WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday urging the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to protect government employees’ private speech from state censorship. In Hussey v. City of Cambridge, a divided three-judge panel on the First Circuit ruled that government employers can punish private employee speech they deem too “disparaging”—giving officials broad power to silence off-duty speech they dislike or find politically inconvenient. Earlier this year, the full First Circuit agreed to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning in front of all active judges on the court. Becket’s brief warns that the “disparagement” standard uniquely threatens the free speech of religious Americans working for the government.

Brian Hussey is a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer with over two decades of service on the force. In February 2021, he posted a short comment on his private Facebook page criticizing the decision to name a federal police-reform bill after George Floyd. He then decided to delete the post within a few hours. But after the police department received a complaint about the post, it placed him on administrative leave for nearly two months and suspended him without pay for four days. Hussey sued the City, and last year a divided panel on the First Circuit upheld the punishment, finding that the “disparaging” nature of his post meant it was entitled to less constitutional protection than ordinary political speech.

“Americans don’t lose their right to speak their mind when they take a government job,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “Someone who doesn’t like your politics—or your religion—shouldn’t be able to get you fired because of something you said to your friends outside of work.” 

If allowed to stand, the panel’s anti-disparagement rule would create a slippery slope, giving governments across the political spectrum vast discretion to silence employee speech they dislike. One administration might use it to censor criticism of a sitting president or advocacy for gun rights. Another might use it to punish pro-life advocacy or traditional religious views on marriage and sexuality. Once “disparaging” becomes the label that decides whether speech is protected, the loudest opponents get power over what government employees are allowed to say. Religious speech is especially at risk, because many religious believers hold views that differ from social consensus on deeply contested issues. Becket’s brief urges the full court to reject the panel’s standard and to reaffirm that speech does not lose protection simply because the speaker works for the government.

“The Supreme Court rejected McCarthyism in 1968,” said Keim. “The First Circuit should remind New England that when government employees talk politics or religion on their own time, the Constitution protects them.” 

Oral argument in the case is scheduled for April 8, 2026.  

WASHINGTON – The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today allowed the State of Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in its public school classrooms. In Roake v. Brumley, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana after it passed a law requiring public schools to display small posters including the Ten Commandments that acknowledge the Commandments’ influence on American law and history. A federal district court blocked the law, and three judges on the Fifth Circuit left that ruling in place. But last fall, the full Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning in front of all active judges on the court. Louisiana is represented by Becket, Attorney General Liz Murrill, and Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga. 

“If the ACLU had its way, every trace of religion would be scrubbed from the fabric of our public life,” said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney representing Louisiana. “That position is at odds with our nation’s traditions and our Constitution. We’re glad the Fifth Circuit has allowed Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in its public school classrooms.”

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, this committee 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 even featured prominently on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2024, Louisiana 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. And the displays Louisiana is considering in practice feature the Commandments in context, reflecting their role in American laws and history. But before any actual displays ever appeared in any classroom, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana, claiming the displays would harm schoolchildren by forcing them to be in the presence of religious messages. 

“America has a time-honored tradition of recognizing faith in the public square,” said Davis. “The Fifth Circuit rightly refused to strike down Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law before a single classroom display even appeared.”

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

WASHINGTON – The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted today to deny Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School’s application to join Oklahoma’s charter school program. Ben Gamla seeks to offer Oklahoma families a rigorous, values-based education that is open to students of all faiths, integrating academic excellence with religious learning. The Board argued that it was required to deny the application under the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in St. Isidore v. Drummond, which prohibits faith-based schools from participating in the state’s charter school program. With Becket’s help, Ben Gamla will challenge the decision in federal court. 

For nearly two decades, the Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation has provided high-quality education to students of all faiths. With four campuses in Florida, they offer an education focused on Hebrew language, culture, and history. In December 2025, Peter Deutsch, founder of the Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation, applied for charter authorization with the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board to open Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School as an online option for families statewide. 

“Parents across the Sooner State deserve more high-quality options for their children’s education, not fewer,” said Peter Deutsch, founder of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School. “Yet Attorney General Drummond is robbing them of more choices by cutting schools like Ben Gamla out. We’re confident this exclusionary rule won’t stand for long.”  

In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the application of another faith-based school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, to join the other 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. After the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked St. Isidore from participating, the case went to the United States Supreme Court. The Court split 4-4 in St. Isidore, leaving the lower court’s ruling in place and providing no answer on the constitutional questions.  

While members of the Charter School Board praised Ben Gamla’s model, they concluded that St. Isidore requires Oklahoma to shut faith-based charter schools out of the program. Yet the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states cannot deny publicly available funding to religious schools simply because they are religious. 

Recent polling indicates broad public support for entities like Ben Gamla. According to Becket’s 2025 Religious Freedom Index, 76% of Americans believe religious organizations that serve the community should be just as eligible to receive government funding as non-religious organizations that provide the same services.   

“Attorney General Drummond’s attack on religious schools contradicts the Constitution,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School. “His actions have hung a no-religious-need-apply sign on the state’s charter school program, ignoring years of Supreme Court precedent and leaving religious families out in the cold. We’ll soon ask a federal court to protect Ben Gamla’s freedom to serve Sooner families, a right that every other qualified charter school enjoys.” 

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

WASHINGTON – The Solicitor General of the United States filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Friday urging the Supreme Court to stop Colorado from excluding Catholic preschools and families from the state’s “universal” preschool funding program. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado’s religious discrimination, punishing faith-based preschools and the families they serve for operating consistent with their beliefs. With Becket’s help, faith-based preschools and families recently asked the Supreme Court to step in. The federal government’s filing confirms that the issues raised in this case are serious, nationally significant, and warrant the Supreme Court’s review. As the Solicitor General explained:  

“The government’s decision to file an uninvited certiorari-stage amicus brief reflects its views about the severity of the court of appeals’ error, the recurrence of the question presented, and the significant benefit that further clarity in this area of the law would provide to the lower courts, federal and state governments, and the public.” 

The Solicitor General’s brief was submitted to the Court by Solicitor General John Sauer, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, and Assistant to the Solicitor General Emily Hall.  

“The Solicitor General’s filing in this case signals to the Court just how egregious, illegal, and dangerous Colorado’s discrimination is,” said Nick Reaves, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the preschools and families. “The state is labeling a program ‘universal’ and then banning religious families and schools from it because of their faith. If that kind of exclusion is allowed to stand, no religious group is safe from being pushed out of public life.” 

In addition to the Solicitor General’s brief, 20 other friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed at the Supreme Court in support of the parents and preschools in this case. “We’re grateful the Solicitor General recognized what’s at stake here and added his voice to a growing chorus urging the Supreme Court to hear this case,” said Reaves. 

The Court is likely to decide whether to hear this case in spring 2026.  

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 from Massachusetts was in federal court today challenging the state’s decision to ban them from welcoming children into their home through foster care. In Burke v. Walsh, Mike and Kitty Burke wanted to foster and someday adopt children in need of a family. State officials refused to let the Burkes foster any children because of their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality. (Watch this video to learn more.) Massachusetts recently claimed it changed its foster care policies to allow families with traditional religious beliefs about gender and sexuality to participate—but the state is still fighting in court, claiming its decision to reject religious families was justified. Massachusetts is also asking the court to prevent the Department of Children and Families (DCF) from having to explain its new policies on the record.  

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is investigating DCF for its rejection of loving families like the Burkes. Becket argues that Massachusetts must be held accountable to ensure all qualified families, regardless of faith, can help children in need. 

Mike and Kitty Burke are a Catholic couple from Massachusetts who have long wanted to become parents. Mike is an Iraq War veteran, and Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special-needs children. Together, they run a business and provide 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. 

“We will never forget the pain that Massachusetts put us through simply for staying true to our beliefs,” said Mike and Kitty Burke. “What makes it worse is that the state is still defending that decision—even while claiming it has changed its rules to welcome families like ours. We’re asking the court to put an end to this targeting and allow loving families to care for children who need homes.” 

