Court has blocked Ten Commandments displays in Lakeside School District & 5 other Arkansas districts

The court previously stopped four Northwest Arkansas school districts from complying with Act 573 by posting Ten Commandments displays. The court later enjoined the Conway School District, requiring it to remove Ten Commandments displays that it posted despite the earlier order.

Today’s order, issued by U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks, follows a supplemental complaint filed by the plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 – represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of Arkansas, ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – to add Lakeside School District and new plaintiffs to the ongoing litigation.

The court issued the temporary restraining order less than 24 hours after plaintiffs requested it. The court’s swift action requires Lakeside to remove all Ten Commandments displays from classrooms and libraries immediately, reaffirming that Act 573 and its enforcement violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious freedom and church-state separation.

‘Families in Lakeside School District decide how and when their children engage with religion’

“All Arkansas public school districts should heed the court’s clear warning: Displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms is ‘obviously unconstitutional,’” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Families in Lakeside School District, throughout Arkansas, and across the country decide how and when their children engage with religion – not politicians or public school officials.”

“This order is yet another reminder that public schools cannot impose religion on students,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “Even after repeated rulings, the State continues to look the other way and some school districts continue to violate students’ rights. We’re proud to stand with Arkansas families defending their right to a public education free from government-sponsored religion and will continue to do so.”

“Today’s order ensures that our client, and all Lakeside students, will no longer be forced to submit to government-imposed scriptural displays as a condition of attending public school,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must comply with the First Amendment.”

“Today’s decision should make it abundantly clear to all public schools that pushing religion on students will not be tolerated,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 

“We appreciate the Court’s well-reasoned decision granting this temporary restraining order,” said Jon Youngwood, global co-chair of the litigation department at Simpson Thacher. “The ruling reaffirms a fundamental constitutional principle: that public schools should not advance or endorse any particular faith. Families – not the government – must have the freedom to decide how and when their children engage with religion.”

Families in Lakeside School District, throughout Arkansas: Report violations to Americans United

Families in Lakeside and across Arkansas who encounter Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms are encouraged to contact Americans United at au.org.

The lawsuit, Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, challenges provisions of Act 573 of 2025 mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in every Arkansas public school classroom and library. The plaintiffs, a group of multifaith and nonreligious families, argue that the law violates the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

Since the case was filed, the federal district court has issued multiple injunctions protecting students and families’ First Amendment rights – first against the original four districts (Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, and Siloam Springs), followed by Conway, and now Lakeside.

AU is seeking records related to the formation and funding of the commission; appointment of its members and advisors; and its three public meetings in June and September, including meeting records, expenses, and decisions relating to invited speakers and use of the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. Federal law requires the commission to produce these records.

Religious Liberty Commission is prioritizing one narrow set of conservative Christian beliefs

“Everything about the Religious Liberty Commission signals that its mission isn’t about protecting religious liberty for everyone; it’s about rejecting our nation’s religious diversity and prioritizing one narrow set of conservative Christian beliefs. That was evident during the commission’s public meetings, which have been dominated by a very specific brand of Christian faith, Christian prayers, and predominantly Christian speakers – many of them affiliated with Christian Nationalist organizations,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “We launched this investigation because the commission’s true purpose and operations can’t be squared with America’s constitutional promise of church-state separation.”

The requests for information were made under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which together ensure transparency and timely access to records produced by federal advisory committees established by and for the president.

The lawsuit was brought in May by a multifaith group of Quincy residents, who argue that the plan violates the separation of church and state, as codified in the Massachusetts Constitution. The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Cloherty & Steinberg LLP.

Quincy’s plan to install religious statues violates residents’ religious freedom

“My Christian faith is at the core of my life – and the City’s plan to install religious statues at the entrance to a government building goes against that faith,” said Conevery Bolton Valencius, one of the plaintiffs in this case. “As residents of Quincy, we should not have to walk under such looming religious imagery to seek help from public safety officers or city services. I go to church because it is my choice to freely practice my religion, but having to walk beneath these statues to enter a government building removes that choice. The City should not be seen to favor religious believers – much less adherents to a particular faith – above others. I am grateful to the court for recognizing this essential principle.”

“This is a win for religious freedom and church-state separation. Police and fire services are for all Quincy residents, regardless of their religious beliefs,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “By trying to install large religious statues in front of the government building dedicated to public safety, Mayor Koch and the City are violating the constitutional promise of church-state separation and sending a message to all who rely on city services that one faith is favored over all others.”

Court: Religious statues at public safety building raises concerns about equal treatment

In its ruling, the court emphasized that “[a] core function of the new public safety building is to facilitate and promote public access to law enforcement,” and that “[v]ictims and witnesses entering such a building often must overcome emotional and psychological hurdles, and intimidation to report crimes and seek police assistance” including “the question of whether the police will treat their claims with the gravity warranted and treat them equally as any other individual, regardless of religious beliefs.” As a result, it concluded “the Complaint raises colorable concerns that members of the community not adherent to Catholicism or Christian teaching who pass beneath the two statues to report a crime may reasonably question whether they will be treated equally.”

