WASHINGTON, D.C. – It’s feeling extra frosty in one New Hampshire town this year after a local town administrator banned a menorah from the town’s holiday display. Durham town leaders denied the local Chabad’s request to display a menorah next to the town Christmas tree because it wasn’t “secular” or “inclusive” enough for the annual “holiday” tree lighting in a local park. This blatant bah-humbugging has earned the Durham town administration the 2018 Ebenezer Award, Becket’s lowest (dis)honor, awarded for the most ridiculous affront to the Christmas and Hanukkah season.  

Rabbi Berel Slavaticki of the University of New Hampshire & Seacoast Chabad Jewish Center applied for a permit to display a menorah in the town’s Memorial Park for Hanukkah. But the Commission rejected the application claiming that the menorah was “too religious.” Local residents armed with common sense disagreed at a town council meeting last week, saying the Christmas tree—also a religious symbol—and the menorah belonged in the park.  

“In the name of inclusivity the town administration excluded an entire religious minority from participating in the town holiday celebrations—talk about missing the mark,” said Montse Alvarado, VP & executive director of Becket, “It makes no sense to celebrate the holiday season by editing out the true meaning of Christmas and relegating Hanukkah to the broom closet. Do you throw a party and blacklist the guests of honor?”  

Each year Becket reflects on the most absurd affronts to the Christmas and Hanukkah season and bestows upon the most outrageous offender a lump of coal. 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, 1qA“which last year banned from campus the colors red and green, blue and silver, Santas, bows, dreidels and even wrapped presents. (See list of previous winners). 

This year’s Ebenezer Award runner up is the city of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, for demanding a local church take down a nativity display after granting permission just days earlier. And this year’s Eggnog Toast, given to an individual or group who had a Grinch-like change of heart, goes to the Omaha Manchester Elementary School in Nebraska for suspending its principal after she prohibited classrooms from having Christmas trees, Christmas carols, Santa and even candy canes, concerned that the shape might make students think of the letter J for “Jesus.”

“Religious holidays are an important part of human culture and the government is allowed to recognize and celebrate those holidays with the appropriate symbols,” said Alvarado. “The Supreme Court has long protected holiday displays that remind us of our country’s pluralism and religious liberty during the holiday season.”  

Becket wishes everyone a Merry Christmas, a (retroactive) Happy Hanukkah, and a Joyous New Year to all!  

 ### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After the University of Iowa admitted in court that it discriminates against religious student groups, the InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship asked a federal court yesterday to permanently require equal treatment for all organizations. The case, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. University of Iowa, arose after more than a dozen student religious groups were purged by the University last summer for asking their leaders to affirm their respective faiths. The Sikh Awareness Club, Chinese Student Christian Fellowship, Imam Mahdi organization, and Latter-day Saint Student Association were among the other faith groups kicked off campus. All religious groups were temporarily reinstated after InterVarsity filed suit, but the university continues to resist a permanent fix and insist that it can treat religious groups different from other groups.

Last summer’s purge came after the university took the hard-line stance that a religious group is guilty of religious discrimination when it asks its leaders to affirm the group’s religious beliefs or even “encourages” them to do so. But recently, the university admitted in court that it:

• Gives “many exceptions” from its non-discrimination rules for “various clubs, sports teams, and even scholarship programs”;
• Allows many groups to engage in “apparent violations” of its rules, such as by discriminating on such bases as sex, race, and nationality, if they “provide safe spaces for minorities” or support the university’s unspecified “educational and social purposes”;
• Permits the largest groups on campus—fraternities and sororities, which constitute almost 20 percent of the student body—to remain single-sex, as well as sports clubs, acapella groups, and various other university programs;
• “[F]reely admits” that its treatment of student groups “is inconsistent.”

“In the name of non-discrimination, the University of Iowa discriminated against more than a dozen diverse religious groups–including Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket, which represents InterVarsity. “That’s Orwellian. Real diversity requires real differences. The university has – quite rightly – long respected the differences inherent in Greek groups, sports clubs, and ideological groups. The First Amendment requires the university to do the same for religious groups.”

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has been on the university of Iowa campus for over 25 years, hosting Bible studies, worship services, and discussions on important religious and social issues. It is one of the largest contributors to the annual C.R.O.P. walk to combat global poverty. The group welcomes all students to join as members and only requires its leaders follow its Christian faith. In 25 years, no student has ever complained about its leadership selection standards. There are over 500 student groups at the university, including numerous religious, cultural, political, and ideological groups that have long been allowed to choose leaders who share their mission.

“InterVarsity seeks to serve the University of Iowa, its students and faculty, and the local community,” said Greg Jao, Director of External Relations at InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA. “We invite the university to embrace a common sense understanding of its non-discrimination policy. The policy should protect, rather than penalize, religious groups that seek to retain their religious identity on campus.”

At Becket’s request, the university agreed to allow InterVarsity and all other deregistered religious groups to temporarily remain on campus during the pendency of existing litigation. A final decision could come before March 2019.

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Foster families were in the court today fighting the City of Philadelphia’s decision to discriminate against a religious foster care agency and prevent at-risk kids from being placed with a loving foster family. In Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia barred one of the city’s top foster care agencies, Catholic Social Services, from placing children with dozens of certified foster families solely because of the agency’s religious beliefs about marriage. The hearing took place at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which must decide whether the city can continue to discriminate against Catholic Social Services and the children and families it serves (watch recap of arguments live on Twitter).

Catholic Social Services has worked with the city to place children with foster families for more than five decades and has provided this ministry to Philadelphians since the early 1900s, long before the city got involved. And to this day, neither the city nor the ACLU has pointed to anyone that has been prevented or even discouraged from fostering by Catholic Social Services. Yet earlier this year the city barred Catholic Social Services from placing children with foster parents like Sharonell Fulton–who has served as a loving foster mother for 25 years. 

“With every passing day, vulnerable kids wait for the chance to sleep in their own beds in a loving place they can call home,” said Sharonell Fulton, a single mother who has fostered over 40 children through the agency. “I worry for these kids, and the two children with special needs in my care, whose futures are threatened because of the city’s decision to discriminate.” 

There are 6,000 foster children in need of a family in the City of Philadelphia. The need to find those children homes is so dire that earlier this year the city put out an urgent call for 300 new families to join the foster care network. But shortly after this call for help, the city inexplicably prohibited Catholic Social Services from placing more children with families—solely because of the agency’s religious beliefs. There are currently dozens of families licensed to foster through Catholic Social Services who are willing to take in children, but because of the city’s actions, those homes remain empty. 

“The wait to find a foster family is long enough for a vulnerable child, yet the City of Philadelphia has decided to keep at-risk children out of loving homes,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which represents Catholic Social Services and three foster families. “The court should put an end to the city’s religious discrimination and allow Catholic Social Services to continue doing what it does best: giving children loving families.” 

Becket is representing foster children, families, and Catholic Social Services in federal court. A decision can be expected by early next year. 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church, a historic congregation in one of Pittsburgh’s poorest communities, is free to choose its own religious leaders without fear of government interference. In Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church, a federal appellate court today ruled for the small African-American congregation, stating that the First Amendment prevents courts from deciding questions of spiritual leadership. The decision was 3-0 in favor of the church. 

The church was facing a $2.6 million lawsuit from its former pastor, Rev. David Lee, whom the church dismissed after attendance plummeted and church expenses doubled under his leadership. A federal trial court previously ruled against Rev. Lee, but he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, which today ruled to protect the congregation’s right to choose its leaders. The Third Circuit’s ruling bolsters the right of all houses of worship to select their leaders—a right called the “ministerial exception”—stating that “While the amount of church contributions and members is a matter of arithmetic, assessing Lee’s role … requires a determination of what constitutes adequate spiritual leadership.” That raises “questions that would impermissibly entangle the court in religious governance and doctrine prohibited by the Establishment Clause.” 

“The government has no right to entangle itself in choosing a church’s ministers,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket, which represents Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church. “As the Supreme Court unanimously ruled six years ago, houses of worship have the right to choose who leads the flock.” 

The church chose Rev. Lee to be its pastor in 2012. Soon after, however, he demanded a 20-year contract from the church, telling the church that it could still fire him if it was unhappy with his religious leadership. By 2015, it was clear that church ministries had deteriorated: attendance and offerings had both dropped by nearly 40 percent, while church expenses had increased by 200 percent. The congregation, unhappy with Rev. Lee’s leadership, then voted to dismiss Rev. Lee from the pulpit. Rev. Lee sued Sixth Mount Zion for $2.6 million later that year.  

Founded in 1899, Sixth Mount Zion serves one of Pittsburgh’s poorest communities: one-third of the households in its neighborhood are headed by single moms, one quarter of the houses sit vacant, and one person is unemployed for every three that have a job. To support its community, the church hosts a number of ministries to the poor, including a monthly food-bank and a program to help provide affordable housing.   

Becket, which represents Sixth Mount Zion, also successfully defended the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York in the Fratello case and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012. Today’s decision was the first Third Circuit case to apply Hosanna-Tabor, and the first appeal nationwide to apply Hosanna-Tabor to a contract claim.  

Amicus briefs in support of Sixth Mount Zion were filed by Professors Douglas Laycock, Michael McConnell, Thomas Berg, Carl Esbeck, Rick Garnett, and Robert Cochran, represented by Victoria Dorfman, Todd Geremia, Mark Kubisch, and Daniel Benson of Jones Day, and by the Church of God in Christ, mPact Churches, Plymouth Brethren, and Bishop William Stokes, represented by Andrew Kilberg, David Casazza, and Brian Lipshutz of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. 

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

###  

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Former foster children, eight states, a Jewish advocacy group, a large  Congressional coalition and others urged an appeals court yesterday to reverse a district court ruling that will allow the City of Philadelphia to shut down Catholic Social Services, one of the City’s best foster agencies. The friend-of-the-court briefs filed in Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia argue that the ruling discriminates against the foster agency and the families it serves, violates the Constitution, is detrimental for religious minorities, and, above all, causes devastating harm to the City’s foster children in need of loving homes.

The City of Philadelphia’s harmful new policy enacted in March abruptly barred Catholic Social Services from placing dozens of children with foster parents like Sharonell Fulton, who has fostered over 40 kids in the last 25 years, and Cecelia Paul, who has fostered over 100 children. The City’s policy needlessly keeps at-risk children away from available homes solely because the City disagrees with the foster agency’s religious beliefs about marriage. After a district judge ruled against the agency in July, the families appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which will consider the case this fall.

“I gotta keep fighting for all these other kids so that they can have the life I had. If you have a good foster home—one where a parent treats you like their child—you can make it. Without one, you can fall through the cracks. CSS needs to keep open. It saved my life,” said Jamie Hill, a former foster child, who thinks that “a foster home is the difference between life and death” for some kids. (Read the former foster children’s brief here).

The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty also wrote to support Catholic and condemn Philadelphia’s actions, noting that “Jews have frequently faced the specter of government actors directing ‘proper’ understandings of their faith,” and emphasizing “the threat such overreach poses to Jews and all minority faiths.” (Read the Coalition’s brief here).

Eight states also filed a brief explaining why “promoting a diversity of child-placing agencies, religious and nonreligious, maximizes the placement opportunities for children.” The states further noted that “[r]eligious child-placing agencies add to this diversity, and states want to work with organizations motivated by a sense of duty and obligation to help children and those in need.” (Read the states’ brief here).

Forty-three members of Congress joined a brief to emphasize the importance of protecting religious social service providers and to highlight the long national history of religious social service providers helping children and families in need.  A group of non-profits who work with foster agencies and promote religious freedom also filed a brief highlighting the fact that hundreds of religious agencies nationwide serve children and families in need, and that their work could be endangered by Philadelphia’s unreasonable actions.