Massachusetts faces a severe foster care shortage. DCF does not have enough foster homes or facilities to meet the needs of the children in its custody. The crisis has become so extreme that the state has resorted to housing children in hospitals. During their application process, the Burkes underwent hours of training, extensive interviews, and an examination of their home. They completed the training successfully and received high marks from the state. However, because the Burkes said they would continue to hold to their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, they were denied the ability to foster.  

“Massachusetts is talking out of both sides of its mouth on foster care,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Burkes. “The Commonwealth claims that it now welcomes religious foster parents, yet it continues to defend its exclusion of the Burkes in federal court. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple. The court should put a stop to the state’s religious targeting and clear the way for loving families to help children in need.” 

A decision is expected by the fall.  

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 heard a case today involving a West Virginia law that requires public schools to separate sports teams by biological sex. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the ACLU and Lambda Legal argue that Title IX—the federal law ensuring equal opportunity for women in education—requires schools to allow male athletes who identify as transgender to participate on girls’ teams, even though Title IX says nothing about gender identity. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of West Virginia, warning that redefining sex in federal law would threaten the freedom of religious schools, healthcare providers, and other religious institutions to operate according to their beliefs about sexuality. Read more about the cases Becket is watching at the Court this term here. 

West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act requires public schools in West Virginia to separate sports teams by biological sex, preserving equal athletic opportunities for female athletes. Before the law took effect, the ACLU and Lambda Legal sued on behalf of a male student who identifies as transgender and sought to compete on a girls’ team, arguing the state law violates Title IX by targeting the student’s transgender status. A lower court upheld West Virginia’s law, but the Fourth Circuit reversed. West Virginia is now defending the Save Women’s Sports Act at the Supreme Court as being fully consistent with Title IX. 

“Shoehorning gender identity and sexual orientation into Title IX would wreak havoc on religious educational institutions and healthcare providers that hold traditional beliefs about human sexuality,” said Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket. “That’sexactly what happened after Bostock, where religious employers have been continually dragged into court and investigated by the government simply for living out their faith. The Justices should ensure that cycle doesn’t repeat.”

Becket’s brief warns that ruling against West Virginia would open the floodgates to aggressive federal enforcement and lawsuits against not only religious educational institutions, but also religious healthcare providers, since the Affordable Care Act makes Title IX apply in the healthcare context. The same pattern followed Bostock v. Clayton County, where the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “sex” under Title VII—a law prohibiting discrimination in the employment context—to include sexual orientation and gender identity, but did not provide robust protections for religious liberty. In the wake of that ruling, religious employers were sued for following their beliefs, and federal agencies continued efforts to force religious healthcare providers to perform gender-transition procedures in violation of their faith and best medical judgment. Most Americans are opposed to such efforts. Recent polling from Becket’s 2024 Religious Freedom Index shows 80% of Americans support faith-based organizations’ freedom to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. Becket’s brief urges the Court not to repeat what happened with Bostock in this case by interpreting Title IX as written. 

“Faith-based organizations shouldn’t be bullied into years of needless litigation simply for staying true to their beliefs,” said Wolk Slavis. “The Court should reject the ACLU and Lambda Legal’s aggressive effort to rewrite Title IX and ensure that religious groups can live out their faith without fear of punishment.”

A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June 2026. 

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

WASHINGTON – The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board met today to consider whether Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School may proceed with its application to open a charter school in Oklahoma. The Jewish charter school would offer Oklahoma families a rigorous, values-based education that integrates academic excellence with religious learning and is open to students of all faiths. But the state supreme court’s ruling in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond prohibits faith-based schools from participating in the state’s charter school program. Last year, the United States Supreme Court voted 4-4 in St. Isidore, leaving the underlying legal questions unresolved. 

For nearly two decades, the Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation has provided high-quality education to students of all faiths. With four campuses in Florida, they offer an education focused on Hebrew language, culture, and history. In December 2025, Peter Deutsch, founder of the Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation, applied for charter authorization with the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board. In a meeting today, Deutsch addressed the Charter School Board and answered their questions.   

“The Sooner State needs an educational option that combines a rigorous academic program with moral development,” said Peter Deutsch, founder of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School. “Ben Gamla aims to give Oklahoma families that choice, no matter their faith background.”  

In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the application of another faith-based school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, to join the other 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. After the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked St. Isidore from participating in the program, they took the case to the United States Supreme Court. The Court split 4-4 in St. Isidore, leaving the lower court’s ruling in place and providing no answer on the constitutional questions. 

While members of the Charter School Board today praised Ben Gamla’s model, under the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in St. Isidore, faith-based charter schools are not allowed to participate on equal footing with other private schools. Yet the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states cannot deny publicly available funding to religious schools simply because they are religious. 

Recent polling indicates broad public support for the charter school. According to Becket’s 2024 Religious Freedom Index, 73% of Americans believe religious organizations that serve the community should be just as eligible to receive government funding as non-religious organizations that provide the same services.  

“Religious schools cannot be shut out of state programs just because they are religious,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School. “Families deserve access to strong educational options, including those that integrate faith and learning.” 

The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board will hold a final vote on Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School’s application on February 9, 2026.  

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

WASHINGTON – The State of Colorado must pay $5.4 million in attorneys’ fees to Becket following the state’s unconstitutional effort to outlaw abortion pill reversal. Becket represented Bella Health and Wellness, a Denver-area Catholic pro-life healthcare clinic, defending them against Colorado’s attempt to make it illegal for doctors and nurses to help women who take the first abortion pill but then decide to continue their pregnancies. A federal court found that Colorado’s attempt to ban abortion pill reversal violated the First Amendment. A federal law now requires the state to pay attorneys’ fees and court costs. 

“At least 18 moms who received abortion pill reversal care at Bella just celebrated Christmas with babies born during this case,” said Rebekah Ricketts, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney for Bella Health and Wellness. “All Coloradans should celebrate those little miracles and the brave medical team at Bella that helped their moms when no one else would.” 

Founded by Catholic mother-and-daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, Bella offers dignified, life-affirming 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 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. 

In 2023, Colorado passed a law that targets pro-life clinics like Bella Health and Wellness by making it unprofessional conduct to help women who are 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 October 2023, Judge Daniel Domenico temporarily stopped Colorado’s abortion pill reversal ban. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, nurse practitioner and certified nurse midwife Chelsea Mynyk later intervened in the lawsuit and obtained parallel protection to perform abortion pill reversal. 

Last August, Judge Domenico made a permanent finding that Colorado had violated the First Amendment, allowing Bella and Ms. Mynyk to continue offering compassionate care to women in need. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, 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 2025 Ebenezer Award winner, is Mayor Miko Pickett of Mullins, South Carolina, who ordered the removal of a Nativity scene from public property. Combining constitutional confusion with holiday scroogery, the mayor cited America’s tradition of separation of church and state. But the Supreme Court has explained time and again that our law does not require local officials to throw out the baby with the bathwater. America’s law and best traditions protect the right of citizens to celebrate their religious heritage without a government-ordered grinch turning out the lights.  

Mayor Pickett’s order targeted a three-by-four-foot Nativity scene placed near Mullins’ marketplace as part of the city’s Christmas decorations, which also included a snowman, wreaths, lights, and Santa Claus. The display was organized and paid for out of pocket by the Mullins Beautification Committee, which had been preparing the area for the marketplace’s first Christmas season. According to city employees, the mayor said the Nativity scene made the city appear “not neutral” toward religion. When that threatened to turn a festive celebration into a public controversy just weeks before Christmas, Committee chair Kimberly Byrd defied the mayor and kept the Nativity scene, earning this year’s Tiny Tim Toast for her courage. 

