’s argument that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision discriminated against Catholic Charities. As Justice Kagan put it: “I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than other religions, and we certainly don’t do it based on the content of … religious doctrine.” 

A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June. Catholic Charities Bureau is also represented by Kyle H. Torvinen of Torvinen, Jones & Saunders, S.C., in Superior, Wisconsin.    

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief late yesterday supporting Jewish students and a professor in their case against UCLA for helping antisemitic agitators ban Jews from campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, a federal judge ordered UCLA last year to stop assisting the agitators, calling the exclusion of Jews from campus “abhorrent” and “unimaginable.” The students and professor recently asked the court to make its ruling permanent so that Jews will never again face antisemitic exclusion. Yesterday’s filing marks the first time since antisemitism burst forth in the wake of the October 2023 terrorist attacks that the federal government has filed a statement of interest in a campus antisemitism case to argue that a university should be held accountable for its antisemitic actions. 

 In its filing, the Department of Justice condemned UCLA for enabling antisemitism on campus and then seeking to avoid any responsibility: “Even though UCLA may not dispute that the antisemitic campus environment at UCLA last year was ‘unimaginable’ and ‘abhorrent,’ [UCLA seeks] to evade liability for what happened on the campus that they are supposed to lead and protect.” The government stressed that UCLA’s administrators can be held accountable for facilitating the exclusion of Jews on campus. This filing underscores the government’s stance that universities nationwide must fully protect Jewish students and faculty from exclusion and harassment. 

“Jews should never have to fear for their safety when they step foot on a college campus,” said Yitzchok Frankel, father of four and third-year law student at UCLA. “I’m grateful that the federal government has condemned UCLA for kowtowing to antisemites, and I hope this sends a clear message to other universities that think they can do the same.” 

 Last year, federal judge Mark C. Scarsi ordered UCLA to stop assisting antisemitic agitators who set up a Jew Exclusion Zone on campus, blocking Jews from accessing classes, the library, and other critical areas of campus. UCLA helped the agitators by providing metal barriers, stationing security to shoo Jews away, and catering to the wishes of the agitators instead of ensuring safe passage for Jewish students, faculty, and staff. These actions were documented in a report filed by UCLA’s own Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias, which admitted the University had fostered an antisemitic environment. For example, the Task Force Report condemned UCLA’s own behavior as “de facto or structural antisemitism” and “fail[ing] in its legal obligation to protect First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.” 

“DOJ has thrown down the gauntlet: if university administrators aid and abet mistreatment of Jews, they will pay the price,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students and professor. “This is a wake-up call for every university that allows antisemitic hatred to fester unchecked. No Jewish student or professor should ever again face this kind of terror on their own campus.”  

A ruling from the court is expected in the coming months.

WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court yesterday in favor of St. Isidore of Seville, a Catholic school in Oklahoma seeking to join the state’s charter school program. In St. Isidore of Seville v. Drummond, the Oklahoma Supreme Court last year blocked St. Isidore from joining the charter school program simply because it is religious. Representing the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (“Orthodox Union”), Becket argued that state and local governments have used similar reasoning to bar religious schools from state programs that help disabled students and more. The brief cautions that accepting Oklahoma’s stance could harm Jewish parents and other religious communities seeking faith-based education for their children.  

Families in Oklahoma, especially those in rural areas with poorly performing schools, are looking for the best school options for their children. For over a century, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa have operated Catholic schools to serve Oklahoma families. To extend this rich tradition to more Oklahomans, the dioceses launched a virtual charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.  In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore to join the over 30 privately-run charter schools in the state. But soon after, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the charter school board, arguing that St. Isidore should not be allowed to participate in the charter school program because it is religious. The Oklahoma Supreme Court then blocked the school board from allowing St. Isidore to participate in the program.  

“In Oklahoma and across the country, state officials are slamming the door on families who need better educational options for their kids,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We are asking the Court to make clear that religious schools can’t be excluded just because they are religious.” 

St. Isidore and the charter school board asked the Supreme Court to step in, and in early 2025 the Justices agreed to hear the case. Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief in support of St. Isidore is on behalf of the Orthodox Union, the nation’s largest Jewish synagogue organization representing more than 2,000 congregations and more than 400 Jewish K-12 schools across the United States. For many Orthodox Jews, sending children to Jewish day school is a requirement of the faith, and many Orthodox Jewish families use public funding to help cover tuition. Like other schools in America, Orthodox Jewish schools often rely on government funding to provide additional security measures and much-needed assistance to students with disabilities. If states like Oklahoma are allowed to continue skirting the law by excluding religious schools, Orthodox Jewish communities will be harmed. A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June.  