Catholic Social Services has served Philadelphia children for over 100 years and partnered with the City for the past 50 years to place children in loving homes. The agency also provides resources, training, and guidance for the foster families it supports. Catholic Social Services does this work because of its religious beliefs. Although Catholic Social Services has dozens of open homes available right now, City officials won’t allow any children to be placed in them because they think the agency’s religious beliefs—the same beliefs that inspire it to serve those in need—are outdated and need to change.

“Philadelphia’s actions have left foster parents and religious foster agencies nationwide wondering who’s next,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which is representing Catholic Social Services and three foster families. “We’re grateful for this outpouring of support by those who don’t want to see Catholic, or other successful foster care agencies, punished for following their faith.”

Becket is representing Catholic Social Services, Sharonell Fulton, Cecelia Paul, and Toni Simmons-Busch.

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans late yesterday protected the right of religious groups to discuss important religious doctrine free from government interference. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith, an abortion group subpoenaed the Catholic church in Texas for access to internal communications regarding abortion. After a three-judge panel of the court protected the church in July, the abortion group demanded a full-court rehearing. The appeals court’s decision yesterday ensures that religious groups are free to discuss important matters of religious doctrine and ministry without fear that government or opposition groups will interfere.

In 2016 Whole Woman’s Health, an Austin, Texas-based abortion facility chain, sued the State of Texas over a state law that would require hospitals and abortion facilities to dispose of aborted human remains by burial or cremation, rather than in a landfill or the sewer, as is currently allowed. Because of the church’s pro-life stance, it offered support to bury or cremate all unborn remains—as an act of ministry. Although the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops is not part of that lawsuit, the abortion group subpoenaed all communications among the bishops regarding abortion.

“It turns out that suing the Good Samaritan was a bad idea,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The Church should not have been dragged into this lawsuit solely because it offered free burials for babies. We’re glad the full Fifth Circuit recognized that.”

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops is also represented by Steven Levatino and Andrew McRae of Levatino|Pace PLLC in Austin, Texas.

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

Additional Information:                                                 

• Fifth Circuit denial of en banc review (August 16, 2018)
• Fifth Circuit decision (July 15, 2018)
• Case page for Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith (legal docs, background info, media coverage)

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. –One week after an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student group filed a lawsuit against the University of Iowa, the University agreed to temporarily reinstate InterVarsity and all other religious groups that the University had recently deregistered. In InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. University of Iowa, the Christian student group sued after it and almost 40 other student groups were purged by the University, including the Sikh Awareness Club, the Chinese Student Christian Fellowship, the Imam Mahdi Organization, and the Latter-day Saint Student Association. The agreement obtained by InterVarsity will temporarily reinstate all deregistered religious groups until the end of pending litigation with the University.

InterVarsity had been a part of campus life for decades, welcoming all students as members. But in June, the University abruptly ordered the group to drop its religious leadership standards within two weeks, insisting that the group could not even “strongly encourage” its leaders to embrace its faith. Many other groups faced the same demand. And in late July, the University officially derecognized InterVarsity and almost 40 other groups. But just one week after InterVarsity sued over the mass purge, and just hours after the group warned it would need to file a motion for a temporary restraining order in order to participate in important student organization activities, the University reversed course to allow all religious groups back on campus.

“This win is a win for everyone—Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs alike,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket, which is handling the litigation against the University. “Everyone loses when state officials pick who leads students in prayer and worship, and everyone wins when religious students can make those decisions for themselves. Here’s hoping the courts make the University’s temporary patch into a permanent fix.”

InterVarsity is made up and led by a diverse community of multiethnic and international students, and it welcomes all to join as members. As a Christian student group, it hosts Bible studies and worship services, sponsors discussions on important issues, and participates in community service activities such as the Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service and the Johnson County C.R.O.P. Hunger Walk. Following the end of the school year, the University deemed InterVarsity’s religious leadership requirement “non-compliant” with new school policy, while giving a pass to the leadership and membership restrictions set by other non-religious student groups, such as sports clubs, fraternities, and political organizations.

“As we all prepare to head back to school, we’re excited to know InterVarsity will also be back on campus and part of the community we love,” said Katrina Schrock, student president of InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship. “These last few months have been crazy, but we’re grateful to be able to get back to focusing on meeting and serving the new graduate and professional students in our Hawkeye community.”

The University has only promised to allow religious groups to remain on campus during the pendency of existing litigation. A final decision could come as early as next spring.

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

Additional Information:                                                   

• Media Kit (photos, b-roll. Credit: Becket)
• Complaint (August 6, 2018)
• Case Page for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. University of Iowa

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – An InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA student group at the University of Iowa is fighting for the right to ask its leaders to be Christians. In InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. University of Iowa, a student group is suing the University after it was kicked off campus for requiring its leaders to agree with its faith. Almost 40 other student groups —including the Sikh Awareness Club, the Chinese Student Christian Fellowship, the Imam Mahdi Organization, and the Latter-day Saint Student Association—were also expelled by the University at the same time. Becket will file the lawsuit today on behalf of InterVarsity, seeking to get the group back on campus in time for the fall semester.

InterVarsity has been a part of campus life for 25 years, welcoming all students as members. But like the over-500 other student groups on campus, it has a distinct mission and asks its leaders to embrace that mission. In June, the University abruptly ordered the group to drop its religious leadership standards within two weeks, stating that leaders could not even be “strongly encouraged” to share its faith. And in late July, after InterVarsity explained why it couldn’t eliminate its leadership standards, the University officially deregistered the group, along with dozens of other religious and ideological student groups.

“We’re grateful to have been part of the University community for 25 years, and we think that the University has been a richer place for having Sikh, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, and Christian groups,” said Katrina Schrock, student president of InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship. “Because we love our school, we hope it reconsiders and lets religious groups continue to authentically reflect their religious roots.”

InterVarsity’s 25 years on campus include hosting Bible studies and worship services, sponsoring discussions on important issues, and participating in community service activities such as the Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service and the Johnson County C.R.O.P. Hunger Walk (where it’s been the top fund-raiser in six of the last seven years). The group is made up of a diverse collection of multiethnic and international students, and it welcomes all to join as members. While the University deemed InterVarsity’s religious leadership requirement “non-compliant” with its non-discrimination policy, it has exempted or ignored leadership and membership restrictions set by other student groups, such as sports clubs, fraternities, and political organizations. The University’s action against InterVarsity comes after another religious group’s lawsuit challenged the school’s discriminatory application of its policy.

“If public universities really want to foster an intellectually diverse environment, this isn’t how to do it,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket, which is representing InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. “Universities should allow students the space to form their own groups that challenge and grow their sincere beliefs. Banning religious groups from having religious leaders just flattens diversity and impoverishes the campus.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rabbi Ruvi New, head of the Chabad of East Boca Raton, Florida, today discussed Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton, the lawsuit that was a part of his congregation’s 10-year battle to build a house of worship, at the U.S. Department of Justice event Religious Liberty: Our First Freedom and Why it Matters. The event highlighted diverse perspectives on religious liberty as experienced by Americans today, including opening remarks by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and addresses by Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of the Archdiocese of Louisville and Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma. (Watch footage here).

“America’s promise of religious liberty is deeply personal to me,” said Rabbi Ruvi New, head of the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “My mother fled religious persecution in communist Russia, and my father’s parents escaped Poland just before the Nazis took over. I love it that, in America, we don’t have to run. But we still have work to do to keep the promise alive.”

Rabbi New is the lead rabbi of Chabad of East Boca, an Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Florida that for over ten years faced hostile, well-financed opposition to its plans to build a new house of worship, some of which was driven by admitted anti-Semitism (watch this 4-minute video about the Chabad’s story). After the building was unanimously approved by the City in 2015, two landowners filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent construction, bizarrely claiming that allowing a synagogue equal rights to build violated the Establishment Clause. They also claimed that building the two-story synagogue would cause “inevitable” floods and prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the area – even though the area is already surrounded by 22-story condos and several strip malls. Becket represented the Chabad in court, defeating the lawsuit twice in the district court and again on appeal earlier this year.

The Chabad has also suffered a string of attacks in recent years. It was vandalized twice: its glass mezuzahs containing sacred scripture were destroyed and stolen, and a glass synagogue door was smashed. And a teenage member of the synagogue was physically assaulted on a public sidewalk and told to “go back to Auschwitz.”

“Rabbi New’s journey to defend his religious freedom is a powerful reminder to all of us that protecting this right for one group ensures religious liberty for people of all faiths,” said Montse Alvarado, executive director of Becket, the religious liberty law firm that represented the Chabad. “I was pleased to see the work of Becket’s courageous clients celebrated at this event—clients in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and California who are working to live by their deeply held convictions, tackle difficult issues, and find common sense solutions. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and helping kids find forever homes should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.”

While the overwhelming majority of the community supports the Chabad’s right to build, the Chabad still faces opposition to its efforts to build a permanent home.

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Several foster families and a foster agency late yesterday appealed a Philadelphia district court ruling that allows a harmful new City policy to target religious foster care agencies and keep at-risk foster children from loving homes. The appeal in Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia argues that the City violated both Pennsylvania law and the Constitution in its efforts to shut down a religious foster care agency.

In March, the City put out a call for 300 more homes willing to foster some of the 6,000 children currently in the City’s foster system. Yet shortly after, the City abruptly barred Catholic Social Services, one of the City’s best foster agencies, from placing numerous children with foster parents like Sharonell Fulton, who has fostered over 40 kids in the last 25 years, and Cecelia Paul, who has fostered over 100 children. The City’s policy prohibits Catholic Social Services from placing at-risk children in available homes solely because the City disagrees with the foster agency’s religious beliefs about marriage.

“Catholic Social Services has meant so much to me and to the children I’ve loved and cared for,” said Sharonell Fulton, a single mother who has fostered over 40 children through the agency. “I don’t understand why the city is threatening to shut down the agency that has given hope and a family to so many children.” (Read her Op-ed online.)

A hearing last month revealed that the City’s policy is directly motivated by religious hostility, and that high-ranking City officials have criticized Catholic Social Services’ religious beliefs. This discriminatory policy has caused devastating problems for at-risk children. Although Catholic Social Services has dozens of open homes available right now, City officials won’t allow any children to be placed in them because they think the agency’s religious beliefs, which drive its mission to help children, are outdated and need to change.

Catholic Social Services has served Philadelphia for over 100 years, and partnered with the City for the past 50 years, to place children in loving homes. The agency also provides resources, training, and guidance for the foster families it works with. Catholic Social Services does this work because of its religious beliefs.

“Foster children deserve loving homes, and foster parents like Ms. Paul have been waiting with open arms to welcome them,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which is representing Catholic Social Services and three foster families. “But the trial court allowed the City to continue its harmful policy – a decision we expect to change with this appeal.”

Becket is representing Catholic Social Services, Sharonell Fulton, Cecelia Paul, and Toni Simmons-Busch.

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette have sided with the student group InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in its fight to continue serving its campus community, stating that Michigan universities must respect the rights of religious student groups to choose their own leaders. The announcement comes as a blow to Detroit-based Wayne State University in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. Wayne State University, where the University claims InterVarsity cannot choose leaders who agree with its faith, even though the University lets more than 90 other student groups choose their leaders.  

In March, after being kicked out by Wayne State, InterVarsity sued the University as well as the Michigan Attorney General and Governor to defend its right to remain a part of the campus community it has served for over 75 years. Since the Attorney General and Governor have now acknowledged that state universities may not punish religious student groups for selecting religious leaders, InterVarsity late yesterday dropped its lawsuit against them.  

“This is a great day for religious freedom and free speech in Michigan,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which represents the student group. “Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette have recognized that state universities can’t discriminate against religious student groups. We hope Wayne State will take notice.”  