“It takes a special kind of scroogery to rob the townspeople of Christmas joy by coming after a Nativity scene,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket. “During this season of hope and charity, we should be protecting our neighbors’ right to express their faith freely, not banishing them for it. May this Ebenezer Award helpgovernmental hearts everywhere grow three sizes next year.”

Each year, the Christmas and Hanukkah season inspires 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 (dis)honorees). 

Finally, Becket is offering its second-ever Tiny Tim Toast to the Mullins Beautification Committee chair, Kimberly Byrd. Inspired by the enduring spirit of hope, perseverance, and joy embodied by the beloved character from A Christmas Carol, the Tiny Tim Toast celebrates those who inspire that spirit during the Christmas and Hanukkah season. When pressured to remove the Mullins Nativity scene, Byrd stood her ground, making clear that she would not take it down because “The true meaning of Christmas is not Santa, it is The Birth of Jesus Christ.” May we all learn from Byrd’s faith and fortitude this holiday season.

“In the face of increasing government efforts to scrub religion from public life, we should all strive to be like Kimberly Byrd,” said Rienzi. “Her courage to stand up for the Nativity scene was admirable and patriotic. We’re happy to raise a hearty toast to Kimberly and others like her who have kept the faith and brought a little more joy to this holiday season.”

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 – 22 states, diverse faith groups, Catholic families, a prominent legal scholar, and numerous think tanks and public policy groups have filed a total of 19 friend-of-the-court briefs asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Colorado from excluding Catholic preschools and families from the state’s “universal” preschool funding program because of their faith. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently upheld thestate’s discriminatory exclusion, punishing faith-based preschools and the families they serve for operating consistent with their religious beliefs. The court even praised Colorado’s gerrymandered regime as a “model” and an “example”for other states to follow. With Becket’s help, these Catholic preschools and families recently asked the Supreme Court to stop Colorado from discriminating against religious believers. 

Families who send their kids to Catholic preschools in the Archdiocese of Denver expect them to receive a high-quality education and to be part of a faith-centered Catholic community. That’s exactly what these preschools offer—supporting parents in the religious and educational upbringing of their children by providing excellent intellectual, moral, and spiritual formation. When Colorado launched its UPK program—offering families 15 hours of free preschool per week at the private or public schools of their choice—families sending their kids to Catholic preschools across Colorado were eager to participate. But state officials imposed restrictions that excluded Catholic preschools simply because they ask families who enroll to support their Catholic faith. Thus, Colorado families who want a Catholic education for their kids, like Becket clients Daniel and Lisa Sheley, are now forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket each year while those attending nearly 2,000 other preschools—public or private—are receiving state funds to help cover the cost of the preschool of their choice. 

Highlights from yesterday’s filings include:

• 22 states, led by West Virginia, urged the Supreme Court to protect religious preschools that are excluded from public funding because of their faith. These states warn that letting the decision stand would make it easier for governments to push religious organizations out of public life.

• Diverse faith groups, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Coalition for Jewish Values, the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, emphasized numerous problems with the Tenth Circuit’s decision and highlighted the court’s failure to adequately protect religious freedom for people of different faiths. 

• Religious liberty law scholar Stephanie Barclay explained how the Tenth Circuit’s errors are a result of the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s much-maligned decision in Employment Division v. Smith and offered the Court a better historical approach for analyzing claims under the Free Exercise Clause.

• Colorado Catholic families, represented by attorney Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, shared how exclusion from Colorado’s universal preschool funding program has been harmful to them and to many others in their community. 

• Prominent legal groups, including Pacific Justice Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Thomas More Society, argued that the Tenth Circuit disregarded Supreme Court precedent and wrongly applied its oft-criticized decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

• Public policy groups, think tanks, law school centers, and education choice advocates, including the Manhattan Institute, EdChoice, the Sutherland Institute, the Center for American Liberty, the Notre Dame Education Law Project, the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law, Concerned Women for America, and America’s Future affirmed the importance of equal access to generally available government funding programs and emphasized the many benefits of including a diverse group of providers in the state’s universal preschool program. 

Statements for media use:  

“We are humbled by this support for our preschools, who simply want to help parents educate their children in the richness of the Catholic faith using Colorado’s universal preschool program,” said Dr. Scott Elmer, D. Min, Superintendent of Catholic Schools & Chief Mission Officer for the Archdiocese of Denver. “Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment. We pray the Court takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” 

“This broad coalition of states, faith communities, think tanks, and scholars shows just how important this case is,” said Nick Reaves, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the preschools and families. “The state is picking winners and losers based on their religious beliefs, while thumbing its nose at several recent Supreme Court decisions that should have stopped this religious discrimination in its tracks. The Supreme Court should step in and ensure that Colorado’s so-called universal preschool program actually lives up to its name.” 

The Court is likely to decide whether to hear this case in early 2026.

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. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit just protected a group of Catholic therapists’ ability to provide compassionate, professional counseling to children struggling to accept their biological sex. In Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, Becket represents counselors who challenged a Michigan law that bans them from helping children talk through the underlying causes of their discomfort, and instead pressures counselors to assist children with a “gender transition”—a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries designed to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. Today’s decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has blocked a statewide counseling ban of this kind. The ruling also comes as the Supreme Court is poised to decide a challenge to a nearly-identical Colorado counseling ban in Chiles v. Salazar. 

In his 2-1 majority opinion today, Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote that “the Michigan law discriminates based on viewpoint”—because it bans counseling that helps a child “align” their gender identity with their “biological sex,” while it “expressly permits” counseling that helps a child “transition away from one’s biological sex”—and that this marks a “near-certain violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.” He also noted that the counselors provided “studies and evidence that suggest their therapy can prevent serious harms to clients who seek it.”   

“This is a victory for children nationwide,” said Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the counselors. “Michigan’s law was pushing children toward irreversible medical procedures that cause lasting harms. This ruling ensures that children who want it can receive compassionate, evidence-based counseling that alleviates their distress and helps them embrace their bodies without resorting to irreversible, life-altering medical interventions.” 

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of children who are struggling to accept their biological sex. Many of these children have been led down a path of “gender transition”—enduring a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries—which often results in profound regret and permanent health harms. The harms are so significant that 26 states and several European countries have banned or strictly limited medical gender transitions for children, advocating instead for compassionate counseling to alleviate their gender-related distress. Unfortunately, Michigan 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. 

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, life-alteringmedical interventions. According to the latest research, this cautious approach is often the best way to help children who experience such discomfort. Today’s ruling ensures that counselors like McJones can continue offering compassionate care to children in need. 

Michigan has 14 days to ask the court for rehearing, or 90 days to appeal to the 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 – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging a federal appeals court to stop Illinois from forcing pro-life healthcare professionals to promote and make referrals for abortion. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, a group of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors is challenging an Illinois law that requires any healthcare professional who declines to perform abortions for reasons of conscience to tell women about the “benefits” of abortion and refer women to abortion providers. Becket’s brief on behalf of the Catholic bishops of Illinois, the Illinois Catholic Health Association, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of New Gračanica-Midwestern America explains that Illinois’mandate strikes at the heart of America’s long tradition of giving religious speech special protection. 

Illinois amended its Health Care Right of Conscience Act to require any healthcare professional who declines to perform abortions for reasons of conscience to do two things if they want to receive any conscience-based protections: tell women about the supposed “benefits” of abortion, and refer them to a list of abortion providers. Those who refuse to do so lose the legal protections that normally shield them from malpractice suits, discrimination claims, and enforcement action by the state licensing board. For pro-life pregnancy centers and many religious healthcare professionals, this mandate threatens to undermine their work. These ministries exist to offer life-affirming care rooted in the belief that every person is made in the image of God. But Illinois’ law demands that they speak a message that contradicts their faith and the very purpose of their ministry. 