“How many times does the Supreme Court have to say this? You can’t exclude religious schools from state programs just because they are religious,” said Windham. “Families need more choices for a good education, including religious education.” 

The Court will hear the case on April 30, 2025. 

WASHINGTON – Three Jewish UCLA students and a Jewish professor asked a federal court today to ensure that UCLA can never again help antisemitic agitators ban Jews from campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, a federal judge ordered UCLA last year to stop assisting the agitators, calling the exclusion of Jews from campus “abhorrent” and “unimaginable.” The students and professor, represented by Becket with co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, are now asking the court to make its ruling permanent so that Jews at UCLA will never face such antisemitic exclusion in the future.  

Last year, federal judge Mark C. Scarsi ordered UCLA to stop assisting antisemitic agitators who set up a Jew Exclusion Zone on campus, blocking Jews from accessing classes, the library, and other critical areas of campus. UCLA helped the agitators by providing metal barriers, stationing security to shoo Jews away, and catering to the wishes of the agitators instead of ensuring safe passage for Jewish students. These actions were documented in a report filed by UCLA’s own Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias, which admitted the University had fostered an antisemitic environment. For example, the Task Force Report condemned UCLA’s own behavior as “de facto or structural antisemitism” and “fail[ing] in its legal obligation to protect First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.” 

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce similarly faulted UCLA for violating its students’ and faculty’s rights. In particular, the House committee chastised UCLA for “st[anding] by and fail[ing] to act as the illegal encampment violated Jewish students’ civil rights and placed campus at risk.” Meanwhile, UCLA continues to insist that it bears no blame for the rampant antisemitism it hosted and facilitated. 

“The need for permanent protection for Jews like me has never been more pressing. UCLA has never owned up to its role in facilitating antisemitism, even as the masked mob continues to escalate by harassing a Regent at his house and rioting on campus to intimidate Jews,” said Yitzchok Frankel, a third-year law student at UCLA. “UCLA simply cannot be trusted to protect its Jewish community, and I hope Judge Scarsi will vindicate our rights once again.” 

Frankel is a law student and father of four who faced antisemitic harassment last year for simply wearing a kippah and was forced to abandon his regular routes through campus because of the Jew Exclusion Zone. Frankel detailed how UCLA’s actions forced him to cancel plans on campus with his family and forgo opportunities to mentor incoming Jewish students on campus. Eden Shemuelian, another law student, also had to avoid using campus facilities and participating in law school orientation events because of UCLA’s refusals to ensure safety and equal access for Jewish students. With another Jewish student and professor, they are asking the court to ensure that this kind of antisemitism will not be allowed on campus in the future. 

“UCLA didn’t just stand idly by—it actively helped an antisemitic mob exclude Jews from parts of its campus,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students and professor. “Such a grotesque failure of leadership has no place in higher education. We’re confident the court will ensure that no Jew at UCLA will ever be segregated on their own campus again.”  

A ruling from the court is expected in the coming months. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected] or 202-349-7219.   

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice, 19 states, prominent legal scholars, and diverse faith groups representing over 90 million Americans yesterday submitted friend-of-the-court briefs asking the Supreme Court to confirm that Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior’s care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled are at the very center of its religious mission. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that treated Catholic Charities’ ministry to the poor and needy as “primarily secular.” This decision meant that Catholic Charities could not join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s unemployment compensation program but was stuck paying into the state’s less efficient and more costly plan. Represented by Becket, Catholic Charities is asking the Court to reject Wisconsin’s attempt to cut off Catholic Charities and its religious ministry from the rest of the Catholic Church in Wisconsin. Twenty-two friend-of-the-court briefs were filed in support of Catholic Charities. 

Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic social teaching and is embodied in the Church’s beliefs about the “corporal works of mercy”—physical acts like feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive a religious exemption from a state law because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. The court said that Catholic Charities could qualify for an exemption if it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served—even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor cannot be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s teachings. The Justices will soon decide if Catholic Charities, like numerous other religious ministries in Wisconsin, can receive a religious exemption from the state law.  