InterVarsity welcomes all students to join as members and only requires that its leaders agree with its faith. But in late 2017, Wayne State kicked the group off campus, canceled the group’s reserved meetings, and forced it to pay thousands to continue holding Bible studies on campus—all because it disagreed with InterVarsity’s leadership requirement. After the student group filed a lawsuit, represented by Becket, the University let the group back on campus. But the University is now asking the court for the power to keep its old, discriminatory policy. The court is set to decide soon whether Wayne State violated InterVarsity’s rights.  

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Shamber Flore, a former foster child, and several foster families were in Michigan court today to fight back against the ACLU’s efforts to shut down the adoption programs that brought their families together (watch Twitter Live statement here). In Dumont v. Lyon, the ACLU is suing the State of Michigan to end its partnerships with religious adoption agencies, threatening the futures of thousands of foster children who desperately need homes. Today’s hearing will decide whether religious adoption agencies can continue doing what they do best: uniting children with loving families. 

Each year 600 youth age out of Michigan’s foster care system, and are more likely to end up in poverty, without an education, and back on the streets. With nearly 13,000 children in Michigan foster care, and not enough families to take them in, the State relies on private agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities, which last year successfully recruited more new adoptive families than nearly 90 percent of the other agencies in its service area. St. Vincent is also particularly good at placing sibling groups, older children, and children with special needs (watch video here). 

“St. Vincent rescues children from the most vulnerable, most disadvantaged backgrounds like mine and gives them a chance to be part of a loving family and have a normal, healthy, happy childhood,” said Shamber Flore, a former foster child who found her adoptive family through St. Vincent. “We can’t let the ACLU take that away.” 

Last year the ACLU sued the State of Michigan to forbid the state from partnering with faith-based adoption agencies like St. Vincent solely because of their religious beliefs about marriage, even though St. Vincent cares for children regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and its beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a loving home. In fact, gay couples working with other agencies have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care in the past and the ACLU’s clients live closer to four other foster and adoption agencies that would have helped them adopt. Yet instead of going to one of those agencies they have gone out of their way to try and shut down St. Vincent.  

“ACLU is trying to punish St. Vincent because of its beliefs but the only casualties from its needless lawsuit are the kids,” said Stephanie Barclay, counsel at Becket, which represents the foster families and St. Vincent Catholic Charities. “Shutting down one of the most effective adoption agencies in the city helps no one and instead hurts thousands of vulnerable children.”  

“We couldn’t have adopted without the support of St. Vincent,” said Melissa Buck, a mother of five children with special needs adopted through St. Vincent. “And we continue to rely on vital support services St. Vincent provides to this day. If these programs were shut down, it would be devastating for our family.”  

Becket is defending St. Vincent Catholic Charities, Shamber Flore and Melissa and Chad Buck in this case against the ACLU’s lawsuit. A new website highlights the foster care crisis in Michigan and the harm the ACLU’s lawsuit will cause for thousands of children. A decision is expected by the end of August.  

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 protecting a pregnancy center’s right to serve women and children according to their religious mission. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the pregnancy centers pushed back against a 2015 California law that targeted pro-life clinics, forcing them to advertise messaging regarding abortion and contraceptive services that undermined their mission.

The following statement can be attributed to Mark Rienzi, president of Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm that protects people of all faiths, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting NIFLA:

“The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that both sides of a debate matter, and the government cannot silence one side’s speech just because it may be unpopular. Crisis pregnancy centers like NIFLA serve women and children according to their religious mission, and California should respect that. This ruling proves that when it comes to important issues, the government doesn’t get to tell people what to believe, and it also doesn’t get to tell people what to say about it.”

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – For the second time in three months a Christian student group is fighting for its right to continue serving at the same campus it has been on for over 75 years.   

In InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. Wayne State University, an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student group is asking the court to protect its right to continue being a part of the campus community at Michigan-based Wayne State University. Wayne State claims the Christian group is breaking the rules by asking its leaders to share its faith, even though it lets more than 90 other student groups choose their own leaders. Now the University is asking a federal court to give it the power to kick the group off campus any time. 

“Wayne State allows 90 student groups to make their own rules for leaders—everyone from fraternities to the Quidditch Club,” said Lori Windham, Senior Counsel at Becket, which represents the student group. “But Wayne State can’t wave a magic wand and make the Constitution disappear. Christian student groups have the same rights as everyone else.”  

InterVarsity welcomes all students to join as members and only requires that its leaders agree with its faith. But in late 2017, Wayne State kicked the group off campus, canceled the group’s reserved meetings, and forced it to pay thousands to continue holding Bible studies on campus—all because it disagreed with InterVarsity’s leadership requirement. After the student group filed a lawsuit, represented by Becket, the University let the group back on campus. But the University is now asking the court for the power to kick the group off campus.  

The University’s actions ignore the rich history of InterVarsity’s student group at Wayne State, which is one of the oldest chapters in the country. The group has held weekly Bible studies and organized service opportunities on campus for over 75 years, including repairing buildings in downtown Detroit and serving at the local food pantry. The student group is asking the court to permanently protect its ability to be a part of and continue serving the Wayne State community.  

“Wayne State’s actions threaten not just InterVarsity but all the religious groups who depend on student leaders who share their faith,” said Windham.     

Becket filed two briefs seeking a permanent fix to the school’s discriminatory policy, which also highlights a list of more than 90 groups who are allowed to choose leaders who agree with them, while InterVarsity is not.   

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments, ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission for Jack Phillips, a Colorado-based Christian baker who had declined to create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Justices ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution protects Phillips from unfair treatment of his religious beliefs.

The following statement can be attributed to Mark Rienzi, president of Becket: 

“The Court has said 7-2 that the Constitution requires us all to try and get along. There is room enough in our society for a diversity of viewpoints, and that includes respecting religious beliefs too. The decision is a strong message to governments across the country that they must respect–rather than punish–religious diversity on important issues.”  

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

### 

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

NEW YORK – Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, Orthodox rabbi and spiritual leader of the oldest Jewish congregation in the U.S., received the Canterbury Medal for his public defense of religious liberty last night at Becket’s Canterbury Medal Gala. The Canterbury Medal is Becket’s highest honor and recognizes an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment to defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Becket also honored law firm Baker Botts with the Legal Service Award for its pro bono work protecting religious liberty for Native Americans.  

“Today in America people of faith inspire each other, sustain each other, so that an alliance over religious freedom can form – without diminishing our religious differences – a fellowship,” said Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, the 2018 Canterbury Medalist.  (Speech Transcript and Video)

A descendant of a long line of renowned Orthodox rabbis, Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik is the spiritual leader of Shearith Israel, the oldest Jewish congregation in the United States, founded in 1654. An advocate for the Jewish faith and religious freedom, Rabbi Soloveichik works tirelessly alongside religious leaders of diverse faiths to strengthen interfaith relations in America. He also holds a Ph.D. in religion from Princeton, serves as director of the Zahava and Moshael Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, lectures in a wide range of public forums, and has been published extensively including in The Wall Street Journal, The Forward, and the New York Times. 

This year’s Legal Service Award winner, Baker Botts, has donated hundreds of hours of attorney time to advocate for equal treatment of religious people in public life. Among other cases, Baker Botts represented members of the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas in a lawsuit against the federal government after an undercover agent raided the tribe’s powwow and confiscated their sacred eagle feathers. Baker Botts also represented the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston in a brief supporting Becket’s case seeking equal access to FEMA funds for houses of worship following natural disasters. 

“As the leader of a prominent congregation, Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik has worked side-by-side with leaders of diverse faiths to preserve religious liberty for all. He has rightly earned this year’s Canterbury Medal. I am confident his work as a defender for religious liberty has just begun,” said Bill Mumma, CEO and Board Chairman of Becket. 

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

Past medalists include the late Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, Cuban poet and former political prisoner Armando Valladares, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus Carl Anderson, New York Times bestselling author and radio host Eric Metaxas, Learned Hand Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society Leonard Leo. Roger Hertog, president of the Hertog Foundation and chairman of the Tikvah Fund, and Dr. Josephine Templeton, trustee of the John Templeton Foundation, served as co-chairs of this year’s Canterbury Medal Gala.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Baker Botts L.L.P. will receive Becket’s 2018 Legal Service Award for outstanding contributions to religious liberty. For years, Baker Botts has donated hundreds of hours of attorney time to advocate for equal treatment of religious people in public life. Among other cases, Baker Botts has represented members of the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas in a lawsuit against the federal government after an undercover agent raided the tribe’s powwow and confiscated their sacred eagle feathers. Baker Botts also represented the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston in a brief supporting Becket’s case seeking equal access to FEMA funds for houses of worship following natural disasters. Baker Botts will be presented with the award at Becket’s annual Canterbury Medal Gala this Thursday, May 24 in New York.

Baker Botts’ pro bono work was invaluable in a ten-year battle to restore sacred eagle feathers confiscated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after it raided a Lipan Apache powwow in 2006. In 2016 the federal government entered a historic settlement agreement with Pastor Soto and over 400 members of his congregation. The agreement recognizes the members’ right to freely use eagle feathers in observance of their Native American faith and promises that the government will reconsider its policies for enforcing feather restrictions in the future (watch video).  

“Baker Botts’ commitment to defending religious liberty for all has been exemplary,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket. “Its work on behalf of people of various faiths, including Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, and others, demonstrates a fundamental commitment to civil rights. Baker Botts richly deserves the Legal Service Award.” 

Baker Botts has had a long history of defending religious liberty, representing a wide variety of religious groups—Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Native American, and others—in litigation at the United States Supreme Court and other courts. Just months ago, Baker Botts represented the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston in Becket’s successful effort to secure equal access to FEMA disaster relief funds for churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship (watch video).  

“We are honored to be recognized in this way,” said Michael Bennett, a partner at Baker Botts, and counsel in the eagle feathers and FEMA cases. “Baker Botts is proud of its pro bono efforts to support the fundamental right of religious freedom for all Americans.”

Each year Becket honors a legal partner with the Legal Service Award, which is presented as part of the Canterbury Medal Gala in New York. Prior recipients of Becket’s Legal Service Award include McDermott Will & Emery LLP for their work on behalf of Sikhs in the military, Proskauer Rose LLP for work protecting the Amish community, Locke Lord LLP for representing the Little Sisters of the Poor, and Paul Clement, now at Kirkland & Ellis, for his work in the Hobby Lobby litigation.

The Canterbury Medal Gala is a black-tie event held at the Pierre Hotel in New York attended by the world’s most distinguished religious leaders and religious liberty advocates. This year’s Canterbury Medal winner is Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, renowned religious leader of the oldest Orthodox synagogue in America, esteemed scholar, and defender of religious liberty. 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sharonell Fulton and other foster parents asked a Philadelphia court late yesterday to end a new City policy that is leaving foster homes sitting empty while the City is in a foster care crisis. In Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, the City must answer for its decision to stop allowing Catholic Social Services to place children in foster homes, solely because the City disagrees with the agency’s religious beliefs – a decision the City is threatening to make permanent on June 30.

In March, the City of Philadelphia issued an urgent call for 300 new foster parents to provide loving homes for some of the over 6,000 kids in Philadelphia foster care. That same month, the City abruptly barred Catholic Social Services, one of the city’s top-rated foster agencies, from placing children with foster families. This decision makes it exponentially harder for hundreds of children in need of foster care to find homes. Foster homes are sitting empty, even as the city begs for more families to help in its foster care crisis.

“What justice is there in taking stable, loving homes away from children? If the City cuts off Catholic Social Services from foster care, foster moms like me won’t have the help and support they need to care for special-needs kids,” said Sharonell Fulton, a foster mother. “I have relied on Catholic Social Services for support for years, and the City is taking away this help and causing harm and heartache to countless families like mine.”

Sharonell has been a foster parent for over 25 years and has opened her home to over 40 children, including two children currently in her care. She strives to provide a loving, stable home and treat each child as if they were her own. To do that, Sharonell relies on Catholic Social Services’ help, including around-the-clock support and access to information and resources.