A group of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors challenged the law in federal court. Earlier this year, a federal district court blocked the “benefits-discussion” requirement but left the referral mandate in place, and both sides appealed. Becket is asking thecourt to recognize that, in the Anglo-American legal tradition, freedom of speech began as freedom of religious speech. For that reason, governments have never been allowed to force religious groups to voice messages they do not believe. This freedom is essential for the Catholic Church in Illinois, whose ministries would be pushed to speak in ways that violate their belief in the dignity of all human life. It’s also vital for Orthodox churches, minority religious groups whose beliefs can be easily misunderstood when the state pressures them to echo a message contrary to their faith.

Statements for media use: 

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago: 

“As Christmas draws near, we remember that God chose to enter our world as a vulnerable child. This profound mystery reveals that every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent. The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it.” 

Bishop Ronald A. Hicks, Diocese of Joliet: 

“The Church has always taught that human dignity extends to all people, from the smallest unborn children to the frailest elderly. Illinois should not force Catholics to violate that belief. We trust the court to uphold our freedom to live and serve according to our faith.” 

Very Reverend Godfrey Mullen, OSB, Diocesan Administrator, Diocese of Belleville:

“Across Illinois, Catholic ministries offer life-affirming care to mothers, children, and families in need. A law that requires those ministries to promote abortion strikes at the heart of that service. The court should block Illinois’ attempt to cripple the Church’s pro-life mission.” 

Bishop Louis Tylka, Diocese of Peoria: 

“When the government tries to denigrate the dignity of human life, it is our duty as Catholics to push back. That is why we are asking the court to block Illinois’ law. No healthcare professional should be punished for refusing to push women towards abortion.”

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, Diocese of Springfield:

“Catholics must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion. Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and healthcare professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong. We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”

Bishop David J. Malloy, Diocese of Rockford: 

“Religious freedom protects the ability of believers to live according to their faith. Illinois’ mandate crosses that line by telling Catholic doctors and ministries to advocate for and facilitate abortion. We’re asking the court to end that effort and reaffirm the protections that allow us to live as the Gospel calls us to.”

Eric Rassbach, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Catholic and Orthodox churches:

“Forcing people of faith to be mouthpieces for the state’s approved messaging on abortion is nothing short of Orwellian. Illinois has no right to strong-arm pro-life doctors and ministries into promoting something they believe is morally abhorrent. We’reconfident the court will put an end to this mandate.”

Oral argument in the case is expected in early 2026. 

WASHINGTON – The Wisconsin Supreme Court today blocked the state’s recent effort to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In June, all nine Justices rejected Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul’s argument that Catholic Charities’ care for the poor and needy wasn’t religious enough to qualify for a religious exemption from the state’s unemployment tax law. (Watch this video to learn more). But instead of complying with that decision, state officials asked the state’s high court to eliminate the exemption entirely. In its ruling today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied this request and ruled that Catholic Charities is entitled to the exemption.

In the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling this past summer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that Wisconsin had violated federal law by “impos[ing] a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.” The Court 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.” 

“You’d think Wisconsin would take a 9-0 Supreme Court loss as a hint to stop digging,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “But apparently Attorney General Kaul and his staff are gluttons for punishment. Thankfully, the Wisconsin Supreme Court put an end to the state’s tomfoolery and confirmed that Catholic Charities is entitled to the exemption it already won.”

Rather than following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Wisconsin officials tried to avoid it by attacking the religious exemption itself. Not long after losing at the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney General Kaul asked Wisconsin’s high court to consider axing the exemption entirely—undermining a key religious exemption relied on by faith-based organizations across the state. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered further briefing on the question. Becket asked the court to stop this maneuver in its tracks. 

In today’s order, the Wisconsin Supreme Court definitively held that Catholic Charities “is eligible for the religious purposes exemption.” 

Recent polling shows broad support for organizations like Catholic Charities. Becket’s 2024 Religious Freedom Index found that 73% of Americans agree that religious organizations that provide services to help in the community should be just as eligible to receive government funds as non-religious organizations.  

“Wisconsin should have taken the L,” said Rassbach. “Attorney General Kaul never should have doubled down on punishing churches. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order today protects not just Catholic Charities, but every faith-based organization that relies on this exemption to serve the public. It turns out that penalizing charities is not a winning legal strategy.”

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 Supreme Court heard a case today involving First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life Christian ministry in New Jersey that has spent four decades serving women facing unplanned pregnancies. In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, the state’s attorney general tried to force First Choice to disclose how it applies its statement of faith to employees and volunteers, trains its staff to  interact with expectant mothers consistent with its religious mission, collaborates with churches to support its ministry, relates to other pro-life organizations, and how it explains what God is doing in its ministry—without a single complaint or any evidence of wrongdoing. What’s more, New Jersey insists that First Choice has no right to federal court review before being forced to expose mission to state scrutiny. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Justices to protect religious ministries like First Choice from invasive government efforts to interrogate them because of their religiously inspired ministries. Read more about the cases Becket is watching at the Court this term here.

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

“New Jersey’s invasive inquiry into First Choice is a particularly brazen example of how state bureaucrats can abuse their power to target people of faith,” said William Haun, senior counsel at Becket. “The Justices should ensure that the federal courts are open to protect religious self-governance from state hostility toward religious groups.”

In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin tried to drag First Choice into court with an aggressive, wide-ranging investigation. The move was part of a broader campaign Platkin launched in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to target pro-life pregnancy centers. His demands included the names tied to roughly 5,000 contributions along with over a decade of internal records, private communications with churches and supporters, faith-based policies for staff and volunteers, and the materials the ministry uses to counsel women. Platkin made these sweeping demands without identifying a single complaint or pointing to any evidence that First Choice was violating the law. Further still, the Attorney General claims that First Choice has no right to seek protection in federal court before it is forced to subject its internal religious decisions to government scrutiny. Becket is asking the Court to protect the rights of faith-based ministries to make internal religious decisions without state interference. This is a principle a vast majority of Americans agree on—recent polling shows that 80% believe people should be able to run their private organizations consistent with their religious beliefs, free from government interference.

“Keeping the federal courthouse doors closed to New Jersey’s fishing expedition would give state officials nationwide a blank check to cudgel religious ministries into silence,” said Haun. “The Court should make clear that state bureaucrats cannot exploit their power to intimidate ministries or chill the faith commitments that guide their work.”

A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June 2026. 

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

WASHINGTON – The Archdiocese of Denver, a group of Catholic preschools, and a Catholic family in Colorado asked the Supreme Court yesterday to stop the state government from excluding them from Colorado’s new “universal” preschool (UPK) program because of their faith. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently upheld the state’s exclusion, punishing faith-based schools and the families they serve for operating according to their religious beliefs. The court even praised Colorado’s discriminatory regime as a “model” and an “example” for other states to follow. With Becket’s help, Catholic parents and preschools are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool. 

Families who send their kids to Catholic preschools in the Archdiocese of Denver expect them to receive a high-quality education and to be part of a faith-centered Catholic community. That’s exactly what these preschools offer, supporting parents with the religious and educational upbringing of their children by providing excellent intellectual, moral, and spiritual formation. When Colorado launched its UPK program—offering families 15 hours of free preschool per week at the private or public schools of their choice—families sending their kids to Catholic schools across Colorado were eager to participate. But state officials imposed restrictions that excluded all parish preschools because they ask families who enroll to be supportive of their Catholic faith. 

“Our preschools exist to help parents who want an education rooted in the Catholic faith for their children,” said Scott Elmer, Chief Mission Officer for the Archdiocese of Denver. “All we ask is for the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.” 

Colorado families, like plaintiffs Dan and Lisa Sheley, who want a Catholic education for their kids are now forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket each year while those attending over 2,000 other preschools—public or private—get 15 hours of preschool per week paid for the by the state. 