Highlights from yesterday’s filings include: 

• The U.S. Department of Justice rejected the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law and agreed with Catholic Charities that the state’s approach violates the U.S. Constitution. 

• 19 States, led by Ohio, highlighted how the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling is inconsistent with the original understanding of the First Amendment and with centuries of religious practices and teachings on the significance of charity across faith traditions.

• Religious liberty law scholars, including Michael McConnell and Douglas Laycock, explained how the Wisconsin Supreme Court transgressed both Religion Clauses by considering what activities are “typically” or “primarily” religious. 

• Prominent religious groups, including the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, explained that different faiths set up charities consistent with their beliefs, and courts shouldn’t second-guess those choices.

“This outpouring of support shows just how ludicrous Wisconsin’s position is,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “As these vast swathes of society attest, courts should not be in the business of telling churches how to church. We’re confident the Court will confirm that commonsense principle.” 

Catholic Charities Bureau is also represented by Kyle H. Torvinen of Torvinen, Jones & Saunders, S.C., in Superior, Wisconsin. The case will likely be argued in March or April and decided by the end of June.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior yesterday asked the Supreme Court to confirm the obvious: that its care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled furthers its religious mission. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court will review a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that treated Catholic Charities’ ministry to the poor and needy as “primarily secular.” This decision meant that Catholic Charities could not join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s own unemployment compensation program but was stuck paying into the state’s less efficient and more costly plan that is not as good for workers. Represented by Becket, Catholic Charities has now filed a brief with the Court explaining that Wisconsin’s actions violate the First Amendment by second-guessing the Catholic Church’s religious teachings on charity. 

Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic social teaching and advances the Church’s religious mission through the corporal works of mercy. 

“Catholic Charities Bureau answers Christ’s call to minister to the most vulnerable by caring for the poor, disabled, and elderly throughout the diocese and beyond,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We pray the Court recognizes that this vital work of improving the human condition lies at the heart of our duty as Catholics.” 

Under Wisconsin law, non-profits that are operated primarily for a religious purpose are generally exempt from the state’s unemployment compensation program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, ruled that Catholic Charities was not exempt because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. The court said that Catholic Charities could qualify for an exemption if it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served to Catholicism—even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor cannot be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s teachings. The Justices will soon decide if Catholic Charities, like numerous other religious ministries in Wisconsin, can receive a religious exemption from this state law. The case will be argued in April and decided by the end of June. 

“Wisconsin has taken the absurd position that helping the needy isn’t all that Catholic,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Not only is that remarkable claim wrong about religion, it is also bad for those who need help. The Supreme Court should protect Catholic Charities from Wisconsin’s government overreach.” 

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The State of Louisiana was in federal appeals court today defending its ability to have its public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments. In Roake v. Brumley, Louisiana passed a law requiring public schools to display posters including the Ten Commandments that acknowledge the Commandments’ influence on American law and history. Schools have broad flexibility in designing the displays, and no public funds are needed for their installation. However, after the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the State, a federal judge temporarily put the law on hold in several school districts. Represented by Becket, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, and Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, the State is asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to protect its right to display the Ten Commandments.  

Religious symbols have been a fixture of American public life since before the Founding. Just after declaring independence, the Continental Congress tasked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams with designing a national seal. Though the Great Seal eventually adopted a different design, all three proposed overtly religious designs drawn from the Hebrew Bible. Over the centuries, many state and local governments have followed the Founders’ lead by including religious elements in their flags, seals, and buildings to commemorate history and culture and to acknowledge the beliefs of their citizens. Among the most enduring of these religious symbols is the Ten Commandments, which is featured prominently on the walls of many government buildings, including the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“According to the ACLU, religious symbols are so radioactive that students can’t be anywhere near them,” said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket. “That view is absurd and utterly divorced from history—religion has been a natural and welcome part of our American public life since the Founding.”    

Louisiana recently passed a law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The displays must contain a context statement explaining the history of the Commandments in American public education, and schools have flexibility in designing them. For example, schools may choose to incorporate the Commandments alongside other historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact. However, before any actual displays ever appeared in any classroom, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana claiming the displays will harm students by forcing them to be in the presence of religious symbolism. 

“The Constitution does not bar our Legislature’s attempt to teach our students what the Supreme Court has repeatedly said: The Ten Commandments have historical significance as a foundation of our legal system,” said Attorney General Liz Murrill. “We look forward to the Fifth Circuit’s decision.” 