The lawsuit argues that the placement on government property of the proposed religious statues violates Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by imposing religious imagery and symbols upon all who work in, visit, or pass by the public safety building; by conveying the message that Quincy is a Catholic community and that non-Catholics do not belong and are less valued; and by excessively entangling the city with matters of religion. 

“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs,” said Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”

“We welcome this decision to preserve religious liberty,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.  “The government simply has no business playing favorites with faith.”  

“We commend this legal development. Massachusetts citizens are free to practice their personal religious views by placing statues of saints or other religious iconography on private property,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “But such religious iconography emphatically does not belong on government buildings where all must feel welcome, and which represents and is paid for by residents of all religious persuasions — or none at all.”

More information about the case is available here.

ADF case is part of crusade to turn religious freedom into a weapon

“Our laws should protect children from harm, including harm caused in the name of ‘religious freedom.’ Colorado’s law protects vulnerable LGBTQ+ children from the proven harm of dangerous and discredited conversion ‘therapy’ practices. Alliance Defending Freedom, an aggressive Christian Nationalist organization, is spearheading this case as part of its crusade to turn religious freedom into a weapon. 

“Our country’s promise of church-state separation means that all Americans must be free to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they do not harm others. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state.” 

AU filed brief in support of Colorado anti-conversion ‘therapy’ law

Americans United was joined by nearly two dozen national and Colorado-based religious organizations in an amicus brief that urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law does not violate the First Amendment rights of mental health practitioners. The brief offers several religious perspectives, including Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Unitarian Universalist, that support the law because they believe all children should be protected from harm and feel safe, included, and supported.

Click here for more information on Chiles v. Salazar.

In its June ruling, the court of appeals held that Louisiana’s H.B. 71 is unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Stone v. Graham, and explained that “indiscriminately” displaying the Ten Commandments in all public-school classrooms across the state would cause an “irreparable” deprivation of the plaintiffs’ rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

The state and school board defendants subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc, a procedural mechanism that authorizes a full court of appeals to reconsider rulings issued by three-judge panels. With today’s grant of the petition, the case will be reheard by all judges currently sitting on the Fifth Circuit.

Represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Rev. Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools.

Fifth Circuit panel’s decision followed Supreme Court precedent

The organizations representing the plaintiffs issued the following statement in response to the decision:

“The panel’s unanimous ruling last June was well reasoned and correctly followed binding Supreme Court precedent. We believe there is no reason to revisit it. Nevertheless, we look forward to presenting our clients’ case to the entire court of appeals, and we remain confident that the constitutional values and principles at the heart of the First Amendment, which guarantee religious freedom for all students and families, will prevail in the end. 

“We emphasize that the district court’s preliminary injunction order in the Roake case – where the Court found that this law is facially unconstitutional – is not disturbed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision to rehear the appeal.”

“We applaud Reps. Ansari, Huffman and Raskin, with the support of the Congressional Freethought Caucus, for recognizing the fundamental role church-state separation plays in our democracy. This bedrock principle protects everyone’s religious freedom – the freedom to live as ourselves and believe as we choose, as long as we don’t harm others.

Congressional resolution a ‘breath of fresh air’ in face of Christian Nationalism

“Church-state separation, a pillar of our democracy, is under severe threat from Christian Nationalists who want to impose their narrow beliefs on all of us. This dangerous, anti-American ideology was on full display during Monday’s meeting of President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. This House resolution is a breath of fresh air because our country needs a national recommitment to the separation of church and state before it’s too late. Our democracy depends on it.”

Religious Liberty Commission speakers advance Christian Nationalist agenda

“Yet again, President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission demonstrated that its true purpose is to advance a Christian Nationalist agenda and impose one narrow religious view on the nation’s public school children. The speakers at today’s hearing made that clear – from the former high school football coach whose attorneys spun what one federal judge called a ‘deceitful narrative’ to recast his coercive post-game prayer rallies with public school students as quiet, personal, private prayers, to a public high school history teacher who has likened public schools to a ‘mission field’ where she engages in ‘spiritual warfare’ to oppose LGBTQ+ students’ identities.

“The majority of speakers at today’s hearing are affiliated with Christian Nationalist organizations working to obliterate church-state separation, turn public schools into Sunday schools and misuse religious freedom as a license to discriminate. The commission continues to ignore the true threats to religious freedom in public education: Christian Nationalist mandates to display the Ten Commandments, teach the Bible as truth, infuse curricula with Christianity, install school chaplains and impose coercive prayer on students, to name just a few.

Religious Liberty Commission meeting ‘an outright assault’ on church-state separation

“Today’s meeting has been an outright assault on our country’s promise of church-state separation. That promise is central to true religious freedom. It means that families – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide how and when children engage with religion. The commission should be joining Americans United in demanding a national recommitment to church-state separation as the best way to defend religious freedom for all – our inclusive public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

Americans United submitted extensive written public comments to the commission on Sept. 22 and Aug. 30 that explain the true threats to religious freedom in public education. The most recent comments explain public school officials’ rights and responsibilities regarding religious freedom; dispel the myths surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (in which AU represented the school district); and how private school vouchers undermine both public education and religious freedom.