Catholic Social Services and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia have been serving children throughout Philadelphia for over a century. Their Catholic mission drives them to find loving homes for all children in their care, regardless of the child’s race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Catholic Social Services currently serves over 100 children in foster homes. No family or individual has ever complained that the agency’s Catholic mission prevented them from fostering or adopting a child.

“For a city with so much history, the people in charge have a pretty short memory,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which represents the families, children and Catholic Social Services. “For a century, Catholic Social Services has been serving children in Philadelphia. Those children are the ones hurt by the City’s actions.”

Sharonell Fulton, Cecelia Paul, Toni Simms-Busch, and Catholic Social Services are represented by Becket, and have asked the court to halt the City’s harmful policy. A hearing is expected later this year.

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. –A Florida Jewish congregation again defeated a discriminatory lawsuit attempting to block them from building a house of worship. Late yesterday, in Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton, Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit protected the Chabad of East Boca Raton’s ability to build a new synagogue for the Chabad’s congregation (watch this video about the Chabad’s experience). The ruling rejects a bizarre lawsuit that tried to outlaw equal treatment of minority faiths in Boca Raton, Florida

Opposition to the Chabad’s right to build started in 2007 while the Chabad searched for land and worked to get building permits. Shortly after the city of Boca Raton granted the Chabad a building permit in 2015, two landowners sued the city, claiming that the city had somehow established Judaism as the city’s official religion. But the city was simply following a federal civil rights law that required equal access for all religious groups. After losing twice in federal district court, the landowners prolonged the battle against the Chabad by appealing to the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled that the lower court “properly dismissed the case.”

“We’re grateful that the courts and community have protected our congregation’s ability to be here in Boca Raton, just like every other house of worship,” said Rabbi Ruvi New, head of the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “After ten years of waiting, we are eager to have the chance to build our synagogue in the city we call home.”

For over ten years, the Chabad faced hostile, well-financed opposition that resulted in a federal lawsuit claiming that allowing the synagogue to be built would be a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. But the city was obeying the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law that requires equal access for all faith groups. The two landowners also oddly claimed that building the 2-story synagogue would cause traffic problems and flooding, though they had no concerns with nearby strip malls, 7-11s, and even 22-story condos. And even after the initial building plan that the landowners objected to was withdrawn, the landowners continued to press for a ruling that would absolutely bar the Chabad’s chance to build.

In response to the discriminatory lawsuit, local leaders, constitutional scholars, and national and international groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the Chabad. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School slammed the years of ‘virulent and ugly’ anti-Semitism suffered by the Chabad, which had included vandalism and an assault. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, and rejected the landowners’ aggressive attempt to prevent any chance for the Chabad to build in the future.

“The third time’s a charm,” said Daniel Blomberg, senior counsel at Becket, which represents the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “The courts have now repeatedly put the kibosh on this discriminatory lawsuit. It’s time for the handful of holdouts to join the rest of Boca Raton and welcome the Chabad like good neighbors.”

The Chabad of East Boca is represented by Becket and Kirkland & Ellis.

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Becket proudly congratulates Kyle Duncan, Becket’s former general counsel, on his confirmation today by the United States Senate to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Kyle’s colleagues and opposing counsel of all persuasions have praised his qualifications in knowledge, experience, and integrity, for appointment to the federal bench. The following statement can be attributed to Becket President Mark Rienzi: 

“That sound you just heard was the stained glass ceiling shattering. Not only has our country gained a great jurist, but Kyle’s confirmation is proof positive that defending religious liberty for people of all faiths is a core part of our country’s long tradition of public service.” 

Kyle served as Louisiana’s first solicitor general from 2008-2012, and then as general counsel of Becket from 2012-2014. Under his leadership, Becket won a number of decisive victories for religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the Hobby Lobby case.  

Other highlights of Becket’s work under Kyle’s leadership included securing kosher meals for Jewish prisoners, winning a Sikh woman her right to work for the federal government without violating her faith, and helping an Amish community preserve its centuries-old building practices. 

“At Becket, Kyle was a steadfast defender of religious liberty for people of all faiths and was known for his intelligence and evenhandedness. His generosity and respect for others has made him a great advocate, and will make him a fair and respected judge. We applaud his confirmation,” added Rienzi.  

 Kyle will be sworn in later this year. 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, Orthodox rabbi and spiritual leader of the oldest Jewish congregation in the U.S., is the 2018 Canterbury Medalist for his public defense of religious liberty for people of all faiths. The Canterbury Medal, Becket’s highest honor, recognizes an individual who has demonstrated courage and commitment to defending religious liberty in America and around the world. 

Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik works tirelessly to strengthen interfaith relations in America, advocating alongside religious leaders of diverse American faith communities to protect religious education and conscience protections, and to strengthen individual religious identities. He is a strong advocate of cultivating one’s own faith and being an active participant in the public square, emphasizing, “sacrificing the exclusive nature of religious truth in the name of dialogue would help neither Jews nor Christians,” adding that “in seeking the moral betterment of man, specific religious beliefs … serve to unite rather than divide us.”  

“Rabbi Soloveichik is dauntless in his defense of religious liberty and has the courage, tenacity and humility to forge the road ahead,” said Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. of Philadelphia and 2009 Canterbury Medalist.  

A descendant of a long line of renowned Orthodox rabbis, in 2013 Soloveichik was named the spiritual leader of Shearith Israel in New York City, the oldest Jewish congregation in the United States. He is the tenth minister to serve in that role since the American Revolution. He is also an esteemed scholar of religion, theology, and the American Founding, holding a Ph.D. from Princeton in religion, and serves as director of the Zahava and Moshael Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University. He lectures globally and writes extensively, publishing in outlets from The Wall Street Journal, to The Forward, on the history of faith and religious freedom in America, has been featured in the New York Times, and is a sought-after commentator on the Jewish faith in America.  

“Rabbi Soloveichik is that rare leader who combines erudition, courage and moral clarity. The religious liberty fight benefits from these powerful gifts,” said Bill Mumma, CEO and board chair of Becket.    

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, which honors the award recipient, is a black-tie event held at the Pierre Hotel in New York and is attended by the world’s most distinguished religious leaders and religious liberty advocates. 

Past medalists include the late Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, Cuban poet and former political prisoner Armando Valladares, Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, New York Times bestselling author and radio host Eric Metaxas, Learned Hand Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, and President Dallin H. Oaks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Roger Hertog, president of the Hertog Foundation and chairman of the Tikvah Fund, and Dr. Josephine Templeton, Trustee of the John Templeton Foundation, will serve as co-chairs of the 2018 Canterbury Medal Gala.

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Adopted children and foster families in Michigan can now join the fight against the ACLU’s efforts to shut down the adoption programs that brought their families together, a federal court just ruled. In Dumont v. Lyon, the ACLU is suing to stop the state of Michigan from relying on private adoption agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities because they run their programs based on their religious beliefs. If the ACLU succeeds, it would take away vital support that foster families need, and make it even harder for thousands of foster kids to find permanent homes (watch their story in this 3-min. video).  

The court allowed the “children and families to have a voice in these proceedings” to explain how they could be harmed if the ACLU wins its lawsuit. Families like the Bucks could “lose critical services that are currently provided to them by St. Vincent and may lose the ability to adopt biological siblings of their present adoptive children.” And former foster children like Shamber Flore may lose “the opportunity to volunteer at St. Vincent and do the important work of mentoring children in a faith-based setting who, like herself, come from broken and abusive backgrounds.”  

“The ACLU’s lawsuit would take away homes from vulnerable kids who have already gone through so much,” said Shamber Flore, a former foster child who found her adoptive family through St. Vincent. “I’m so grateful the court didn’t let the ACLU silence our voices, particularly since children are the ones who will lose the most.”   

There is a nationwide shortage of families willing to foster and adopt. In Michigan alone, there are thousands of kids in the foster care system, many of whom age out without finding a home. The government can’t recruit enough families to foster and adopt on its own so it relies on private agencies, like St. Vincent, to help find more willing families. Last year alone, St. Vincent recruited more new foster families than nearly 90 percent of other agencies in its service area.  

“St. Vincent brought my family together and continues to be an invaluable resource for us. If it is shut down, it will take away essential support we rely on right now,” said Melissa Buck, a mother of five children with special needs adopted through St. Vincent.  

In 2017, the ACLU sued the State of Michigan to shut down its partnerships with faith-based foster and adoption agencies like St. Vincent solely because of their religious beliefs about marriage. St. Vincent takes care of children regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and its beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a loving home. Gay couples working with other agencies have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care in the past. The ACLU’s clients could have done the same thing, and they even live closer to four other foster and adoption agencies that would have helped them adopt. Instead of going to these agencies to help kids, they have spent years going out of their way to target St. Vincent and try to shut down their programs. 

“It’s baffling why the ACLU is attempting to shut down one of Michigan’s most successful adoption agencies,” says Stephanie Barclay, counsel at Becket. “Michigan foster kids and their families need St. Vincent. And now, because of today’s ruling, the court will hear why.” 

The Buck family, Shamber Flore, and St. Vincent, represented by Becket, have now requested the court to dismiss the needless lawsuit filed by ACLU and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. Oral argument for this hearing will take place on May 10.  

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Minutes ago, news outlets broke the announcement that a Christian student group was—at least temporarily—allowed back on campus just two days after the group asked a federal court to protect its right to choose leaders who affirm its faith. In InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. Wayne State University, a Christian student group, which had been on campus for 75 years, was derecognized by Michigan-based Wayne State University because the group required its leaders to embrace its faith. In response to InterVarsity’s lawsuit, the school decided that it would allow the student group back on campus. It is unclear whether the school’s change is permanent.

InterVarsity’s student group at Wayne State is one of the oldest chapters in the country. It welcomes all students to join as members, and only requires its leaders agree with its faith. But in late 2017, Wayne State said that InterVarsity’s religious leadership requirements violated school policy, even though many other school programs and student groups “violated” the same policy. The school then derecognized InterVarsity, cancelled the group’s reserved meetings, and forced it to pay thousands of dollars if it wanted to continue holding Bible studies on campus. The school ignored months of requests from InterVarsity to allow it back on campus, until today.

“Being part of our school community has meant the world to us, and we’re so glad that Wayne State is letting us back on campus,” said Cristina Garza, former president and current member of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship group that had been kicked off campus. “We hope the school will make this change permanent, so no other students have to go through what we’ve been through over the last six months.”

InterVarsity’s Wayne State chapter has held weekly Bible studies, meetings, and organized service opportunities on campus for over 75 years. For instance, the group volunteers in the summers to clean up trash and repair school buildings in downtown Detroit, and just last week participated in a local food pantry event.

“It’s good that Wayne State saw the light after it felt the heat,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which represents InterVarsity. “But after putting these students through the runaround for months, a last-minute change of heart is hardly enough. This kind of official religious discrimination should never happen again. And Wayne State needs to return the thousands of dollars it charged the student group.”

Today’s about-face came after Becket told Wayne State it would be seeking an emergency court order to reinstate the student group. InterVarsity and Becket are reviewing the school’s decision to determine their next steps.

Dan Dalton of Detroit-based Dalton & Tomich PLC is also representing InterVarsity.

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

** Alex Slavsky of Church Militant was the first to uncover the announcement from Wayne State University.

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of adopted children and foster families were in court today to fight back against the ACLU’s efforts to shut down the adoption programs that brought their families together. In Dumont v. Lyon, the ACLU is trying to stop the state of Michigan from working with private adoption agencies because they run their programs based on their religious beliefs. If the ACLU succeeds, this would take away critical support that foster families need, and make it even harder for thousands of foster kids, particularly minority and special needs children, to find permanent homes.  