The state’s discriminatory rules have had their predictable effect: Since UPK began, enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors, including one that predominantly served low-income and minority families. The Archdiocese and its parish preschools, along with a Catholic family, have been fighting the exclusion in federal court for more than two years. The Tenth Circuit recently sided with the state, upholding its ban on schools with faith-based admissions policies, even while Colorado admits that it looks the other way when nonreligious schools have admissions policies that violate state law. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling defies the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Carson, Espinoza, and Trinity Lutheran, which held that states cannot exclude religious schools from public benefits because of their religious exercise. Becket is asking the Court to stop Colorado’s attempt to dodge this bedrock precedent and instead ensure that universal preschool in Colorado truly is universal. 

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” said Nick Reaves, senior counsel at Becket. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings. We’re asking the Court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.”  

The Court is likely to consider taking the case in early 2026.

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 asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit late yesterday to protect its ability to display the Ten Commandments in its public school classrooms. In Roake v. Brumley, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana after it passed a law requiring public schools to display small posters including the Ten Commandments that acknowledge the Commandments’ influence on American law and history. A federal district court blocked the law, and three judges on the Fifth Circuit left that ruling in place. But earlier this fall, the full Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning in front of all active judges on the court. Louisiana is represented by Becket, Attorney General Liz Murrill, and Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga.

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 even featured prominently on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“The ACLU seems to think that any trace of religion in public life should trigger a code red-level alarm,” said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket. “To our Founders, that idea would have been laughable. America has a longstanding tradition of recognizing faith in the public square, and the court should allow Louisiana to maintain it by displaying the Ten Commandments in its public schools.”

In 2024, Louisiana 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. And the displays Louisiana is considering in practice feature the Commandments in context, reflecting their role in American laws and history. But before any actual displays ever appeared in any classroom, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana, claiming the displays would harm schoolchildren by forcing them to be in the presence of religious messages.  

Oral argument in the case will take place on January 20, 2026.

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

WASHINGTON – Catholic therapists were in federal appeals court today to protect their ability to provide compassionate, professional counseling to children struggling with their biological sex. In Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, Becket represents counselors who are challenging a Michigan law that bans them from helping children talk through the underlying causes of their discomfort, and instead requires counselors to assist children with a “gender transition”—a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries designed to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. Becket is also supporting a faith-based counselor in Chiles v. Salazar, a parallel case that was heard by the Supreme Court earlier this month. 

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of children who are struggling with their biological sex. Many of these children have been led down a path of “gender transition”—enduring a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries—which often results in profound regret and permanent health harms. The harms are so significant that 26 states and several European countries have banned or strictly limited medical gender transitions for children, advocating instead for compassionate counseling to alleviate their gender-related distress. Unfortunately, Michigan 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.   

“If a child came to me struggling with their biological sex, I would help them work through that distress with compassion, honesty, and respect for their dignity,” said Emily McJones, licensed therapist and owner of Little Flower Counseling. “That’s what my faith calls me to do—and what science supports. I want to support my clients’ goals, and families seek me out for my Catholic faith because they want a therapist who shares their worldview. The state is not only limiting me from practicing my faith but, more importantly, keeping me from supporting my clients to live in line with their faith. I pray the court blocks this law and protects counselors like me.” 

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, life-altering medical interventions. According to recent research, this cautious approach is often the best way to help children who experience such discomfort. But Michigan’s law bans this approach. After Emily and several other Catholic therapists filed a lawsuit to block the law last year, a federal district court left it in place. Now they are asking the Sixth Circuit to protect their right to help children accept their God-given bodies.  

“Children in Michigan deserve better than to be rushed into harmful, irreversible, life-altering medical interventions,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “But the state is threatening to do just that by punishing counselors who take a cautious, science-backed approach to helping kids experiencing gender-related distress. We’re asking the court to protect compassionate counseling and common sense.” 

A ruling 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 – Becket asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday to stop state officials from defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In June, all nine Justices rejected Wisconsin’s argument that Catholic Charities’ care for the poor and needy wasn’t religious enough to qualify for a religious exemption from the state’s unemployment tax law. (Watch this video to learn more). But instead of complying with that decision, state officials are now asking the state’s high court to eliminate the exemption entirely.

In the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling this past summer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that Wisconsin had violated federal law by “impos[ing] a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.” The Court 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.”

“The idea that a Catholic ministry serving those in need isn’t religious was always absurd,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “That’s why the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Wisconsin’s arguments and protected Catholic Charities. Trying to wriggle out of a 9-0 loss is even more absurd. The state should take the L and move on.” 

Rather than following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Wisconsin officials are now trying to avoid it by attacking the religious exemption itself. The attorney general recently asked the state’s high court to consider axing the exemption entirely—undermining a key religious exemption relied on by faith-based organizations across Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court then ordered further briefing on the question. Becket is asking the court to stop this maneuver in its tracks. If permitted to eliminate the exemption entirely, Wisconsin would harm not only Catholic Charities but also churches, synagogues, mosques, and other ministries that depend on the same exemption.

“Wisconsin’s bald-faced defiance of the Supreme Court is nothing short of remarkable,” said Rassbach. “Rather than accepting defeat, the state is now trying to punish all religious groups in Wisconsin, not just Catholic Charities. Doubling down on excluding religious people makes a mockery of both our legal system and religious freedom.”

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

WASHINGTON – The State of Washington agreed today not to force Catholic priests to violate the sacred seal of confession. The law at issue in Etienne v. Ferguson required priests to report information shared within the sacred confines of the Sacrament of Confession. A federal court blocked the unconstitutional law earlier this summer, just days before it was set to take effect on July 27. WilmerHale and co-counsel Becket and First Liberty Institute represent the lead plaintiffs Archbishop Paul D. Etienne, Bishop Joseph J. Tyson, and Bishop Thomas A. Daly, who filed the lawsuit earlier this summer. 

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 Church originally supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors and asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the Sacrament of Confession.  

For centuries, the Catholic Church has upheld the belief that confession is a sacred encounter between a repentant sinner and God, acting through the priest, and must remain confidential so as to encourage such repentance. 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 that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.

Washington’s new law, which was slated to take effect on July 27, threatened to impose 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 claimed the law was designed to protect minors, it permitted 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. That’s why the Church supported the intent behind the law and objected only to one provision: the elimination of long-standing protections for the Sacrament of Confession. In every other setting, the Church has long supported—and continues to support—mandatory reporting.

Quotes for media use: 

“Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.”

“Preventing abuse and upholding the sacred seal of confession are not mutually exclusive—we can and must do both,” said Jean Hill, Executive Director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. “That’s why the Church supported the law’s goal from the beginning and only asked for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament. We’re grateful the state ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”

“It is a credit to the Attorney General of Washington, the Governor, and the Archbishop and Bishops that they were able to come together and find common ground under the First Amendment to protect religious liberty while seeking to eradicate the scourge of sexual abuse,” said Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “I hope we can all learn from their noble examples.”

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 heard a case brought by Alliance Defending Freedom today involving a Colorado law that bans compassionate counseling for children struggling with their biological sex. In Chiles v. Salazar, licensed counselor Kaley Chiles is asking the Court to protect her ability to talk with children about the underlying causes of their discomfort without being forced to push them towards harmful, irreversible medical interventions. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of Chiles, explaining that Colorado’s law disproportionately harms religious youth who want to receive compassionate, cautious, scientifically backed talk therapy that helps them accept their God-given bodies. Read more about the cases Becket is watching at the Court this term here.

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of children who are struggling with their biological sex. Many of these children have been led down a path of “gender transition”—enduring a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries—which often results in profound regret and permanent health harms. The harms are so significant that 26 states and several European countries have banned or strictly limited medical gender transitions for children, advocating instead for compassionate counseling to alleviate their gender-related distress. Unfortunately, Colorado bans this compassionate approach, forcing therapists like Kaley Chiles to turn away children who want her help accepting their bodies or risk losing her license and suffering crippling fines. Meanwhile, Colorado Medicaid will pay for minors to have cross-sex hormones, mastectomies, and even genital surgeries—permanently stripping young girls of the opportunity to ever bear or nurse children.