“This is a win for Oklahomans. They’re better off without Walters. At every turn Ryan Walters abused the power of his government office as he attempted to impose his personal religious beliefs on Oklahoma school children. And time and again, he lost in court to Americans United, our local allies, and the brave parents, students, faith leaders, teachers and public education advocates who fought his Christian Nationalist agenda. Oklahomans deserve a superintendent who understands that the separation of church and state means families – not politicians – get to decide when and how children engage with religion. Americans United will continue to be a shield protecting the religious freedom of Oklahoma families and public school children.”

Families ask court to require their public schools to remove Ten Commandments displays

The plaintiffs in Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District also plan to file a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, asking the court to require the defendant school districts to remove any Ten Commandments displays currently posted and to refrain from hanging new displays pending the resolution of the litigation. The school districts named as defendants in today’s lawsuit include: Comal ISD, Georgetown ISD, Conroe ISD, Flour Bluff ISD, Fort Worth ISD, Arlington ISD, McKinney ISD, Frisco ISD, Northwest ISD, Azle ISD, Rockwall ISD, Lovejoy ISD, Mansfield ISD, and McAllen ISD.

The complaint, filed in a San Antonio federal court, points to the court’s recent decision in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, which held that S.B. 10’s provisions requiring the display of a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom are “plainly unconstitutional” under the First Amendment. The plaintiffs in both cases are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. 

Following the Nathan ruling, counsel in the case sent a letter to all Texas school districts warning them not to implement S.B. 10 because it would violate the First Amendment.  

Ten Commandments displays in public schools violate students’ and families’ religious freedom

“As a devout Christian and a Lutheran pastor, the spiritual formation of my children is a privilege I take more seriously than anything else in my life,” said plaintiff Rev. Kristin Klade (she/her). “The mandated Ten Commandments displays in my children’s public school impede my ability to ‘train up my child in the way he should go’ (Proverbs 22:6). I address questions about God and faith with great care, and I emphatically reject the notion that the state would do this for me.”

“Forcing religion, any religion, on others violates my Jewish faith,” said plaintiff Lenee Bien-Willner (she/her). “It troubles me greatly to have Christian displays imposed on my children. Not only is the text not aligned with Judaism, but the commandments should be taught in the context of a person’s faith tradition. State-sponsored religion, however, does not belong in the public classroom.”

“S.B. 10 is a calculated step to erode the separation of church and state and the right for my family to exercise our nonreligious beliefs,” said plaintiff Nichole Manning (she/her). “I am compelled to advocate for my children, for these basic freedoms upon which this country was founded.”

Families – not politicians – get to decide when and how children engage with religion

“Our Constitution’s guarantee of church-state separation means that families – not politicians – get to decide when and how public-school children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Multiple federal courts, including in Texas, have been clear: Ten Commandments displays in public schools violate students’ and families’ religious freedom. These displays must be removed.”

“A federal court has already made clear that school districts violate the First Amendment when they post the Ten Commandments in classrooms under S.B. 10,” said Heather L. Weaver (she/her), senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “School districts must respect students’ and parents’ constitutional rights, and we will continue to hold school districts accountable when they flout this obligation.”

“Texas families from religious and nonreligious backgrounds are once again coming together to challenge this blatantly unconstitutional law,” said Chloe Kempf (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “This lawsuit is a continuation of our work to defend the First Amendment and ensure that government officials stay out of personal family decisions. All students – regardless of their race or religious background – should feel accepted and free to be themselves in Texas public schools.”

“We are determined to keep on fighting for the rights of Texas students and their families,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “The secular foundation of our country’s public school system is nonnegotiable.”

“This lawsuit, brought on behalf of a new group of Texas families, underscores a critical principle: public schools across the state must uphold—not undermine—the constitutional protections afforded to every student. As multiple courts have reaffirmed, the First Amendment safeguards the rights of individuals to choose whether and how they engage with religion, and that protection extends to every classroom,” said Jon Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of the litigation department at Simpson Thacher.

Trump administration memo incorrect on federal workers’ religious freedom

In letters to federal agencies, Americans United explained that the Office of Personnel Management’s July 28 memo on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace, “provides incorrect legal advice.” “Relying on the July 28 OPM memo to formulate internal personnel policy and practice would invite religious freedom violations and expose your agency to risk of litigation,” AU experts wrote.

“The federal government’s role is to serve the public – not to proselytize,” said Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “The Trump administration’s guidance encourages federal officials to abuse the power of their government office to impose their religious beliefs on others. The Constitution’s promise of church-state separation and religious freedom means that government officials may not impose their or any religion on their colleagues or people who are seeking government services.”

“The Trump administration is paving the way for the Christian Nationalists appointed by Trump to proselytize federal workers with impunity,” Laser said. “Americans United was made for moments like these. We encourage any federal workers or recipients of federal services who believe a federal agency has violated their religious freedom to contact Americans United.”