There is a nationwide shortage of families willing to foster and adopt. In Michigan alone, there are thousands of kids in the foster care system, many of whom age out without finding a home. But in 2017, the ACLU sued the State of Michigan to shut down its partnerships with faith-based foster and adoption agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities solely because of their religious beliefs about marriage.  But St. Vincent’s beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a loving home.  

“Agencies like St. Vincent find homes for children who were once like me – neglected and abused. I would not have a family or a future if it weren’t for St. Vincent,” said Shamber Flore, a former foster child who found her adoptive family through St. Vincent.

Every year over 600 youth age out of Michigan’s foster care system, which means that at the age of 18 they officially leave the foster system never having found a permanent home. This number is on the rise, and a recent study showed that these youth are more likely to end up in poverty, without an education, and back on the streets. The government can’t recruit enough families to foster and adopt on its own so it relies on private agencies, like St. Vincent Catholic Charities, to help find more willing families. Last year, St. Vincent recruited more new foster families than nearly 90 percent of other agencies in its service area. It is particularly successful at finding homes for children with special needs, minority children, and large sibling groups – and it provides critical ongoing support to foster families who adopt these kids.  

“We couldn’t have adopted without the support of St. Vincent,” said Melissa Buck, a mother of five special needs children adopted through St. Vincent. “And we continue to rely on vital support services St. Vincent provides to this day. If these programs were closed down, it would really hurt our family.”  

Despite St. Vincent’s important work, in September 2017 ACLU sued to make it illegal for the state to partner with them solely because of their religious beliefs about marriage.  St. Vincent’s beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a loving home. In fact, gay couples working with other agencies have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care in the past. The ACLU’s clients live closer to four other foster and adoption agencies that would have helped them adopt. Instead of going to these agencies, they have spent years targeting St. Vincent and trying to shut down their programs. 

“There is a crisis in the foster care system. There are thousands of children and not enough homes,” says Stephanie Barclay, counsel at Becket. “The answer is more agencies to recruit and support foster families, not closing down successful ones like St. Vincent. The real casualties of the ACLU’s lawsuit are the kids.” 

A decision on whether foster families and former foster kids will be able to defend their rights alongside St. Vincent is expected by the end of April. 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Christian student group is fighting for its right to continue serving at the same campus it has been on for over 75 years. In InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. Wayne State University, an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student group, represented by Becket, sued Michigan-based Wayne State University after school officials stripped them of official recognition just because the group requires its leaders to affirm their faith. Wayne State has over 400 student groups that contribute to its intellectual and cultural diversity, all of which are free to select leaders who embrace their missions—except, suddenly, one Christian student group.

InterVarsity welcomes all students to its meetings and to join as members. It requires only that its leaders believe in and live out its faith. Yet in 2017, Wayne State rejected the group’s constitution, derecognized InterVarsity, and cancelled all of InterVarsity reserved meetings. Wayne State’s reason?  After 75 years, Wayne State decided that InterVarsity’s religious leadership requirements violated school policy. Meanwhile Wayne State actively violates its own policy in many of its programs, and allows dozens of other larger student groups do the same.

“Don’t Michigan universities have bigger problems than who leads Bible studies?” said Lori Windham, Senior Legal Counsel at Becket, which represents InterVarsity. “Wayne State should focus on educating students instead of playing belief police.”

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Wayne State is one of the oldest InterVarsity chapters in the country, and has held weekly Bible studies, meetings, and organized service opportunities on campus for over 75 years. For instance, in 2009 the group sponsored a series of campus events that raised awareness regarding human trafficking. And the group regularly hosts discussions of important issues, like the intersection between faith, race, and social justice.

Now InterVarsity is given second-class status, forced to rent tables like outside vendors if it wants to host discussions or reach out to new students. It can no longer reserve meeting rooms for free like other student groups.

“Asking religious leaders to practice what they preach isn’t discrimination, it’s integrity,” said Windham. “Targeting one Christian group that’s served the campus for over 75 years, while giving itself and dozens of larger groups a pass is truly discriminatory.” 

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – An important free speech case has united Christian and LGBT printers at Kentucky’s high court as they seek protection for the right of artists to choose what messages they promote. In Baker v. Hands On Originals, a Kentucky court ruled last year that the government cannot force Blaine Adamson, a Christian screen printer, to print gay pride t-shirts in violation of his religious beliefs. The government has now appealed, and today Becket and University of Virginia Law Professor Douglas Laycock filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the printer.

“Free speech protects everyone—from the LGBT printer who doesn’t want to print anti-gay messages, to the Christian printer who doesn’t want to print gay-pride t-shirts,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket. “In a diverse society, the government doesn’t get to pick one preferred viewpoint and force everyone to agree.”

In 2012, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) asked Blaine Adamson, the owner of Hands On Originals, to print shirts promoting the local gay-pride festival. Because of Mr. Adamson’s religious beliefs, he declined to print the shirts and instead referred GLSO to other printers who would match his price. Although GLSO received many offers and ultimately obtained the shirts for free, it filed a complaint against Mr. Adamson with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, which ordered him to print the shirts and attend government-mandated “diversity training” to change his views.

In the printing industry, it is standard practice for business owners not to print messages they disagree with. That is why LGBT business owners have also stood up for Mr. Adamson’s right to choose what messages he promotes.

Mr. Adamson is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. Becket is represented by Professor Douglas Laycock and Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLCS.

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Florida Jewish congregation was in court this morning to defend itself against a lawsuit attempting to discriminate against houses of worship. In Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton, Florida, the Chabad of East Boca Raton asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to protect its right to equal access to build in Boca Raton’s business district, as required by federal law (watch this video about the Chabad’s experience). 

The lawsuit was filed by two landowners opposed to the synagogue, claiming the city established Judaism as the city’s official religion by simply granting equal access for houses of worship, including synagogues, to be built in the business district. But federal law requires equal access to religious groups, so it came as no surprise that the landowners suffered back to back losses in federal district court. They then chose to appeal those losses, prolonging a decade-long battle to prevent the Chabad from building.  

“All we’re asking for is equal treatment,” said Rabbi Ruvi New, head of the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “We’re grateful that the City and our local community have long treated us fairly, and we’re hopeful that the Court will protect our right to be equal members of the Boca Raton community.” 

In 2007, the Chabad began encountering hostile, well-organized, and well-financed opposition to its synagogue’s construction plans. That opposition ultimately culminated in the federal lawsuit against the Chabad, where two landowners claimed that allowing the synagogue to be built violated the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause—even though the 2008 city ordinance they challenged grants equal access for all faith groups. Now on appeal, the two landowners are saying that allowing any houses of worship to build would harm them by causing traffic problems, even though they have no complaints about nearby strip malls, 7-11s, and even 22-story condos. In response, national and international groups and local leaders filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Chabad and explaining that the landowners were asking the Court to rubber-stamp religious discrimination.  

“Granting equal treatment is the opposite of establishing a religion. Saying otherwise is not just an attack on the Chabad, but also an attempt to undermine civil rights for every house of worship,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, which represents the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “It’s been ten years; it’s time to stop hurling lawsuits at a synagogue and well past time to let it have its equal chance to build a home for its members.”  

Payvand Ahdout presented oral argument on behalf of the Chabad at the hearing. The Chabad of East Boca is represented by Becket and Kirkland & Ellis. A decision is expected later this year. 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – An Iowa federal court late yesterday protected Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC), a Christian student group at the University of Iowa that was kicked off campus for requiring its student leaders to affirm its Biblical beliefs. In BLinC v. University of Iowa, the court said that BlinC must be allowed back on campus to participate in a student recruitment fair today, January 24. This decision is a step toward ensuring that religious student groups are treated the same as all other groups on campus rather than being penalized for their faith.  

The court decision ruled for BLinC saying it found that, “BLinC has shown that the University does not consistently and equally apply” its policy to student groups.  

“The University would never let Iowa State’s Cy the Cardinal lead the Hawkeyes,” said Jacob Estell, BLinC student president. “So why would it think it is okay to force religious student groups to select leaders who don’t embrace their mission?” 

Membership in BLinC is open to all University students and, to preserve its mission, BLinC asks only its leaders to affirm that they embrace and seek to live by its religious beliefs. But after a student complained about BLinC’s leadership requirements and its beliefs concerning marriage, University administrators kicked BLinC off campus and told it to “revise” its Statement of Faith and submit an “acceptable plan” for selecting leaders if it wanted back on.   

Late last week the court heard oral argument in the case. BLinC argued that the University is violating the First Amendment by penalizing it for its religious viewpoint, pointing out that the student who complained about BLinC’s beliefs started his own organization that espouses the exact opposite perspective. The Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses all prohibit the University from discriminating against religious viewpoints. 

“The Court agreed that the University has to stop discriminating against BLinC because of its religious beliefs,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, which represents BLinC. “Every other group on campus gets to select leaders who embrace their mission. Religious groups don’t get second-class treatment.” 

The Court ordered the University to readmit BLinC immediately and gave the University 90 days to bring its policy enforcement into compliance with law. A decision to permanently allow BLinC to stay on campus and pick leaders who embrace its faith is expected sometime later this year.   

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The D.C. Metro, as a government body, is supposed to ensure free speech for everyone, yet now Metro bans any religion-related advertising in its stations and subway cars. After being told it could not buy advertisement space for its annual “Find the perfect gift” Christmas campaign last year, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for banning religious speech. On Friday, Becket along with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON), filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Archdiocese of Washington v. WMATA, arguing that WMATA does not get to arbitrarily exclude messages just because they are religious.  

In 2015, WMATA issued a ban on “issue-oriented advertising,” forbidding ad space to political, advocacy, and religious advertising from the Metro subway car walls. Secular ads about Christmas – such as department store sales – are permitted, while ads about the religious meaning of Christmas are prohibited. Metro’s speech ban has also been challenged by the ACLU as a Free Speech violation. As Becket states in its brief, “[T]he government has no authority to privilege the view of Christmas that starts at the shopping mall over the view that starts in a manger. Even Charlie Brown understood that privileging a secular, commercial expression of Christmas over one with religious motivation is a value judgment.”   

“Metro’s advertisement policy is a train wreck,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at Becket. “It happily allows defense companies to advertise the latest weapons and Macy’s to advertise a holiday sale, but there is no room at the inn for Baby Jesus? Metro should spend less time playing speech police and more time preventing fires in its stations.”  

Bus and subway advertising are one of the most effective ways for the Archdiocese to spread its message of hope during the Christmas season. But WMATA’s guidelines exclude the Archdiocese from advertising solely because its message is religious. Even though a secular organization can post meeting times, address, or contact information on a metro ad, religious groups – including a monastery – were banned from doing the same thing. 

WMATA’s guidelines exclude religious groups from participating equally in public advertising space, in violation of the recent Trinity Lutheran Supreme Court ruling protecting the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations. 

“Government agencies should be encouraging free speech, not suppressing the speech they don’t like,” said Rienzi.   

The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Archdiocese is represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis. Ryan Shores and Will Haun of the law firm Shearman & Sterling filed the amicus brief for Becket, Sen. Flake, and ISKCON. 

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

 ### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Christian student group went to court this morning after being kicked off University of Iowa’s campus for asking its leaders to embrace its faith. In BLinC v. University of Iowa, Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) challenged the University’s requirement that to be let back on campus, it needed to “revise” its religious beliefs about sexual morality and stop asking its leaders to share its faith (watch recap on Twitter live).  

The University of Iowa hosts over 500 diverse student groups, such as political groups, environmental groups, and religious groups. Many of these groups limit their leadership and even their membership to those who share their mission. Yet the University is discriminating against BLinC, saying the group cannot require its leaders to share its faith because school administrators don’t like its religious mission. 