A decision by the Fifth Circuit is expected by the spring.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – In celebration of National Religious Freedom Day, Becket has released the sixth edition of the Religious Freedom Index, the nation’s only annual poll that tracks American opinion on religious freedom. The 2024 Index marked the highest overall score in the Index’s history, demonstrating that Americans are increasingly unified in supporting religious liberty for people of all faiths. This year’s poll highlighted Americans’ concerns about government interference in religion, their desire for a culture that values religious freedom, and their unity in supporting everyone’s right to live out their faith despite disagreements over abortion. 

Support for religious freedom hit its highest score ever of 70 on a scale of 0 to 100. Across a wide variety of questions, Americans expressed their wariness of government interference in religious affairs, with 80% of Americans supporting the freedom for people to run their businesses or private organization according to their religious beliefs. The 2024 polling also revealed that, despite divisions over the issue of abortion, Americans remain united in their support for everyone’s right to live out their faith freely: 70% of Americans oppose requiring religious nonprofits to cover abortions for their employees.  

“Americans drew a line in the sand in this year’s Index: government doesn’t get to push people around for keeping the faith,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “From coast to coast, we witnessed a groundswell of support for Americans to live out their faith in public, even when their beliefs cut against the grain.”   

During this pivotal presidential election year, the sixth edition of the Index posed a critical question to Americans: which branch of government has done the most to protect religious freedom? The results found that a plurality of respondents believe the courts, not Congress or the President, have been the true defenders of religious liberty. This comes as no surprise, given the Supreme Court’s key role in landmark decisions like Little Sisters of the Poor, which upheld the rights of Catholic nuns against mandates to provide contraceptives, and Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo which defended religious freedom during COVID-19 restrictions. These rulings, along with others, highlight the judiciary’s significant impact in safeguarding the freedom of religion when other branches may fall short.  

This year’s Index also shows Generation Z’s growing support for religious freedom. Despite previous trends, Gen Z’s support for religious liberty is on the rise, with their scores climbing above average in key areas of the Index. Gen Z’s embrace of religious pluralism is particularly pronounced, with 66% completely accepting and supporting the freedom to practice one’s religious beliefs, even if they are contrary to accepted majority practices – the highest level of any generation. This reflects a growing commitment among younger Americans to protect religious freedom as an essential part of their future. It also reflects another trend among younger Americans: this year, more members of Gen Z reported attending monthly religious services than ever before (40%). Similarly, the percentage of Gen Z who identify as people of faith has risen by 15 points in the last two years to 66%. 

“Even in a time of deep division, most Americans still believe religion—and the freedom to practice it—is crucial to overcoming our disagreements,” said Rienzi. “As we celebrate Religious Freedom Day, we should take heart that our nation remains committed to forging a future where faith is a cornerstone of our culture.” 

The Religious Freedom Index is designed to give a broad overview of changes in American attitudes on religious freedom by surveying a nationally representative sample of 1,000 American adults each fall. The Index’s focus on core religious liberty principles, along with some of the year’s most pressing societal issues, provides insight into public sentiment on the intersection of law, religion, and culture.  

Heart+Mind Strategies conducts surveying and scale construction for Becket’s Religious Freedom Index: American Perspectives on the First Amendment, using an online panel assembled by Dynata. Becket contributes its broad expertise representing people of all faiths in religious liberty cases to ensure that the polling instrument and analysis broadly reflect America’s many diverse religions and the full spectrum of religious liberty issues.  

To learn more about Becket’s annual Religious Freedom Index, visit the link found here. 

WASHINGTON – The Radonis family and a Catholic school in Maine were in federal appeals court today challenging a state law that excludes most faith-based schools from serving rural families through the state’s tuition assistance program. Even though the Supreme Court struck down Maine’s religious ban in 2022, state officials continue to exclude faith-based schools and families who want to participate in the program (Watch this video to learn more). In St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, Becket argued on behalf of the Radonises and St. Dominic Academy to restore their ability to access state funding.  

Keith and Valori Radonis are Catholic parents in rural Maine who live in an area without a public high school and want their children to attend a school that upholds their beliefs. They believe that St. Dominic Academy, a pre-kindergarten through twelfth-grade Catholic school with roots tracing back to the 1870s, offers the best education for their children. The Radonises are not alone. Other families, including Daniel and Nancy Cronin, also live in an area without a public high school and want their son, who has dyslexia, to attend St. Dominic so that he can receive the academic support he needs.  