AU’s letters explain the Trump administration’s OPM guidance misinterprets a recent Supreme Court decision to incorrectly claim federal works can engage members of the public in prayer; omits information about key protections against religious discrimination in federal law and the Constitution; and does not reflect existing religious diversity in the federal workforce, focusing instead only on Christian and Jewish employees.

AU’s “Know Your Rights” guide explains federal workers’ rights and responsibilities

AU’s “Know Your Rights” guide provides detailed examples of religious expression and activities federal workers may engage in as well as explanations of their rights to seek religious accommodations and be free of religious harassment and discrimination. The guide also explains obligations not to proselytize coworkers and the public. AU encourages all federal employees who believe they have experienced or witnessed a religious freedom violation in the federal workplace to report it to AU’s attorneys at www.au.org/report-a-violation.

Oklahoma Supreme Court prohibits implementation of new social studies standards

The court prohibited Walters and the state from implementing the new social studies standards. State officials are also prohibited from spending any state funds on the standards. The court ordered the state to treat the prior version of the standards, which were enacted in 2019, as remaining in effect.   

The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. The organizations issued the following statements:

Social studies standards would violate students’ and families’ religious freedom

“Today’s ruling will help ensure that Oklahoma families – not politicians – get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “These new social studies standards would violate students’ and families’ religious freedom by promoting one version of Christianity and advancing Christian Nationalist disinformation. Not on our watch. Public schools are not Sunday schools.”

Brent Rowland, legal director of Oklahoma Appleseed: “This is a victory for transparency, fairness, and the constitutional rights of all Oklahomans. The authority to govern comes with accountability for making decisions in the full view of the people the government serves. Public school classrooms may not be used to endorse religious doctrine – no matter what the religion is or how many people follow it. Blocking these standards means Oklahoma students can learn history and civics in a way that respects every family’s beliefs while inspiring them to think critically, ask questions, and engage as informed members of our democracy. This ruling moves us toward the open, rigorous, and inclusive public education our students deserve.”

New social studies standards contain dozens of references to the Bible, Christianity

The court’s ruling today puts on hold Walters’ new standards, which are replete with several dozen references to the Bible and Christianity while containing few mentions of other faiths; inaccurately present Bible stories as literal, historical facts; inaccurately proclaim the Bible’s and Christianity’s influence on the founding of America and the country’s laws; and require other inaccurate teachings, including presenting disproven contentions about the legitimacy of the 2020 election and conveying as unquestioned truth the controversial theory that the COVID-19 pandemic originated in a Chinese laboratory. 

The lawsuit explains that the approval of the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act and other procedural requirements because Oklahoma officials gave no notice to the public – or even to members of the State Board of Education themselves – that the version of the standards submitted to the Board for a vote was substantially different from the version that had been publicly released. The standards also run afoul of a statutory requirement that Oklahoma’s academic standards be accurate and age appropriate. And the new standards violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious-freedom protections by promoting and favoring one religion over others and over nonreligion in public schools, including to especially impressionable first and second graders.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Alex Luchenitser and Luke Anderson at Americans United and Colleen McCarty and Brent Rowland at Oklahoma Appleseed. The organizations and many of the plaintiffs also are involved in a separate lawsuit challenging Walters’ Bible-education mandate; that case, Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

“Today’s Religious Liberty Commission meeting once again demonstrated that this commission isn’t about religious liberty; it’s about rejecting the nation’s religious diversity and prioritizing one set of Christian beliefs. From the professions of Christian faith to the chorus of ‘Amens’ during Christian prayers to the exclusively Christian speakers this morning, this government hearing was more like a church service. Once again, President Trump is using religion to promote his self-aggrandizement and political agenda, all the while perpetuating the lie that America is a Christian nation and that religion is under attack. 

‘America Prays’ initiative part of Christian Nationalist agenda

“The Trump administration is advancing this Christian Nationalist agenda with the launch of his ‘America Prays’ initiative, which calls on Americans to pray for our country. People who care about religious freedom don’t need to be told when or how to pray; they need leaders who are committed to separation of church and state.

“At a hearing focused on religious freedom and public schools, the commission ignored the most serious threats. From mandates to display the Ten Commandments and teach from the Bible to Christianity-infused curriculum and the installation of school chaplains, Christian Nationalists and their political allies are trying to impose their personal religious beliefs on America’s public school children.

Religious Liberty Commission members have tried to undermine church-state separation

“Our country’s promise of church-state separation means that families – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide how and when children engage with religion. Yet many of the organizations represented at today’s meeting and members of the Religious Liberty Commission have tried to undermine this fundamental American principle and turn our public schools into Sunday schools. The commission should be joining Americans United in demanding a national recommitment to church-state separation as the best way to defend religious freedom for all – our inclusive public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

Last week, Americans United submitted extensive written public comments to the commission explaining the constitutional protections and Supreme Court jurisprudence around religious freedom in public schools. The comments include a summary of current threats to religious freedom in states across the country, as well as numerous past examples of how students’ and families’ religious freedom has been violated when church-state separation is ignored.