“College campuses are supposed to foster a real exchange of diverse ideas,” said Jacob Estell, BLinC student president. “But we are in court today because that is simply no longer the case at the University of Iowa. All we want is the same rights as all other student groups to create a community that reflects who we are and what we believe. The University respects that right for environmental groups, pro-choice groups, and political groups. But it’s treating us as outsiders.”   

Membership in BLinC is open to all University students. To preserve its religious mission, BLinC asks its leaders to affirm that they believe in and live according to its religious beliefs. But after a complaint was filed with the University about BLinC’s leadership requirements and its belief that sexual conduct should take place only in marriage between a man and a woman, University administrators told BLinC that it must “revise” its Statement of Faith and submit an “acceptable plan” for selecting its leaders. When BLinC informed the University that it could not change its faith or stop asking its leaders to share its faith, it was kicked off campus.  

BLinC gives students of faith a community where they can learn to both live their beliefs and thrive in the business world. They serve students and the surrounding community, including tutoring at-risk youth, organizing guest speakers, and organizing student activities like Tippi Gives Thanks, which provides a morale boost ahead of finals week.  

“Getting an education shouldn’t come at the cost of First Amendment rights,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, which is defending BLinC’s right to stay on campus. “Both the Constitution and common sense say that groups should be able to pick leaders who agree with their mission.” 

Oral argument took place today in federal district court in Davenport. A decision is expected sometime next week.  

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – FEMA is now accepting disaster aid applications from houses of worship damaged by Hurricane Harvey, a result of lawsuits brought by three Texas churches and two Florida synagogues seeking equal access to relief grants. In Harvest Family Church v. FEMA, and Chabad of Key West v. FEMA, Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God and Chabad of Key West and Chabad of the Space Coast, respectively, sued FEMA for denying houses of worship access to federal disaster aid grants on equal footing with secular non-profits (watch their story). FEMA announced houses of worship can now apply for disaster relief aid through February 4.  

Last week, FEMA announced a new policy that would put an end to its discrimination against churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship. FEMA’s new application deadline implements that policy by allowing houses of worship to submit applications for disaster relief. Before the litigation, many houses of worship were told they were not eligible for grants and were blocked from applying. Now they will have an opportunity to submit applications for aid even though the original deadline has passed.   

“Houses of worship that were earlier subject to discrimination are now being given a second chance,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm that represents the Texas churches and the Florida synagogues. “FEMA is making good on its promise to treat houses of worship equally.”  

Houses of worship were among the first to respond in the aftermath of both Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma and they continue to provide aid to help their communities recover. Yet FEMA’s old policy discriminated against churches, mosques and synagogues, while at the same time using them for its own relief efforts.  

FEMA’s new policy aligns with the Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer requiring religious groups to receive equal access to widely available public programs. The three Texas churches’ case is currently on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Florida synagogues’ case is pending in federal district court in Key West.   

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A non-profit pregnancy center that helps low-income women in Baltimore prevailed over a discriminatory city ordinance today. In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit protected the Center from being forced to violate its conscience by referring for abortions or posting government messages about abortion on its walls.

The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns provides help to women facing unplanned pregnancies. But a 2009 city ordinance forced the Center to either refer for abortions or display government abortion messaging on the walls of their church-owned property, in violation of their mission and conscience. In 2010, the Center sued the mayor and city council of Baltimore for the right to continue to serve and communicate with women who come to them for help in a way that respects each woman’s choice as well as the Center’s mission. The Center won in 2010, and, following the government’s appeals, the Center won again today.

“We are committed to serving women in need in a way that respects their choices, comforts them in a difficult time and is in line with our mission,” said Carol Clews, executive director of the Center for Pregnancy Concerns. “This court ruling means that we can do our job and the government can’t tell us what to say or how to say it.”

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

In 2009, the City of Baltimore targeted the Center, which operates out of Catholic Church-owned property, demanding they display a sign stating that they “do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services,” even though they already inform women in welcome papers and a lobby sign about the caring services they do provide for free and also that they do not offer abortions. Yet the City of Baltimore did not require abortion clinics to display the services they do not offer, such as adoption or prenatal care. The Fourth Circuit’s decision today criticized Baltimore for adopting “retributive speech restrictions” on pro-life speakers, calling the restrictions a “grave violation” of “our nation’s dearest principles.”

“We are very pleased that the Fourth Circuit strongly upheld the First Amendment rights of religious and other nonprofit charities to speak and to serve those in need in the manner their conscience dictates, without undue government interference,” said Dave Kinkopf, of Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, which represents the Center.

“This is a victory for the First Amendment and for the women of Baltimore,” said Tom Schetelich, chairman of the board of the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns.

“Today’s decision confirms that government has no place mandating speech—especially speech associated with deeply-held religious beliefs,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm also representing the Center. “The Center can now continue helping women in need without the government telling them how to talk about abortion.”

The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns is represented by Gallagher Evelius & Jones, Becket, and Peter Basile from Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew, P.A.

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Shamber Flore and several adoptive families are going to court in Michigan today to stand up for vulnerable foster children. In Dumont v. Lyon, the ACLU is trying to force religious adoption agencies to close their foster and adoption programs, making it even harder for thousands of foster kids to find permanent homes. If successful, the ACLU’s lawsuit would especially harm minority and special needs kids.       

Every year in Michigan, over 600 youth “age out” of foster care, which means that at the age of 18 they officially leave the foster system never having found a permanent family. This number is on the rise, and a recent study showed that these youth—mostly African American—are particularly vulnerable to ending up in poverty, without an education, and back on the streets. That’s where religious adoption agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities come in.  

“I don’t understand why the ACLU is trying to take away hope from children who were once like me—victims of abuse exposed to drugs, prostitution, and neglect,” said Shamber Flore, who was adopted as a foster child in 2005. “My family would not have adopted me without the help of St. Vincent. We need more agencies like this finding more homes for kids—not less.” 

Last year, St. Vincent recruited more new foster families than almost every other agency in its service area. Religious adoption agencies like St. Vincent are important in this work because they can reach families from different segments of the population that would not otherwise adopt or foster. They are also particularly successful at placing large sibling groups and providing support to families with medically fragile kids. And the majority of kids in St. Vincent’s care are minority and special needs children.  

But in September 2017, the ACLU sued trying to make it illegal for the state of Michigan to partner with religious adoption agencies simply because of their religious beliefs. 

“The ACLU’s lawsuit is not at all about protecting children. It’s about scoring cheap political points at the expense of children,” said Stephanie Barclay, counsel at Becket. “Thankfully, the constitution prohibits that result.”   

Becket is representing Shamber Flore, Melissa and Chad Buck, and St. Vincent Catholic Charities. Becket will file today to intervene in the Eastern District of Michigan to defend the right of families and religious adoption agencies to keep serving Michigan’s most vulnerable children.  

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, the Little Sisters of the Poor waited outside a Philadelphia courthouse while a hearing inside decided their fate. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is suing the federal government to take away the Sisters’ religious exemption from the HHS contraceptive mandate. Shapiro says that the Little Sisters and others who would be affected if he wins have no say in court over what happens to their rights. Today supporters gathered outside the Philadelphia court to support the Little Sisters in this case, where Mother Loraine Marie Maguire addressed the crowd.

In early October, HHS issued a new rule that protects the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits from providing services in their healthcare plans that violate their faith like the week-after pill. The Little Sisters’ four-year legal ordeal seemed close to an end but now Pennsylvania’s lawsuit threatens the Sisters’ rights again. Just last week, Pennsylvania obtained a court order keeping the Little Sisters from joining the case to defend their hard-won rights. Becket immediately appealed that order to the Third Circuit.

“We are hopeful that the court will rule as the Supreme Court ruled, that the government doesn’t need us to do its work. As Little Sisters of the Poor, all we want is to follow our calling to love and to serve and finally put this legal ordeal behind us,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial of the Little Sister of the Poor.

Represented by Becket, the Little Sisters spent the last four years battling the HHS mandate (learn more about the Little Sisters here). Following an earlier ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, in October HHS finally admitted that it had been wrong to fight the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“After the Little Sisters’ four-year fight, a Supreme Court victory, and a new rule that protects women like them, Attorney General Shapiro still went to court to take away their rights. He then argued that the Little Sisters shouldn’t even be allowed to come to this court today to make their case,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which is representing the Little Sisters of the Poor. “Josh Shapiro left the Little Sisters of the Poor out in the cold – in the City of Brotherly Love.”

Oral argument took place in federal district court in Philadelphia to decide if the protection for the Little Sisters will stand. A similar hearing took place on Tuesday in Oakland, California where supporters rallied outside the courthouse in support of the Little Sisters.

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

Additional Information:       

• Little Sisters’ Motion to Intervene (November 22, 2017)
• Media Kit for press use (images, b-roll, graphics. Credit: Becket)
• Chart of state contraceptive mandate coverage (Credit: Kaiser)
• New HHS Interim Rule
• Case Page for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Hargan (press releases, legal docs, news, images)
• Website: thelittlesistersofthepoor.com

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night, and for the second time in a row, a group of pastors defeated a lawsuit by militant atheists that demanded the IRS control the internal religious teachings of houses of worship. The atheists—Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)—dismissed their own lawsuit, giving up before the court had a chance to rule against them. FFRF’s dismissal in FFRF v. Trump comes just three years after it did the same thing in their identical lawsuit, FFRF v. Koskinen. Both times, FFRF ran away after religious leaders intervened to defend their rights. By law, because this is now the second time that FFRF has given up on the same claim, FFRF’s dismissal means they have lost on the merits—and the pastors have permanently fended off FFRF.

The following statement can be attributed to Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket:

“FFRF is running away again, and this time for good—in federal court, you don’t get a third bite at the apple. Which is great news for pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams who want to preach their faith without IRS censorship. The pulpit is one place where a little more separation of church and state would go a long way.”

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC), a small Christian student group at the University of Iowa, sued University officials today after being kicked off campus for requiring its student leaders embrace its religious beliefs. The Dean of Students told BLinC that if it wants to be back on campus, it must “revise” its religious beliefs and submit an “acceptable plan” for selecting its leaders. In BLinC v. University of Iowa, BLinC asks the court to stop this religious discrimination and allow it to choose leaders who embrace its mission, just like every other student group on campus. 

There are over 500 student groups at the University with distinct missions, creating an intellectually and culturally rich campus environment. Fraternities and sororities can limit membership to men and women respectively. Pro-choice groups can reject students who are pro-life and vice versa. Feminist groups may require members to support their cause. And environmental groups can choose leaders who support theirs. But even though BLinC allows anyone to join, the University is discriminating against it for requiring its leaders to embrace its mission and beliefs. 

“This is 2017, not 1984,” said Jacob Estell, the student president of BLinC. “Our beliefs weren’t made by us, and they can’t be changed by us either—certainly not just to satisfy Orwellian government rules.”   

BLinC is a small student organization that gives Christian students a forum for discussing how to incorporate their beliefs in the competitive business world and for providing community service. Its members answer the call to serve because of their religious beliefs. On September 1, 2017, the University told BLinC it could select leaders who affirm its beliefs, so long as those beliefs were clearly stated so students would be aware of them. But after BLinC added a statement of its religious beliefs to its campus webpage, the University responded by kicking it off campus shortly before Thanksgiving. 

“This is premeditated religious discrimination, plain and simple,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, which is defending BLinC’s right to equal treatment by the University. “A state school cannot demand a change to students’ faith any more than the U.S. President could demand a change to the Bible.” 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Three churches are once again asking a Houston federal court today for equal access to disaster relief. The filing comes after a judge rejected FEMA’s attempt in Harvest Family Church v. FEMA to delay their challenge and set a December 1 deadline for FEMA to change its position, which it has not. Since the devastation by Hurricane Harvey in late August, FEMA has denied houses of worship access to federal disaster aid grants while allowing all other kinds of non-profits to apply for and receive those grants. The churches are now asking the Houston federal court to grant them immediate access to disaster relief grants.