For years, Catholic schools in the Diocese of Portland—including St. Dominic Academy, the only Diocesan high school in Maine—played a vital role in helping families like the Radonises and Cronins educate their children through the state’s tuition assistance program. This program allows parents in rural areas that do not have public schools to educate their children at private schools. That changed in 1982 when Maine began excluding faith-based schools and the families they serve from the program.  

“As Catholics, we want to raise our children in an environment that teaches them to put their faith at the heart of everything they do,” said Keith and Valori Radonis. “Unfortunately, Maine is cheating us of this choice by cutting faith-based schools out of Maine’s tuition program. We pray the court puts an end to this exclusion once and for all.” 

Two terms ago, the Supreme Court struck down Maine’s religious ban in Carson v. Makin. But state officials passed a new law to keep excluding schools like St. Dominic and families like the Radonises and Cronins. Maine’s new law gives the Maine Human Rights Commission—not parents or the school—the final word on admissions, conduct, speech, and policies upholding Catholic beliefs regarding marriage, gender, and family life. Meanwhile, Maine applies none of these rules to out-of-state boarding schools that also receive funds under the same program. As a result, faith-based schools with traditional beliefs are still being barred from the state program to help rural families. 

“Three years ago in the Carson case, the Supreme Court ordered Maine to stop leaving families like the Radonises out in the cold,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “But Maine wouldn’t listen. Now Maine wants to have bureaucrats in Augusta tell St. Dominic how Catholic it can be. Maine should drop its newest effort to ‘end run’ the Supreme Court and let St. Dominic get back to serving the Maine families that need it most.” 

A ruling from the court is expected early this year.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – A Christian baker asked a California state court today to protect her ability to operate her bakery in accordance with her faith. In California Department of Civil Rights v. Tastries, Cathy Miller wants to continue serving her local Bakersfield community at her bakery, Tastries, a vision she brought to life over a decade ago. She takes pride in serving everyone that walks through her bakery’s doors, no matter what they believe or who they are. However, California opened an investigation into Cathy after she explained to a same-sex couple that her faith did not allow her to personally design their wedding cake. For over seven years, California has ridiculed Cathy for her religious beliefs about marriage and argued that those beliefs harm “the dignity of all Californians.” Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Thomas More Society asked the court today to protect Cathy’s right to run her bakery consistent with her beliefs. 

As a faithful Christian and owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, Cathy Miller has custom-designed baked goods for over a decade. Cathy puts God at the center of her work at the bakery, even making sure her mission statement said her business was to “honor God in all that we do.” Her Christian faith is imbued in everything from the Bible verses she puts on her business cards to the music she plays in the shop. Early on, Cathy realized that sometimes customers would ask her to bake things that contradict her faith, so she developed written design standards to ensure that all of Tastries’ custom bakery items reflect her religious beliefs. For example, Tastries will not design custom bakery items that depict gory or pornographic images, celebrate drug use, or demean others. Cathy will also not design wedding cakes that violate the Christian sacrament of marriage. 

“It takes a special kind of spite to spend almost a decade bullying a small-business owner because she wants to run her bakery without sacrificing her Christian faith,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Doesn’t California have enough problems without picking yet another culture war fight? It’s high time for the court to bring the State’s baseless campaign to a close and allow Cathy to bake in peace.”  

In 2017, the California Civil Rights Department sued Cathy after she told a same-sex couple that she could not personally design their wedding cake. In the days and weeks that followed, Tastries was flooded with angry social media posts, death threats, and harassing emails and phone calls. In 2022, a California Superior Court judge ruled that Cathy cannot be forced to personally design a wedding cake that violates her faith. The state then appealed the decision to a state appeals court.  

“For more than seven years, and despite Cathy’s two religious liberty victories with two different judges in the lower court, the State of California has refused to back down in its campaign to force Cathy to share a message contrary to her deeply held religious convictions,” said Charles LiMandri, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “Cathy has always been clear that she was only trying to follow her faith and her conscience in standing up for what she believes in—and did so in a respectful, polite, and loving way. We are confident the appeals court will affirm Cathy’s religious rights and make clear that California’s campaign against her and Tastries has no place in our society.” 

Cathy is represented by Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP and the Thomas More Society.  