Judge allows Conway School District, families to be added to lawsuit

The TRO follows the court’s order yesterday permitting the plaintiffs to add Conway families and the Conway School District to the suit. In yesterday’s order, Judge Timothy Brooks explained: “The Court ruled that Act 573, if put into effect, was likely to violate the First Amendment rights of all Arkansas public-school parents and their children — not just those attending public school in Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, and Siloam Springs. . . . The Court assumed that the State would advise the other 233 school districts of the Court’s ruling and caution them to refrain from displaying the Ten Commandments posters they received until a dispositive ruling was entered or these matters were resolved. Clearly, that did not happen.” 

In issuing the TRO, the court pointed to its Aug. 4 ruling in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 that Act 573 is “obviously unconstitutional.” On Aug. 5, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sent letters to every school superintendent in Arkansas, notifying them of the federal court’s ruling and warning districts not to implement Act 573. 

Despite the court’s ruling and the letter from the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Conway School District hung Act 573 displays in all classrooms before the first day of school on Aug. 18, prompting swift legal action from families represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Conway School District families get to decide when and how to engage with religion

“All Arkansas public school districts should heed the court’s clear warning: Displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms is ‘obviously unconstitutional,’” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Families in Conway School District, throughout Arkansas, and across the country get to decide how and when their children engage with religion – not politicians or public-school officials.”

Colorado’s anti-conversion therapy law does not violate religious freedom

In an amicus brief filed Tuesday in the case Chiles v. Salazar, AU and allies explain that Colorado’s law was not enacted with anti-religious animus and does not target religion. The brief offers several religious perspectives, including Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Unitarian Universalist, that support the law because it aligns with their beliefs to celebrate diversity and ensure all members of the community feel safe, included, and supported.

Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser issued the following statement:

“Our country’s promise of church-state separation means that all Americans must be free to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they do not harm others. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that our laws can protect vulnerable LGBTQ+ children from the proven harm of conversion therapy.

Case is spearheaded by Christian Nationalist organization ADF

“This is yet another case spearheaded by Alliance Defending Freedom, an aggressive Christian Nationalist organization that is manipulating the courts in order to turn religious freedom into a license to discriminate. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects everyone’s freedom to make their own decisions about their own bodies according to their own moral and religious beliefs.”

Organizations joining Americans United’s brief include Alliance of Baptists; Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists; Bend the Arc; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Covenant Network of Presbyterians; Denver Community Church; Dignity Denver; DignityUSA; Highlands Church Denver; Hindu American Foundation; Hindus for Human Rights; Interfaith Alliance; Interfaith Alliance of Colorado; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Keshet; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community Churches; Muslims for Progressive Values; National Council of Jewish Women; New Ways Ministry; Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association; and Women of Reform Judaism.

The brief’s authors include Senior Litigation Counsel Amy Tai and Litigation Counsel Jenny Samuels.

In his decision U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery held that Texas Senate Bill 10, which is due to take effect on Sept. 1, likely violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

Judge: Texas Ten Commandments law ‘likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance’

Ruling that the Texas Ten Commandments law would likely lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the child plaintiffs and interfere with their parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious education, Judge Biery explained:

“[T]he displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State’s favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school.”

“As a rabbi and public school parent, I welcome this ruling,” said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan. “Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools.”

Texas families – not politicians – get to decide how children engage with religion

“Today’s decision will ensure that Texas families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It sends a third strong and resounding message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.”

“Public schools are not Sunday schools,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Today’s decision ensures that our clients’ schools will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state’s preferred religious beliefs.”

“Today’s ruling is a major win that protects the constitutional right to religious freedom for Texas families of all backgrounds,” said Tommy Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “The court affirmed what we have long said: Public schools are for educating, not evangelizing.”

“It is gratifying to see the federal court honoring our First Amendment, with the wisdom to understand how wrong it would be to impose bible edicts on public students as young as kindergartners,” says Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Religious instruction must be left to parents, not the state, which has no business telling anyone how many gods to have, which gods to have or whether to have any gods at all.”

“We are heartened by today’s well-reasoned decision that underscores a foundational principle of our nation: the government cannot impose religious doctrine,” said Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department. “This ruling is critical to protecting the First Amendment rights of students and families to make their own determinations as to whether and how they engage with religion.”

Preliminary injunction prohibits school-district defendants from displaying the Ten Commandments

The preliminary injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, prohibits the school-district defendants from “displaying the Ten Commandments pursuant to S.B. 10.”

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families, including clergy, with children in public schools.

Letter: Court ruled Ten Commandments law to be ‘plainly unconstitutional’

The letter notifies superintendents of yesterday’s federal court decision in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, which ruled that Act 573 is “plainly unconstitutional” and prohibited the school district defendants from implementing or enforcing it while the lawsuit continues. The letter explains: 

“Even though your district is not a party to the ongoing lawsuit, all school districts have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes state law, public-school officials may not comply with Act 573.”