“At a moment when kids nationwide are struggling to accept their God-given bodies, states shouldn’t be muzzling faith-based counselors who want to help,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “Counselors like Kaley Chiles help young people who want to slow down, ask questions, and talk through their distress. If Colorado is allowed to ban that compassionate, science-backed approach, vulnerable kids will pay the price.”

Faith-based counselors nationwide, including Becket’s clients in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, help youth experiencing gender-related distress by using a cautious approach. They talk with children to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, help them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible, life-altering medical intervention. This approach is supported by the best available scientific evidence and reflected in recently enacted laws in dozens of states and several European countries. Becket is urging the Court to protect counselors who want to help children work through the underlying causes of their distress without rushing into irreversible medical procedures. 

“Experts around the world are urging caution when it comes to treating children struggling to accept their biological sex,” said Keim. “Banning counseling that offers young people a slow and compassionate approach flies in the face of emerging medical consensus and basic human decency. We’re hopeful the Court will protect counselors who are helping kids in need.” 

A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s term by June 2026.

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

WASHINGTON – Sixteen states, prominent legal scholars, and diverse faith groups asked the Supreme Court yesterday to protect a Christian baker’s right to create custom-designed wedding cakes that reflect her faith. In Cathy Miller v. Civil Rights Department, California opened an investigation into 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.” (Watch this video to learn more). Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Thomas More Society are working to protect Cathy’s ability to design and create custom baked goods in peace. 

Cathy Miller is a faithful Christian and baker. 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.

Highlights from yesterday’s filings include: 

• 16 states, led by Texas, urging the Court to articulate a clear rule protecting the expressive nature of wedding cakes so that lower courts can correctly resolve cases like Cathy’s. 

• Religious liberty law scholars, including Michael W. McConnell, asking the Court to revisit Employment Division v. Smith, a ruling which has allowed states like California to eschew the Constitution’s robust protections for religious liberty. 

• Diverse faith groups, including the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, emphasizing that people of faith can lose their livelihood and suffer far-worse religious discrimination when states like California use their public accommodations laws to try to purge religious beliefs from believers’ own businesses. 

• Prominent legal groups, including the Manhattan Institute and the Pacific Justice Institute, arguing that the First Amendment forbids California from compelling religious objectors like Cathy to participate in religiously meaningful ceremonies by creating a symbol—a wedding cake—universally recognized as a celebration of that ceremony.

To make sure all her custom creations conformed to her religious beliefs, Cathy developed written design standards. 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.  

California put Cathy through a five-day trial. The trial court ruled for Cathy, finding that she “serve[d], and employ[ed]” people of all sexual orientations, that her “only intent, her only motivation, was fidelity to her sincere Christian beliefs,” and that this was not discrimination under California law. But California continued to prosecute Cathy. Earlier this year, a California appeals court ruled against Cathy, and the state Supreme Court refused to hear her case. 

Statements for media use: 

“I am humbled by this outpouring of support for my freedom to serve my community with joy, compassion, and faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” said Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California. “Knowing that so many others stand with me strengthens my resolve to keep creating in a way that honors Him. I pray the Court will hear my case.” 

“The diverse voices rallying to Cathy’s side—states, respected scholars, and faith communities from across the country—make clear that her case is about far more than one bakery,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “California’s relentless campaign against Cathy is unjust and un-American. The Justices should end California’s crusade and affirm that no one should be punished for living out their faith.”

“The tremendous outpouring of support for Cathy Miller, seen in the many amici briefs now before the Supreme Court, is both inspiring and humbling. Cathy’s faith runs deep; she lives it boldly, joyfully, and with integrity,” said Charles LiMandri, Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP and Thomas More Society Special Counsel. “And she pours that same spirit into her work, bringing happiness to everyone she serves. With the opportunity to be heard at the Supreme Court, Cathy is not only defending her own religious liberty, she is representing millions of Americans who live out their faith.” 

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 on Friday, warning that redefining sex in federal law would threaten the freedom of religious groups nationwide. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the ACLU and Lambda Legal argue that Title IX—the federal law ensuring equal opportunity for women in education—requires schools to allow male athletes who identify as transgender to participate on girls’ teams, even though Title IX says nothing about gender identity. Becket’s brief warns that this interpretation would have far-reaching consequences for religious schools, healthcare providers, and other religious institutions for following their beliefs about sexuality. 

West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act requires public schools in West Virginia to separate sports teams by biological sex, preserving equal athletic opportunities for female athletes. Before the law took effect, the ACLU and Lambda Legal sued on behalf of a male student who identifies as transgender and sought to compete on a girls’ team, arguing the state law violates Title IX by targeting the student’s transgender status. A lower court upheld West Virginia’s law, but the Fourth Circuit reversed. West Virginia is now defending the Save Women’s Sports Act at the Supreme Court as being fully consistent with Title IX and the Constitution.

“Twisting Title IX beyond what Congress intended would unleash a tidal wave of lawsuits, investigations, and mandates against religious groups nationwide,” said Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket. “We’ve seen this parade of horribles before. After Bostock, religious schools, healthcare providers, and faith-based ministries were dragged into court simply for following their beliefs.”

Becket’s brief warns that ruling against West Virginia would open the floodgates to aggressive federal enforcement and lawsuits against religious institutions. The same pattern followed Bostock v. Clayton County, where the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “sex” under Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity, but did not provide robust protections for religious liberty. In the wake of that ruling, religious schools were sued for following their beliefs, and federal agencies continued efforts to force religious healthcare providers to perform gender-transition procedures in violation of their faith and best medical judgment. Becket’s brief urges the Court not to repeat what happened with Bostock in this case by interpreting Title IX as written. 

“Religious Americans shouldn’t have to slog through years of litigation just to hold fast to their faith,” said Wolk Slavis. “We’re asking the Court to make clear that Title IX means what it says and protect the freedom of religious groups to live out their beliefs without fear.”

Oral argument in the case is expected later this term. 

WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court late yesterday in support of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life Christian ministry in New Jersey that has spent four decades serving women facing unplanned pregnancies. In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, the state’s attorney general tried to force First Choice to disclose how it applies its statement of faith to employees and volunteers, works with churches to support its ministry, relates to other pro-life organizations, and how it explains what God is doing in its ministry—without a single complaint or any evidence of wrongdoing. Becket is asking the Justices to protect the rights of ministries like First Choice from being dragged into court over their religious beliefs.

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

“The First Amendment prohibits New Jersey from trolling through First Choice’s religious-mission decisions and thereby threatening its life-affirming work,” said William Haun, senior counsel at Becket. “We are asking the Court to ensure that state officials respect internal religious decisions, not sabotage First Choice’s honorable mission of serving women in need.” 

In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin tried to drag First Choice into court with an aggressive, wide-ranging investigation. The move was part of a broader campaign Platkin launched in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to target pro-life pregnancy centers. His demands included the names tied to roughly 5,000 contributions along with over a decade of internal records, private communications with churches and supporters, faith-based policies for staff and volunteers, and the materials the ministry uses to counsel women. Platkin made these sweeping demands without identifying a single complaint or pointing to any evidence that First Choice was violating the law. Becket is asking the Court to protect the rights of faith-based ministries from being forced into court over their religious beliefs. 

“Self-government requires respect for the independence of religious institutions, not subjecting their religious decisions to state scrutiny,” said Haun. “Religious ministries exist to serve a higher authority than a New Jersey bureaucrat. The Court should end New Jersey’s unnecessary and unconstitutional intrusion.” 

Oral argument in the case is expected in the fall. 

WASHINGTON – A Christian baker from California asked the Supreme Court late yesterday to protect her right to create custom-designed wedding cakes that reflect her faith. In Cathy Miller v. Civil Rights Department, California opened an investigation into 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.” (Watch this video to learn more). Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Thomas More Society are working to protect Cathy’s ability to design and create custom baked goods in peace. 

Cathy Miller is a faithful Christian and baker. 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. 