The following statement can be attributed to Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket:

“Especially when it comes to recovering from hurricanes, justice delayed is justice denied. The churches sought relief from the federal courts almost three months ago. Is it too much to ask that they get the access they need to recover from Hurricane Harvey? We are hopeful that the court will rule soon.”

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Trump administration submitted a proposed disaster relief aid package calling for Congress to pass legislation that would erase a decades-old FEMA policy that discriminates against houses of worship. The proposed change comes one week after a Houston federal judge set a December 1 deadline for FEMA to change its position on its policy. The court deadline arose in Harvest Family Church v. FEMA, a lawsuit by three Texas churches asking for equal access to disaster aid relief. While the Administration’s proposed change is welcome, without quick action from Congress, it cannot help houses of worship that are suffering discrimination as they try to rebuild.

The three churches – Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God –sued FEMA in September because of the agency’s policy excluding houses of worship. The churches’ effort to end the discriminatory policy received broad support, including from the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a Houston synagogue, and the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. A vote on this issue in the U.S. House of Representatives four years ago received overwhelming bipartisan support, 354-72. But FEMA has steadfastly refused to end its policy, and has enforced it in the wake of disasters like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina to deny aid to houses of worship, all while providing aid to private nonprofits such as zoos and community centers. If Congress accepts the administration’s urging, it would give houses of worship equal access to disaster relief grants.

“It’s about time. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires don’t discriminate in who they harm—FEMA never should have discriminated in who it helped,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm that represents the churches. “Adopting the administration’s fix would be a big step in the right direction. But the fix will come too late for many houses of worship, especially with application deadlines looming and critical disaster repair ongoing. At this point, a judicial ruling is still urgently needed.”

Judge Keith Ellison heard arguments in the case on Tuesday, Nov. 7. Three days later he denied a request by Department of Justice lawyers to delay the case and gave FEMA a December 1 deadline to change its position or he would issue a ruling. In his opinion, the judge recognizes that the churches’ challenge is a “First Amendment case,” that the churches here have suffered “significant damage,” and that FEMA’s exclusionary policy is “fraught” with constitutional issues. Houses of worship were among the first to respond in Harvey’s aftermath and they continue to provide aid to their communities.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, a Houston federal judge rejected FEMA’s attempt to delay a challenge by three Texas churches asking for equal access to disaster relief aid. The judge also set a December 1 deadline for FEMA to change its position or he would issue a ruling. Since the devastation by Hurricane Harvey in late August, FEMA has denied houses of worship access to federal disaster aid grants while allowing other non-profits to apply. Today, Judge Keith Ellison’s ruling in Harvest Family Church v. FEMA suggests that the end may be near for the agency’s policy that explicitly discriminates against houses of worship because of their religious status.  

The three churches – Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God –sued FEMA on September 4, because of the agency’s policy of excluding churches. The churches received overwhelming support, including friend-of-the-court briefs filed by a Houston synagogue and the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. But since the start of the lawsuit, FEMA has continued to shut houses of worship out of the disaster relief grant application process. The ruling today repeatedly refers to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, which ruled that the First Amendment requires religious groups to receive equal access to widely available public programs.  

“Christmas may come early for hard-hit houses of worship in Texas—the Court has set the clock ticking on FEMA’s irrational religious discrimination policy,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm that represents the churches. “It can’t come soon enough.”  

Judge Ellison heard arguments in the case on Tuesday. Today, he denied a request by Department of Justice lawyers to delay the case and gave FEMA a December 1 deadline to change its position or he would issue a ruling. In his ruling today, the judge recognizes that the Churches’ challenge is a “First Amendment case,” that the Churches here have suffered “significant damage,” and that FEMA’s exclusionary policy is “fraught” with constitutional issues. 

“Discriminating against houses of worship—which are often on the front lines of disaster relief—is not just wrongheaded, it strikes at our nation’s most fundamental values,” said Blomberg.  

Houses of worship were among the first to respond in Harvey’s aftermath and they continue to provide aid to their communities. While the court heard arguments on Tuesday, Hi-Way Tabernacle was unloading several tractor trailers of food and goods for distribution to hundreds of people in their community. Bizarrely, FEMA’s current policy discriminates against churches while at the same time using them for its own relief efforts. The policy also stands in defiance of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran, which protects the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.     

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

 ###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Three Texas-based houses of worship were in federal court today challenging FEMA’s “no churches need apply” aid policy following the devastation of Hurricane Harvey. In Harvest Family Church v. FEMA, the three churches—like hundreds of flooded and damaged churches across Texas and other hurricane-devastated regions—have been denied access to FEMA’s disaster relief simply because they are religious. A ruling in this case will decide whether churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship across the nation will be allowed to apply for FEMA disaster relief grants. 

Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God filed a lawsuit against FEMA in September for denying them disaster aid. Over the past several weeks, these three churches – and many others – have applied for FEMA aid and were told that they are not eligible. Today, represented by Becket, the churches went to federal district court in Houston, arguing that FEMA’s discriminatory policy puts churches at the back of the line for aid, in violation of the First Amendment.   

“If the church was on fire, a fire truck would come to their aid. If there was a medical emergency, an ambulance would come to their aid. A natural disaster should be no different,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, the non-profit law firm representing the three churches. “These three churches helped their communities without discrimination, and FEMA should do the same.” (Watch full statement from Court)

Houses of worship were among the first to respond in Hurricane Harvey’s aftermath, and they continue to provide aid to their communities as they rebuild. Yet FEMA continues to discriminate against churches while at the same time using their buildings as relief staging centers. Its discriminatory policy defies the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that protects the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.     

“Our message to FEMA is this: don’t mess with Texas churches,” said Blomberg. “FEMA has senselessly excluded churches long enough. We hope the Court will quickly put an end to FEMA’s discriminatory policy.”

The hearing took place in the Houston federal court and a ruling is expected in the coming month.

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm, joined several U.S. Senators and advocacy groups in speaking out today against the dangers of unconstitutional religious tests that exclude people from serving as judges or other federal officials because of their religious beliefs.

At a press conference at the United States Capitol this afternoon, Becket Senior Counsel Mark Rienzi spoke about the nomination of University of Notre Dame Professor Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Some have suggested that Professor Barrett is unfit for public service because of her Catholic faith. For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), told Professor Barrett at her judicial nomination that she was concerned about her Catholic religious beliefs, stating, “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

Rienzi stated: “It’s not just wrong to use Professor Barrett’s religious beliefs as a means to disqualify her—it’s unconstitutional. There is a long, ugly history of using religious tests to exclude Catholics, Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists, Jews, Muslims, and atheists from public office. We shouldn’t repeat it.” (Watch his full statement on Twitter.)

Religious tests were used by England from the 16^th to 19^th centuries to exclude anyone not a member of the Church of England from running for public office, including Catholics, Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists, Jews, Muslims and other dissenters and nonconformists. Today religious tests are strictly prohibited by our Constitution’s No-Religious-Test Clause, which states that “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

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

Additional Information:                                                        

• Twitter Live Video statement

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – FEMA invited hurricane-hit houses of worship to apply for aid in Houston, yet new evidence submitted in court yesterday shows that FEMA continues to deny aid to numerous churches across Texas in need of disaster relief. In Harvest Family Church v. FEMA, three small Texas churches are challenging FEMA’s aid policy after the devastation of Hurricane Harvey. Although FEMA uses churches as staging areas for its relief efforts, it denies them aid grants simply because they are religious. 

Last month, Becket filed a lawsuit against FEMA on behalf of Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God. In an attempt to delay a court ruling, FEMA claimed that churches are welcome to apply for aid despite its “no churches need apply” policy. But over the past several weeks, these three churches – and many others – have been told that they are not eligible, and one even had a grant application rejected.  

Yesterday Becket told the court, “government officials . . . stated that Hi-Way Tabernacle and Harvest Family Church were ‘absolutely not eligible’ for PA grant funds under FEMA’s policy.” Government officials also admitted that they are telling other churches the exact same thing.  

Pastor Bruce Frazier of Rockport First Assembly of God told the court: “I have been working on emergency repairs and recovery efforts at the church 10 hours a day, six days a week since the hurricane.” Pastor Frazier explained to the court that he took several hours away from working on repairs to the church in order to apply for the grant he was offered, only to have it denied.  

Houses of worship were among the first to respond in Harvey’s aftermath, and they continue to provide aid to their communities. Yet FEMA continues to discriminate against churches while, at the same time, using them for its own relief efforts. Their discriminatory policy stands in defiance of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that protects the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.     

“FEMA isn’t just sending churches to the back of the line, it’s telling them don’t bother lining up,” said Diana Verm, legal counsel at Becket, the non-profit law firm representing the three churches. “FEMA should stop wasting time, do the right thing, and help churches help others.” 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two Houston religious groups hit by Hurricane Harvey, the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and the Congregation Torah Vachesed synagogue of Houston, urged a federal court to immediately end a FEMA policy that denies houses of worship equal access to disaster relief. The groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in Harvest Family Church v. FEMA, where three small Texas churches are challenging  FEMA’s aid policy in the wake of the massive late-August natural disaster. The briefs highlight ways houses of worship responded in Harvey’s aftermath and continue to provide aid to their local communities, and point out FEMA’s unfairness in discriminating against churches while using them as staging grounds for its relief efforts.

Last month, Becket filed a lawsuit against FEMA on behalf of Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God. The lawsuit argues that, consistent with the Supreme Court’s 7-2Trinity Lutheran Church decision, churches have the right to participate equally in generally available programs with other nonprofit organizations. This week’s briefs support the churches’ arguments and counter FEMA’s attempts to delay a ruling by the court.

The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston highlighted relief efforts by religious communities, including nuns like Sister Margaret Ann, “who was caught on tape wielding a chainsaw in her habit and clearing debris after Hurricane Irma.” The Congregation Torah Vachesed synagogue’s brief noted that “an estimated 71 percent of Houston’s Jewish population lived in areas that experienced massive flooding,” which damaged “seven major Jewish community institutions . . . includ[ing] three of the five largest synagogues in Houston.”  It also criticized FEMA’s for saying the court should wait to rule on the case until years from now, after FEMA finally rejects church applications, saying “[a] flooded synagogue has no time to spare to file a claim that FEMA has already made clear is doomed.”

The two religious groups are represented by prominent Houston firms. The Archdiocese is represented by Michael Bennett and Richard Husseini of Baker Botts LLP. And Congregation Torah Vachesed, which was joined by the national Jewish religious liberty group Jews for Religious Liberty, is represented by Jamie Aycock of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

“Hard-hit houses of worship shouldn’t be denied a place at the table just because FEMA thinks they’re ‘too religious,’” said Diana Verm, legal counsel at Becket, the non-profit law firm representing the three churches. “FEMA should drop its phobia of religion and get back to focusing on helping communities rebuild.”

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

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A historic cross that has stood in a Pensacola park since World War II should not be torn down, the City of Pensacola told a federal appeals court. The cross is one of more than 170 displays in the city’s many public parks, but four people sued the city in 2016 claiming that the cross is “offensive.” A federal judge ordered that the monument must be removed, but the city has now appealed. 

The cross was placed in Pensacola’s Bayview Park in 1941 for a community gathering organized by a local community service group as the U.S. was on the verge of entering World War II. Pensacola, known as the “Cradle of Naval Aviation,” was heavily impacted by World War II. For decades, community events have been held at the cross, including Veterans Day and Memorial Day services. Today the cross continues to serve as a symbol of the city’s history and culture.

“Pensacola has a rich history, and it shouldn’t have to censor that history just because part of it is religious,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, which is defending the City of Pensacola. “The constitution doesn’t treat religion like a nasty habit that must be hidden from public view; it treats it as a natural and valuable part of human culture. Pensacola can treat religion the same way.”  