Earlier this year, a group of seven multifaith and nonreligious families with children in Arkansas’s public schools filed suit in Stinson, asserting that Act 573 violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions. The four organizations that sent today’s letter also represent the plaintiffs in Stinson and issued the following statement regarding the letter:

‘Arkansas school districts must not comply with Act 573’

“Arkansas school districts must not comply with Act 573. A federal court has already ruled that the statute is ‘obviously unconstitutional.’ Public-school officials are legally required to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of students and families, including their right to religious freedom under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Implementing Act 573 would violate this obligation and could result in litigation being filed against school districts that do so.”

Read the full letter to superintendents here.

State Dept. first federal agency known to demand that employees report ‘anti-Christian bias’

AU is investigating the creation and implementation of the task force, which Trump mandated in a February executive order filled with disinformation about purported anti-Christian bias. In April, the State Department was the first federal agency known to have demanded that employees report allegations of “anti-Christian discrimination,” through an internal cable sent out to department employees and embassies worldwide.

On May 8, Americans United filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department, seeking records on reports of anti-Christian or anti-religious bias dating back to Jan. 1, 2017. AU also requested records related to the department’s response to and implementation of Trump’s Anti-Christian Bias Task Force executive order. The department failed to respond to AU’s request within 30 business days, as required by federal law.

“The Trump administration created the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force based on the false claim that there’s rampant Christian persecution within the federal government. We’ve called their bluff and demanded that they prove it – show us the evidence of widespread anti-Christian discrimination. So far the Trump administration is ignoring our request in violation of federal transparency law – what are they hiding?” demanded Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser.

‘Anti-Christian bias’ task force an attempt to privilege Christian Nationalism

“State Department employs people of all religions and none who work in religiously diverse places around the world. Rather than protect everyone’s religious beliefs, this task force will misuse department resources and the principle of religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws. This task force is not a response to Christian persecution; it’s an attempt to privilege Christian Nationalism. Not on our watch. Americans United will not stop fighting for church-state separation and for this nation to live up to its promise of freedom without favor and equality without exception.” 

The lawsuit, Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. U.S. Department of State, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. It argues that the department unlawfully withheld records related to the response to and implementation of Trump’s task force, which the State Department was required to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

The lawsuit also details the State Department’s refusal to waive fees, in violation of the letter and spirit of the FOIA – a tactic that the department has been increasingly utilizing against public interest organizations seeking records under the FOIA, and which illustrates this administration’s attempts to avoid transparency.

AU also investigating Dept. of Veterans Affairs’ response to ‘anti-Christian bias’ task force

AU Litigation Counsel Alexandra Zaretsky is the lead attorney on the case. She is also the lead attorney in AU’s lawsuit challenging the Department of Veterans Affairs’ failure to produce similar records under the FOIA; that litigation is pending. 

In addition to the federal lawsuits, AU attorneys sent letters to the State Department and the VA urging each to “rescind any directives instructing employees to report on anti-Christian bias and to shut down any politically motivated investigations stemming from such reports.” The letters explain the problems with attempting to enforce Trump’s executive order, including that it’s a transparent attempt to favor “Christian employees and silence those who disagree.” Extending “preferential treatment” to one particular religion violates the Constitution and federal law.

In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks held that Arkansas Act 573, which is due to take effect on Aug. 5, “is plainly unconstitutional” under both the  Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. 

Arkansas Ten Commandments law part of ‘coordinated strategy … to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms’

Ruling that the law would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the child plaintiffs and interfere with their parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious education, Judge Brooks explained:

“Students receiving instruction in algebra, physics, engineering, accounting, computer science, woodworking, fashion design, and German will do so in classrooms that prominently display (the King James version of) the Ten Commandments. Every day from kindergarten to twelfth grade, children will be confronted with these Commandments—or face civil penalties for missing school.”

Today’s decision also sounds the alarm against growing state efforts to “experiment” with government establishments of religion: “Why would Arkansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law? Most likely because the State is part of a coordinated strategy among several states to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms.”

“Act 573 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we’re pleased that the court ruled in our favor,” said Samantha Stinson, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Jonathan Stinson. “The version of the Ten Commandments mandated by Act 573 conflicts with our family’s Jewish tenets and practice, and our belief that our children should receive their religious instruction at home and within our faith community, not from government officials.”

Arkansas families – not politicians – get to decide how and when children engage with religion

“Today’s decision will ensure that Arkansas families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It sends a strong message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.”

“Public schools are not Sunday schools,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Today’s decision ensures that our clients’ classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state’s preferred religious beliefs.”

“Today’s ruling is a victory for Arkansas families and for the First Amendment,” said John Williams, legal director for the ACLU of Arkansas. “The court saw through this attempt to impose religious doctrine in public schools and upheld every student’s right to learn free from government-imposed faith. We’re proud to stand with our clients — families of many different backgrounds — who simply want their kids to get an education.”

“We are delighted that reason and our secular Constitution have prevailed, and that children will be spared this unconstitutional proselytizing,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “Our public schools exist to educate, not to evangelize a captive audience.”