A decision by the court is expected in the first half of 2025. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – In lieu of its annual Ebenezer Award, Becket is happy to announce its inaugural Tiny Tim Toast, offered to an individual or group who inspires hope and perseverance in the face of adversity during the Christmas and Hanukkah season. This year’s winner is a group of citizens in Sweetwater, Texas, who fought to keep a Nativity scene at their local county courthouse after a complaint called on the government to take it down. 

Earlier this month, a resident of Sweetwater, Texas, penned a letter in the local newspaper calling for the removal of a Nativity scene at the Nolan County Courthouse. The resident complained that allowing a religious display outside of a government building violated the law. In response, dozens of Sweetwater citizens rallied at a forum in which they defended the Nativity scene’s rightful place in Sweetwater’s public square. They filled the county commissioners’ meeting and argued that the Nativity is perfectly legal and was not funded by county taxpayers. Thanks to their valiant efforts, the Nativity remains in place outside of the courthouse. 

“When the humbug spirit tried to snuff out Sweetwater’s cherished Nativity scene, the locals stood their ground with unshakable resolve,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “God bless them for the courage they showed in the face of adversity—it should be an inspiration to all those who wish to keep the Christmas and Hanukkah season sacred.” 

Becket’s new Tiny Tim Toast is inspired by the enduring spirit of hope, perseverance, and joy embodied by the beloved character from A Christmas Carol. In contrast to the Ebenezer Award, which highlights the most outrageous offenders of the holidays, the Tiny Tim Toast celebrates those who inspire that spirit during this Christmas and Hanukkah season. The Sweetwater citizens’ act of preservation and hope underscores the growing recognition of faith’s importance in American life. In fact, one of the results from Becket’s 2024 Religious Freedom Index shows that 62% of Americans believe that people of faith are part of the solution to the problems our nation faces. The full report will be released on National Religious Freedom Day, January 16, 2025. 

“Every Christmas and Hanukkah season, there are some bureaucrats and activists who seek to shut out the lights on religious displays and expression,” said Rienzi. “This year, Becket is happy to raise a hearty toast to all those who stood firm against these efforts, unwavering in defending faith’s rightful place in the public square. Here’s to you, the citizens of Sweetwater, Texas, for keeping the faith.” 

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior’s care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled is part of its religious mission. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 earlier this year that Catholic Charities’ service to the poor and needy was not “typical” religious activity. This means that Catholic Charities is prevented from leaving the state’s unemployment compensation program and joining the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s own program. Represented by Becket, Catholic Charities is asking the Justices to protect its freedom to join the Church program. 

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

“Catholic Charities Bureau is on the front lines bringing love, healing, and hope to the most vulnerable members of our community,” said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We pray the Court recognizes that this work of improving the human condition is our answer to Christ’s call to serve those in need.” 

Under Wisconsin law, non-profits that are operated for a religious purpose are generally exempt from the state’s unemployment compensation program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, ruled that Catholic Charities was not exempt because it serves everyone, not just Catholics. The court said that Catholic Charities could qualify for an exemption only if it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served—even though the Catholic Church teaches that care for the poor cannot be conditioned on acceptance of the Church’s teachings. The Justices will now decide if Catholic Charities, like other religious ministries in Wisconsin, can receive a religious exemption from this state law. 

“Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong. We are confident the Supreme Court will reject the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s absurd ruling.”  

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

WASHINGTON – A group of Christian parents and schools were in federal court today challenging a Minnesota law that bars some faith-based universities from offering free college credits to high school students within Minnesota’s pre-college credit program. In Loe v. Jett, a group of Christian families and schools, with Becket’s help, sued Minnesota last year for excluding universities that require students to sign a statement of faith from the state’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. While Minnesota promised not to enforce the law while the case is ongoing, it continues to argue that these families and schools should be left out of the program. 

Minnesota created the PSEO program almost 40 years ago to enable high school juniors and seniors to earn college credit for free. Through this program, students have been able to attend any eligible public or private school of their choice. Melinda and Mark Loe and Dawn Erickson are parents in Minnesota who have used PSEO funds for their older children to attend two outstanding Christian schools, University of Northwestern – St. Paul and Crown College, that uphold their religious values. Their younger children want to do the same. But last year, Minnesota passed a law that excludes religious schools like Northwestern and Crown from participating in the PSEO program because they require on-campus students to sign a statement of faith.  