Last year, the American Humanist Association sued the city on behalf of four people who said the cross was offensive. Two of those people live in Canada; the third lives outside the city; and the fourth has used the cross for his own “satanic purposes.” One of the plaintiffs had visited the cross for 23 years before filing the lawsuit. 

A federal judge ruled in Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola that the cross “is part of the rich history of Pensacola,” and that “the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution would have most likely found this lawsuit absurd,” but that his hands were tied by a 30-year-old decision from the appeals court, and so the cross must come down. That appeals court will now decide the cross’s fate.   

“This cross has been a positive symbol of unity for this community for over 75 years. One contrived lawsuit should not be allowed to tear it apart,” said Goodrich.  

Becket is representing the City of Pensacola and Mayor Ashton Hayward, and Becket attorneys are available for comment.    

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

### 

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

I am not an extraordinary man, and I am quite ordinary. But God chose me for something quite extraordinary.

When I was 23 years old I refused to do something that at the time seemed very small. I refused to say a few words, “I’m with Fidel.” First I refused the sign on my desk at the postal office that said that, and after years of torture and watching many fellow fighters die, either in body or in spirit, I still refused to say those words.

If I just said those three words, I would have been released from prison.

My story is proof that a small act of defiance can mean everything for the friends of liberty. They did not keep me in jail for 22 years because my refusal to say three words meant nothing. In reality those three words meant everything.

For me to say those words would constituted a type of spiritual suicide. Even though my body was in prison and being tortured, my soul was free and it flourished. My jailers took everything away from me, but they could not take away my conscience or my faith.

Even when we have nothing, each person and only that person possesses the key to his or her own conscience, his or her own sacred castle. In that respect, each of us, though we may not have an earthly castle or even a house, each of us is richer than a king or queen.

The Little Sisters of the Poor know this. They may be called the Little Sisters of the Poor, and yet they are rich in that they live out their conscience, which no government bureaucrat can invade. They know what my body knows after 22 years of cruel torture: that if they sign the form, the government demands they will be violating their conscience and would commit spiritual suicide. If they did this they would forfeit the true and only wealth they have in abandoning the castle of their consciences.

And so I salute the Little Sisters of the Poor for their seemingly small act of defiance!

I am here to tell you that every little act counts. No man or woman is too small or simple to be called to bear witness to the truth. I’m here to remind you that each of you possesses great wealth in the sacred domain of your conscience. And I’m here to tell you that each of you is called to stay true.  I am also here to tell you that when you make that choice, from that moment forward, even if you are naked, in solitary confinement for 8 years, you are never alone because God is there with you.

For many of you, particularly the young people, it may seem I come from a faraway land from a long time ago. Young friends, you may not be taken away at gunpoint, as I was for staying true to my conscience, but there are many other ways to take you away and to imprison your body and your mind. There are many ways you can be silenced, in your schools, your universities, in your workplace.

I warn you: Just as there is a very short distance between the US and Cuba, there is a very short distance between a democracy and a dictatorship where the government gets to decide what to do, how to think, and how to live. And sometimes your freedom is not taken away at gunpoint but instead it is done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time, one small silencing at a time. Never allow the government–or anyone else–to tell you what you can or cannot believe or what you can and cannot say or what your conscience tells you to have to do or not do.

As I look around this room I am heartened. And I want to applaud each of Becket’s clients for, in staying true to your conscience and in standing up for religious liberty, each of you protects this exceptional country of ours. A country that is not perfect but nevertheless still allows us to live in a society where we can hold a different view from each other and a different view from the government.

Thank you for this award.  I accept it in the name of the thousands of Cubans that used their last breath to express their own religious freedom, by shouting, as they faced execution: “Long Live Christ the King.” I accept it in the name of those who still suffer in Cuba–a country that in the last two years alone has destroyed more than 300 churches and houses of worship persecuting Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and confiscating their Bible and crosses while beating their pastors and parishioners. I accept it in the name of the Jewish community in Cuba who, even at such small numbers, is also still persecuted. Finally, I accept this award in the name of my wife.  It is really her that deserves it, not me. All of you have heard the story of Penelope, who waited 20 years for Ulysses. Martha is a real life Penelope. But she didn’t stay home knitting. She traveled all over the world campaigning for my release. She waited for me. She always hoped and trusted in God that we would both be reunited Against All Hope.

Thank you.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The small town of Acton, Massachusetts was in court today standing up against an anti-religious group’s attempt to exclude church buildings from historic preservation programs. In Caplan v. Town of Acton, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says preservation grants can be used for all sorts of historic buildings – just not churches and synagogues. This case comes on the heels of June’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer that said that the government can’t block churches from participating on an equal basis in widely available public grant programs. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the churches’ right to receive preservation funds on an equal footing with other historic buildings.  

The following statement can be attributed to Joseph Davis, legal counsel at Becket:  

The most surprising thing about today’s argument was the lengths Americans United went to try and save its case. They argued Old North Church, made famous by Paul Revere’s ride, can receive historic preservation funds because it isn’t really a church anymore—notwithstanding its weekly congregation. They even attacked church steeples in the town’s skyline as somehow inherently “troubling.” But Acton has had it right all along: historic church buildings are an important part of our history and they should be preserved for generations to come. 

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

### 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the wake of Hurricane Harvey’s unprecedented destruction, flooded churches in Texas have sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency, seeking equal access to disaster relief grants available to other non-profits. In Harvest Family Church v. FEMA, three small Texas churches damaged by Harvey are challenging a FEMA policy that bans them from applying to its relief program simply because they are religious.  

While many private nonprofit organizations, such as museums and zoos, qualify for FEMA’s relief programs to help make basic structural repairs and begin rebuilding, churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship are denied access to grants. FEMA’s policy violates the Constitution, as the Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 in Trinity Lutheran protecting the right of religious organizations to participate in generally available programs on equal footing with secular organizations. Becket has filed a lawsuit in Houston federal court against FEMA on behalf of Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God arguing that these churches have the same right to apply for disaster relief grants as other nonprofit organizations.  

“We’re just picking up the pieces like everyone else. And we just want to be treated like everyone else,” said Paul Capehart of Harvest Family Church. “Our faith is what drives us to help others. Faith certainly doesn’t keep us from helping others, and we’re not sure why it keeps FEMA from helping us.”

FEMA has previously praised churches and religious ministries and the valuable shelter and aid they provide to disaster-stricken communities, and regularly uses houses of worship to set up relief centers. In fact, just as it did after Hurricanes Rita and Ike, FEMA and local government agencies are currently using Hi-Way Tabernacle to shelter dozens of evacuees, distribute meals, and provide medical care. Yet Hi-Way is not eligible for relief for the three-foot flood it suffered in its sanctuary, simply because it primarily uses its building for religious purposes.  

FEMA has repeatedly denied disaster assistance funds to countless houses of worship in the wake of disasters like Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, including a Jewish Chabad, a homeless shelter church ministry, and a Unitarian Universalist church. At the same time, FEMA gave aid to an octopus research center, a botanical garden, and community centers that provide sewing classes and stamp-collecting clubs.  

“Houses of worship are playing a vital role in helping Texans recover from this horrible storm,” said Verm. “It’s time for FEMA to start helping the helpers, not continue a policy of irrational discrimination against churches.” 

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

### 

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

For Immediate Release:  August 28, 2017 

Media Contact:  Melinda Skea | [email protected] | 202-349-7224 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – An Orthodox Jewish woman who was fired from her job at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for observing Passover is asking the nation’s highest court to hear her case. Last month, in Abeles v. Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, Susan Abeles appealed to the Supreme Court to hold her former employer accountable for unjustly firing her from her job of 26 years for observing the first two and last two days of Passover. A ruling from the high court could protect the right of all religious federal employees to live their faith without fear of losing their jobs. 

Susan Abeles was a statistician at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), the government agency that operates both Reagan National and Dulles International Airports, for 26 years. She observed Passover every year without incident until 2013, when she was punished and forced to retire despite following leave protocol. Today, Becket and Jews for Religious Liberty, an association of Jewish lawyers and rabbis, filed a friend–of-the-court brief asking the Supreme Court to hear Ms. Abeles’ case, arguing that the lower court decision “will inhibit Jewish religious exercise within the federal workplace and could easily result in a de facto government hiring ban on Orthodox Jews.” 

“Talk about chutzpah,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm. “The Airports Authority says it was okay to fire Ms. Abeles for observing Passover because it hasn’t said anything openly anti-Semitic. If that becomes the rule, then federal agencies will have a license to terminate all of their religious employees, as long as they are careful to hide their tracks. Even Pharaoh honestly admitted that he was discriminating against Jews.” 

Jewish religious law prohibits work during the first two and last two days of Passover. Millions of Orthodox Jews like Ms. Abeles have observed this important holiday for thousands of years. Despite following the MWAA’s leave policy for decades, Ms. Abeles was accused of not following protocol and forced into retirement in 2013. She sued the MWAA, which claims it is exempt from both the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Virginia religious freedom laws, giving it free rein to avoid all anti-discrimination laws. In July 2017 Ms. Abeles, asked the Supreme Court to hear her case. 

“The Airports Authority claiming to be above the law adds insult to injury,” said Rassbach. “The Supreme Court should take this case to ensure that people of all faiths can observe their deeply held beliefs in the federal workplace without facing discrimination or being forced out of their jobs.”  

Ms. Abeles is represented by Nathan Lewin of Lewin & Lewin. 

WASHINGTON D.C. – A group of religious leaders is fighting to keep the government from censoring their worship services. In FFRF v. Trump, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is asking a Wisconsin federal court to order the IRS to enforce its regulations that explicitly forbid pastors, priests, imams, and rabbis to speak to their congregations on important issues where politics and faith overlap. But as a group of religious leaders including Chicago-based Reverend Charles Moodie told the court last night, neither the government nor FFRF should be in the business of editing sermons.  

Reverend Moodie is an inner-city Chicago pastor who ministers in a neighborhood plagued by violence, drugs and poverty. He preaches about social and political issues that affect his congregation, including protecting the most vulnerable in society. But for decades, relying on a 1954 law known as the Johnson Amendment, the IRS has ordered churches to censor their sermons on certain issues, and threatened massive punishment if churches don’t toe the line. Legal scholars on all sides of the political spectrum have called the IRS’s intrusive rule “indefensible” and “one of the most sweeping violations of the First Amendment in American history.” In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order stating that the IRS should not enforce the rules. FFRF then filed its lawsuit to demand that the IRS start enforcing the pulpit speech restrictions despite the Executive Order.  

“Pastors, priests, imams, and rabbis shouldn’t have to get the IRS’s permission just to preach candidly to their congregations,” said Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm that defends people of all faith. “IRS sermon censorship is bad for the church and it’s bad for the state. This is one place where a little more separation of church and state would go a long way.”  

Last night, the Department of Justice told the court hearing FFRF’s case that President Trump’s May promise was meaningless, and that FFRF should ignore the IRS’s stance against pulpit speech. Becket has asked the Court to instead reject FFRF’s suit outright as a violation of the separation of church and state. In addition to Reverend Moodie, Becket is also representing Wisconsin-based Pastor Koua Vang of Hmong Baptist Ministry, Father Patrick Malone, and Father Malone’s church, Holy Cross Anglican Church of Milwaukee.  

“While Americans have good-faith disagreements about religion and politics, we should all agree that the taxman has no business telling religious leaders what to say during worship services,” said Blomberg.  

This is the second time in three years FFRF has tried to silence faith. Becket intervened to protect pastors’ right to preach without government censorship two years ago, in FFRF v. Koskinen, prompting FFRF to retreat and dismiss its lawsuit.  

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

###  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information:   

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

### 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chabad is represented by Becket and Kirkland & Ellis.

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

Additional Information:        

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

 ###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

 ###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

A decision in the case is expected later this year.

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

 ###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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