“We are heartened by today’s well-reasoned decision that underscores a foundational principle of our nation: the government cannot impose religious doctrine,” said Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department. “This ruling is critical to protecting the First Amendment rights of students and families to make their own decisions as to whether and how they engage with religion.” 

School-district defendants prevented from implementing Arkansas Ten Commandments law

The preliminary injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, prohibits the school-district defendants, including Fayetteville School District No. 1, Springdale School District No. 50, Bentonville School District No. 6, and Siloam Springs School Dist. No. 21, from “complying with Act 573 of 2025 by displaying the Ten Commandments in public elementary- and secondary-school classrooms and libraries.”

Represented by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the ACLU, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 are a group of seven multifaith and nonreligious Arkansas families with children in public schools.

More information about the case is available here.

Letter warns against exempting houses of worship from the Johnson Amendment

The letter warns that exempting houses of worship from this longstanding protection, as the administration seeks to do, risks politicizing vital nonprofit institutions, eroding public trust, and threatening the independence and integrity of the entire nonprofit sector. The groups signing the letter represent thousands of local nonprofits that show up every day to help people in need. In every community, nonprofits – including houses of worship – feed, heal, shelter, and support their neighbors, no matter their politics. They are asking leaders to keep that trust strong.

The sign-on letter, already with nearly 1,000 nonprofit signatures, responds directly to a proposed legal settlement involving the Internal Revenue Service and National Religious Broadcasters that, if approved by a federal judge, would undermine a federal law that has protected charitable and religious nonprofits from partisan politics for more than 70 years.

Americans United has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. AU is asking the court to be allowed to intervene as a defendant to defend the Johnson Amendment, and to reject the proposed settlement because it would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits – an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation.

Nonprofits nationwide are urged to join the sign-on letter to preserve public confidence and keep the nonprofit sector focused on mission-driven work rather than partisan politics.

Trump admin.’s reinterpretation of Johnson Amendment a self-serving attack on church-state separation

“This longstanding, commonsense rule protects the integrity of both our elections and nonprofits, including houses of worship. The majority of Americans don’t want their charities and churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The Trump administration’s radical reinterpretation of this federal law is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by plunging houses of worship into partisan battles. AU is committed to fight the administration’s brazen ploy to use our houses of worship as political campaign tools.”

“Nonprofits exist to serve the common good, not partisan politics,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits. “Undermining the law that protects nonprofit nonpartisanship could severely damage the integrity and effectiveness of the entire nonprofit sector. Efforts by the administration and some in Congress to do so aren’t about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws and attempting to open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money through churches while receiving generous tax breaks.”

“American democracy and our diverse religious communities benefit from healthy boundaries between government and religion,” said the Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president and CEO of Interfaith Alliance. “It’s essential that our houses of worship remain outside the partisan fray, unbeholden to any political figure or group. This decision could open the floodgates to dark money operations that would turn sacred spaces into fronts for shady political schemes. Instead of politicizing the pulpit, the administration should properly enforce the seven-decades-old law that allows tax-exempt houses of worship to advocate powerfully around moral and policy issues without pushing partisanship on their congregations.”

“Our democracy depends on the freedom of conscience and civic integrity. Undermining the Johnson Amendment would open the door to unchecked political influence from the pulpit, threatening the trust and independence that nonprofit work is built on,” said Fish Stark, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “We will always defend the principle that nonprofits – including religious organizations – should serve their communities, not a partisan agenda.”

“Undermining the Johnson Amendment would do lasting harm to our democracy. That’s why such a broad coalition – spanning secular and religious organizations, good governance advocates and nonprofits across the political spectrum – is speaking out together,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of FFRF Action Fund. “Preserving the Johnson Amendment is critical for keeping our charitable sector from becoming a pipeline for political donations and partisan campaigning. Weakening these protections would erode public trust, invite corruption and create a whole new category of dark money.”

 “The courts have consistently upheld the agreement by religious entities to avoid politics in exchange for their tax-exempt status. If the IRS proceeds, we will see a fundamental shift in how political money flows through our system,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “This will open the door for political actors to use religious institutions and likely eventually charitable nonprofits as conduits for anonymous campaign funding, benefiting from substantial tax write-offs while shifting the financial burden onto taxpayers who may disagree with the candidates or causes being supported. We are witnessing in real-time the creation of a new and dangerous dark money channel.”

Nonprofits urged to sign national letter in support of Johnson Amendment

Nonprofits are encouraged to sign the national sign-on letter and join the campaign to protect the sector’s nonpartisanship. Nonprofits, including houses of worship, remain some of the last trusted spaces where people from diverse political, religious, and cultural backgrounds come together to address community needs. Their credibility rests on one fundamental principle: they exist to serve the public, not political parties or candidates. All charitable and religious nonprofit organizations are invited to sign on and help spread the word.

More information on the lawsuit, National Religious Broadcasters v. Long, is available here.

OPM memo encourages federal employees to impose religious beliefs on others

“The federal government’s role is to serve the public – not to proselytize. The Constitution’s promise of church-state separation means that government officials may not impose religion on their colleagues or people who are seeking government services. And yet this memo encourages federal workers to abuse the power of their positions by imposing their religious beliefs on others. Imagine being a veteran hospitalized for injuries and your VA doctor prays over you in a religion that is not your own. That’s not religious freedom.