These families and schools challenged Minnesota’s law in federal court last year to stop the state from punishing religious students and faith-based schools. Soon after, Minnesota’s attorney general agreed not to enforce the law while the case is ongoing, allowing schools like Crown and Northwestern to continue shaping their campus environments according to their beliefs, and allowing students to have the choice of an education that aligns with their faith. However, the state continues to argue that the students and families should be cut out of the program. A ruling from the court is expected in the coming months.  

Statements for media use: 

Mark and Melinda Loe: 

“We raise our children to put their faith at the center of everything they do. Unfortunately, Minnesota is depriving kids like ours of the opportunity to get a head start on college at schools that embrace their faith. We hope the court will strike this law down and protect all religious students and the schools they want to attend.” 

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

“For over a century, Northwestern has existed to offer students a Christ-centered education that prepares them to serve in the home, church, community, and the world. Minnesota wants to single out our university because of this unique campus culture which integrates faith and learning. We pray the court will recognize that and continue to allow us to help on-campus PSEO students flourish in their faith and education.” 

Andrew Denton, president of Crown College: 

“Crown College is committed to providing all our students the tools they need to excel intellectually and spiritually through our biblically-integrated education. For decades, we have been grateful to extend this opportunity to young students who seek to join our Christian community through the PSEO program. We pray that the court will continue to allow every student in Minnesota to use PSEO funds at the school that best meets their needs and matches their values.” 

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket: 

“Politicians in St. Paul are slamming the door on thousands of high schoolers who want to get a head start on college simply because they’re religious. That’s disgraceful: the state should be helping educate its students, not cutting them off from opportunities that will allow them to grow. We’re confident the court will strike down Minnesota’s ban for good.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – A group of Christian parents and schools will be in federal court next week challenging a Minnesota law that bars some faith-based universities from offering free college credits to high school students under Minnesota’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program, which pays for high school students to start college early. In Loe v. Jett, a group of Christian families and schools, with Becket’s help, sued Minnesota last year for excluding universities with faith statements that students sign to attend. While Minnesota promised not to enforce the law while the case is ongoing, it continues to argue that these families and schools should be left out of the program.

Minnesota created the PSEO program almost 40 years ago to enable high school juniors and seniors to earn college credit for free. Through this program, students have been able to attend any eligible public or private school of their choice. Melinda and Mark Loe and Dawn Erickson are parents in Minnesota who have used PSEO funds for their older children to attend two outstanding Christian schools, University of Northwestern – St. Paul and Crown College, that uphold their religious values. Their younger children want to do the same, but last year Minnesota passed a law that excludes religious schools like Northwestern and Crown from participating in the PSEO program because they require on-campus students to sign a statement of faith. With the help of Becket, these parents and schools are asking the court to protect their ability to participate in the PSEO program.   

What: 
Oral Argument in Loe v. Jett

 Arguing before the court: 
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket  

 When: 
December 9, 2024, at approximately 10 a.m. CT 

 Where: 
Courtroom 13W 
Diana E. Murphy United States Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415  

 Becket attorneys will be available for comment following the hearing.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

WATCH VIDEO: NUNS BATTLE THE NEW YORK ABORTION MANDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A hearing in the case is expected later this year. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7219.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

A decision is expected later this year. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

A decision is expected in the coming months. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.

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

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

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

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

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

A decision is expected later this year.   

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.

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

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

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

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

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

A decision is expected later this spring.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

Oral argument is possible sometime in 2024.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through eighth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense”; teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks earlier this year, contrary to Maryland law and the Board’s own policies, and over the objection of their own elementary school principals. 

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.

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

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

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

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

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

Oral argument is expected in spring 2024. 

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

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

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

Statements for media use: 

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

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

Andrew Denton, president of Crown College: 

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

Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket:

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are Orthodox Jewish parents who want to send their children with disabilities to schools that provide an education that allows them to reach their full potential and that is centered around their Jewish traditions and beliefs. Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy are Jewish schools in Los Angeles that both provide an excellent education and want to serve the needs of children with disabilities. 

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through eighth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense”; teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks earlier this year, contrary to Maryland law and the Board’s policies, and over the objection of their own elementary school principals. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new “inclusivity” books were announced last fall for students in pre-K through fifth grade. However, instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense”; teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. Other books focus on children’s romantic feelings.  

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

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

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

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

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