To make sure all her custom creations conformed to her religious beliefs, Cathy developed written design standards. 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.  

California put Cathy through a five-day trial. The trial court ruled for Cathy, finding that she “serve[d], and employ[ed]” people of all sexual orientations, that her “only intent, her only motivation, was fidelity to her sincere Christian beliefs,” and that this was not discrimination under California law. But California continued to prosecute Cathy. Earlier this year, a California appeals court ruled against Cathy, and the state Supreme Court refused to hear her case. 

Statements for media use: 

“My love for Jesus Christ calls me to serve others with joy and compassion, and Tastries has been my way of answering that call for over a decade,” said Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California. “I’m asking the Court to end California’s harassment once and for all. All I want is to serve my neighbors as the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls me to without being forced to create messages that violate my beliefs.” 

“For eight long years, California has treated Cathy like an enemy—dragging her through court, smearing her name, and trying to force her to violate her faith,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “Enough is enough. We’re asking the Court to put a stop to this bullying campaign and let Cathy design in peace. Justice demands no less.” 

“California is forcing Cathy to surrender her faith to the state’s political agenda, taking away her ability to operate her business in alignment with her values and bring joy to others through her talented work,” said Charles LiMandri, Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP and Thomas More Society Special Counsel. “Despite Cathy’s initial victory, appeals by the State of California have now left Cathy’s religious freedom rights hanging in the balance. We are hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize this injustice and restore her right to live out and practice her faith.” 

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 – A federal court in Minnesota on Friday protected two faith-based universities’ ability to offer free college credit to high school students. In Loe v. Jett, a group of Christian families and schools, with Becket’s help, sued Minnesota in 2023 for excluding universities that require students to sign a statement of faith from the state’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. Friday’s ruling stops the state’s ban on faith-based schools and ensures that students can pursue an education that aligns with their beliefs. 

Minnesota created the PSEO program 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 share their religious beliefs. Before their younger children could do the same, Minnesota excluded 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 in 2023 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 continued to argue that the students and families should be cut out of the program. 

Statements for media use: 

Mark and Melinda Loe:  

“We raise our children to put their faith at the center of their lives. Minnesota tried to take that right away from us by denying kids like ours the opportunity to attend schools that reflect their faith. We are grateful for this ruling, which protects students across the state and the schools they want to attend.”  

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

“Northwestern exists to provide Christ-centered higher education that equips students to grow intellectually and spiritually, and to serve effectively with God-honoring leadership in their home, church, community, and the world. In 2023, the state attempted to restrict students who desire to take their PSEO credits at Northwestern—an attempt that has been rebuffed. We are grateful that UNW can continue to serve the Minnesota families who wish to get a head start in their college journey as members of our unwavering campus community.” 

Andrew Denton, president of Crown College: 

“As a boldly Christian college, we are grateful for this significant ruling, which ensures we can continue to equip all students—including PSEO students—through a biblically-based, faith-integrated education to impact the world for Christ. The court made clear that Minnesota cannot single out high school students who want to attend a faith-centered institution. We are deeply appreciative to the legislative members who worked hard to try and prevent this law from passing.”

Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket: 

“Minnesota tried to cut off educational opportunities to thousands of high schoolers simply for their faith. That’s not just unlawful—it’s shameful. This ruling is a win for families who won’t be strong-armed into abandoning their beliefs, and a sharp warning to politicians who target them.” 

In addition to Becket, the schools and families are represented by Richard C. Landon of Lathrop GPM.  

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 Colorado today protected a Catholic healthcare clinic’s ability to help women reverse the effects of the first abortion pill. In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, the clinic challenged a Colorado law that made it illegal for doctors and nurses to help women who take the first abortion pill but decide to continue their pregnancies. A federal court temporarily blocked the law in 2023, and today the court made that protection permanent. Now Bella Health & Wellness can continue serving the many women who come to them for help to continue their pregnancies. 

“Colorado tried to deprive pregnant women of the life-affirming care that is best for them and their babies,” said Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, co-founders of Bella Health and Wellness. “We are overjoyed that the court has recognized our constitutional right to continue offering this support to the many women who come to our clinic seeking help.”   

“Colorado should never have tried to stop Bella from helping pregnant women who want to choose life for their babies,” said Rebekah Ricketts, senior counsel at Becket. “This ruling ensures that pregnant women in Colorado will not be denied this compassionate care or be forced to have abortions against their will.”  

Founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, Bella offers dignified, life-affirming 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.  

In 2023, 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 October 2023, Judge Daniel Domenico temporarily stopped Colorado’s abortion pill reversal ban. Under the court’s protection, Bella has successfully helped numerous women continue their pregnancies, resulting in the birth of at least 16 babies since the case began. Judge Domenico today made his ruling permanent, allowing Bella to continue offering compassionate care to women in need. 

Colorado has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Tenth Circuit. 

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

WASHINGTON – In a stunning about-face, UCLA agreed early this morning to a court judgment and settlement requiring it to pay over $6 million and subjecting it to a permanent court order forbidding it from excluding Jews from campus. In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP sued UCLA last year after the university assisted  antisemitic agitators who blocked Jewish students and faculty from large swathes of campus and critical campus buildings. UCLA fought the lawsuit for over a year, refusing to admit it had done anything wrong. Last summer, federal District Judge Mark C. Scarsi provided sweeping preliminary relief to the Jewish community at UCLA, barring the university from continuing to facilitate antisemitic exclusion on its campus. The agreed judgment will officially bring the lawsuit to a close, making Judge Scarsi’s earlier decision permanent and ensuring that Jews at UCLA will not face such antisemitic exclusion in the future.   

The settlement requires UCLA to pay $6.13 million, including damages to each of Becket’s clients, millions in charitable contributions to organizations that support the Jewish community, and attorneys’ fees and costs. As part of the settlement, UCLA also agreed to final judgment and a permanent court order preventing it from facilitating efforts to exclude Jewish students and faculty from campus. The agreed judgment appropriately recognizes that it is discriminatory—and antisemitic—to prevent Jews from accessing public spaces because of their religious beliefs about Israel. The settlement is believed to be the largest private settlement in campus antisemitism cases. All parties agreed on the following joint statement about the final resolution: “We are pleased with the terms of today’s settlement. The injunction and other terms UCLA has agreed to demonstrate real progress in the fight against antisemitism.”  

“When antisemites were terrorizing Jews and excluding them from campus, UCLA chose to protect the thugs and help keep Jews out,” said Yitzchok Frankel, father of four and recent UCLA Law graduate. “That was shameful, and it is sad that my own school defended those actions for more than a year. But today’s court judgment brings justice back to our campus and ensures Jews will be safe and be treated equally once again.” 

The settlement comes nearly a year after Judge 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 Jews on campus. These actions were documented in a report filed by UCLA’s own Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, which admitted the University had fostered an antisemitic environment. 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.”  

“Campus administrators across the country willingly bent the knee to antisemites during the encampments,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and an attorney for the students. “They are now on notice: treating Jews like second-class citizens is wrong, illegal, and very costly. UCLA should be commended for accepting judgment against that misbehavior and setting the precedent that allowing mistreatment of Jews violates the Constitution and civil rights laws. Students across the country are safer for it.”  

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 today blocked a new Washington state law that would have forced Catholic priests to face jail time unless they broke the sacred seal of confession. The law at issue in Etienne v. Ferguson, which was set to take effect on July 27, required clergy to report abuse shared within the sacred confines of the confessional. WilmerHale and co-counsel Becket and First Liberty Institute represent the lead plaintiffs Archbishop Paul D. Etienne, Bishop Joseph J. Tyson, and Bishop Thomas A. Daly, who filed an initial lawsuit earlier this summer.  

After a July 14 hearing where Washington argued its new law lacked “legislative animus,” the court ruled that the state was “unable to explain why the language in § 1(b) of the bill doubled down on singling out clergy.” 

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 religious activities but allows protections to remain in place in secular settings.

For centuries, 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 that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.  

Washington’s new law, which was slated to take effect on July 27, threatened to impose 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 was 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.

Quotes for media use:  

“This ruling confirms what has always been true: In America, government officials have no business prying into the confessional,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “By protecting the seal of confession, the court has also safeguarded the basic principle that people of all faiths should be free to practice their beliefs without government interference.” 

“For centuries, Catholic faithful around the world have sought reconciliation with God through the sacrament of confession,” said Jean Hill, Executive Director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. “This ruling protects that sacred space and ensures that Washingtonians of all religious stripes can live out their beliefs in peace.” 

“The First Amendment did its work today in protecting the confessional and I am proud of the Church for its continued support of the reporting law’s application outside of that context,” 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 Catholic bishops of Washington state and a group of priests were in federal court today asking the court to block a new state law that forces priests to face jail time unless they break the sacred seal of confession. The law at issue in Etienne v. Ferguson, set to take effect on July 27, requires clergy to report abuse if shared within the sacred confines of the confessional. WilmerHale and co-counsel Becket and First Liberty Institute represent the lead plaintiffs Archbishop Paul D. Etienne, Bishop Joseph J. Tyson, and Bishop Thomas A. Daly, who filed an initial lawsuit earlier this summer. 

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 religious activities but allows protections to remain in place in secular settings. 

For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church has upheld the belief that confession is holy and must stay private. During the sacrament of confession, the priest acts as the mediator between God and the penitent, which requires complete confidentiality from the priest so people feel comfortable repenting their sins. This absolute secrecy is known as the seal of confession, which 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 that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.  

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 long-standing Canon law. 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 Yakima and Spokane, 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. 

Quotes for media use:  

“Washington wants to force Catholic priests into an impossible choice between betraying their ancient faith practices or facing jail time,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket. “In a free nation like ours, no one should have to make that choice. We’re hopeful the court will block this draconian law and protect the sacredness of confession.” 

“Confession is a refuge for the human soul, where the faithful come to seek God’s mercy and forgiveness,” said Jean Hill, Executive Director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. “If priests face criminal sanctions for following their faith and refusing to break the seal of confession, it threatens the freedom of everyone to practice their faith without fear. We are hopeful that the court will protect religious freedom for all Washingtonians.” 

“Religious liberty gives room for all faiths to thrive in our country, including protecting the Church, which is seeking a very narrow exception for the centuries-old Sacrament of Confession and otherwise supports the reporting law,” 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 State of Louisiana asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today to protect its ability to display the Ten Commandments in its public school classrooms. In Roake v. Brumley, Louisiana passed a law requiring public schools to display small posters including the Ten Commandments and acknowledging the Commandments’ influence on American law, history, and education. After the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the State, a federal district court blocked the law, and three judges on the Fifth Circuit recently left that ruling in place. Now the State—represented by Becket, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, and Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga—is asking the Fifth Circuit to hear the case “en banc,” meaning in front of all active judges on the court.

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 even featured prominently on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“The ACLU wants to treat something that would be seen as perfectly unremarkable by our Founders—an acknowledgment of religion in a public space—as a health hazard,” said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket. “This view is as detached from reality as it is from our law. The court should make clear that Louisiana is free to acknowledge every aspect of our history and culture, including the Ten Commandments.”  

In 2024, Louisiana 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. And the displays Louisiana is considering in practice feature the Commandments in context, reflecting their role in American laws and history. However, before any actual displays ever appeared in any classroom, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Louisiana claiming the displays will harm schoolchildren by forcing them to be in the presence of religious messages. In 2024, a federal district court put the law on hold, and last week the Fifth Circuit left that ruling in place. Now Louisiana is urging the full court to hear the case and allow it to freely display the Ten Commandments in its public school classrooms.

“Today, my office filed a petition seeking the full Fifth Circuit’s review in our litigation regarding Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law. The Fifth Circuit’s panel decision in this case directly rejected the Fifth Circuit’s own precedents and precedents from other circuits and the Supreme Court,” said Attorney General Liz Murrill. “This is exactly the sort of case that warrants full Court review, and we appreciate the Court’s careful consideration.”

The Fifth Circuit is expected to decide whether to hear the case in the coming weeks. 

WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court last week urging the Justices to block Colorado’s ban on compassionate counseling for children experiencing discomfort with their biological sex. In Chiles v. Salazar, licensed counselor Kaley Chiles is asking the Court to protect her ability to talk with children about the underlying causes of their discomfort without being forced to push them towards harmful, irreversible medical interventions. Becket’s brief explains that Colorado’s law disproportionately harms religious youth who want to receive compassionate, cautious, scientifically backed talk therapy that helps them accept their God-given bodies.  

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of children identifying as transgender. Many of these children have been led down a path of “gender transition”—enduring a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries—which often results in profound regret and permanent health harms. The harms are so significant that 25 states and several European countries have banned or strictly limited gender transitions for children, advocating instead for compassionate counseling for their distress. Unfortunately, Colorado bans this compassionate approach, forcing therapists like Kaley Chiles to turn away children and families or risk losing her license and suffering crippling fines. Meanwhile, the state allows a wide range of high-risk treatments for youth mental illness—including medical marijuana and electroconvulsive therapy. 

“Colorado allows children suffering from mental illness to use medical marijuana or undergo electroconvulsive therapy. Colorado Medicaid even pays for children with gender dysphoria to have their healthy body parts surgically removed,” said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. “The one thing Colorado kids with gender dysphoria can’t do is talk through their distress with a counselor in a compassionate, cautious way. That is both nonsensical and harmful to children.” 

Faith-based counselors nationwide, including Becket’s clients in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, help youth experiencing gender dysphoria by using a cautious approach. They talk with children to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, allow them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible, life-altering medical intervention. This approach is supported by the best available scientific evidence and reflected in recently enacted laws in dozens of states and several European countries. Becket’s brief urges the Court to protect counselors who want to help children work through the underlying causes of their distress without rushing into irreversible medical procedures. 

“Colorado’s attempt to silence professional counselors who help children resolve their gender-related distress without drugs or surgery is unconscionable, unscientific, and unlawful,” said Keim. “The Court should put a stop to this law and ensure that vulnerable children and families can receive the compassionate counseling they deserve.” 

Oral argument in the case is expected in the fall. 

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 has ordered New York courts to reconsider Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a case challenging New York’s abortion mandate, in light of Becket’s unanimous victory in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In 2017, a group of Catholic and Anglican nuns, Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social ministries challenged New York’s mandate forcing them to pay for employees’ abortions. After New York courts declined to protect the faith groups, 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, but the courts ignored that instruction. Now the Supreme Court has ordered the New York courts to go back to the drawing board. (Watch this short video to learn more). Last week, New York admitted that its scheme could not stand as written based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of Catholic Charities Bureau.  

When the New York State Department of Financial Services initially proposed the abortion mandate for health care plans, it promised to exempt all employers with religious objections. But 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 many religious ministries—including the ministries challenging the mandate here—because they 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 wants to browbeat nuns into paying for abortions for the great crime of serving all those in need,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court has made clear that bully tactics like these have no place in our nation or our law. We are confident that these religious groups will finally be able to care for the most vulnerable consistent with their beliefs.” 

After New York courts refused to protect religious organizations targeted by New York’s mandate, they asked the Supreme Court to take their case. In 2021, the Court reversed the New York state courts and told them to reconsider the case in light of Becket’s landmark victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. But the state courts found Fulton inapplicable, forcing the religious groups back to the Supreme Court once again. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Catholic Charities, which says that government cannot use schemes like New York’s to discriminate among religious people. Today the Justices directed the New York courts to reconsider the case in light of that ruling. 

“Religious groups in the Empire State should not be forced 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 confident that New York will finally get the message and stop discriminating against religious objectors.” 

The case will immediately return to the New York 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 – 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.