“This memo and Trump’s Anti-Christian Bias Task Force are offensive to all federal workers who serve the United States. Under this regime, it’s easy to imagine the Christian Nationalists Trump has appointed proselytizing employees in the workplace – who then get reported and disciplined for anti-Christian animus when they object to this harassment.

“The federal government has been able to accommodate federal employees’ religious expression without violating the religious freedom of the public or coworkers. The Trump administration is once again trying to advance a Christian Nationalist agenda by encouraging federal officials to abuse the power of their office and impose religious beliefs on others.”

Federal employees, public can report religious freedom violations to AU

Anyone who is proselytized by federal employees can report the violation to Americans United at au.org/report-a-violation.

Today’s notice was filed with the District Court of Oklahoma County in the case OKPLAC Inc. v. Statewide Charter School Board. The substantive claims brought in the OKPLAC case were resolved when the U.S. Supreme Court, in May, let stand the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision that it would be an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation for St. Isidore to operate as a religious public charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision was issued in a lawsuit similar to the OKPLAC case that was subsequently brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

The plaintiffs in OKPLAC are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann.

‘We won’t let them turn Oklahoma’s public schools into Sunday schools.’

“Americans United is proud to work closely with Oklahomans to protect inclusive public education and religious freedom,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “While we celebrate victory in this case, AU continues to litigate two other church-state separation lawsuits in Oklahoma to stop Ryan Walters and his Christian Nationalist allies from imposing their religious beliefs on public school children. We won’t let them turn Oklahoma’s public schools into Sunday schools.”

“OKPLAC has been resolved to stand for students, taxpayers, and religious freedom from the beginning as the original plaintiff in a lawsuit opposing the state’s use of tax dollars to operate a religious public charter school,” said Misty Bradley, chair of OKPLAC, the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition. “We are grateful for the organizations and individuals who stood with us and for Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s successful efforts to uphold Oklahoma’s constitution and protect its taxpayers and public schools.”

“The very notion of a religious public school is a legal contradiction in terms,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.  “We’re pleased that the courts stopped this direct assault on public education and religious freedom.  Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith.”

“We are gratified that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that charter schools, like all public schools, must be open to all students,” said Robert Kim, executive director of Education Law Center.  “We will continue to work with public school advocates, parents and faith leaders to ensure that all students across Oklahoma and the nation have the right to attend public schools without barriers to admission.”

“We are pleased that the courts have put a stop to the nation’s first religious public charter school,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “This outcome upholds the core constitutional principle of state-church separation and affirms that public schools should remain just that — public.”

First case to challenge Oklahoma’s approval of St. Isidore as a religious public school

The OKPLAC case was the first lawsuit to challenge the state’s approval of St. Isidore. It was filed in July 2023 on behalf of faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates who objected to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that intended to indoctrinate students into one religion, planned to discriminate against students, families and employees based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, and wouldn’t commit to adequately serving students with disabilities.

The plaintiffs include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

The plaintiffs also filed amicus briefs in the attorney general’s case, Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, with both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion incorporated many of the arguments made in the amicus brief that was submitted to it.

The team of attorneys that represented the plaintiffs was led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and included Luke Anderson of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Mason of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

More information about the case is available here.

AU requests intervenor status to defend Johnson Amendment

Americans United is requesting intervenor status in response to the joint settlement proposed Monday by the Trump administration and the plaintiffs that would exempt houses of worship and religious organizations from the law. AU is asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to reject this proposal because it would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits – an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation.

“The Trump administration’s radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,” said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser. “President Trump and his Christian Nationalist allies are once again exploiting religion to boost their own political power. We’re intervening in this case so we can urge the court to reject the administration’s latest gambit to re-write the law.

Johnson Amendment protects the integrity of elections & nonprofit organizations

“Americans United has long supported the Johnson Amendment because it protects the integrity of both our elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship. The majority of Americans – including faith leaders, evangelical Christians and Republicans – don’t want their churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics. Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money.”

When the prior Trump administration threatened the Johnson Amendment, more than 4,600 faith leaders, 5,800 nonprofit organizations and 106 religious and denominational organizations weighed in to strongly oppose weakening or repealing the current law.

Attorneys working on the intervention in the case include, at Americans United, Vice President and Legal Director Rebecca S. Markert, Litigation Counsel Alexandra Zaretsky and Constitutional Litigation Fellow Jess Zalph; and Martin Woodward of Kitner Woodward PPLC in Dallas.

Trump administration has radical reinterpretation of Johnson Amendment

“The Trump administration’s radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a brazen attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics. It’s President Trump and his Christian Nationalist allies’ signature move: exploiting religion to boost their own political power.  

“For more than 70 years, the Johnson Amendment has reflected the will of the American people, the majority of whom want to protect the integrity of our elections and shield our houses of worship from the corrupting influences of partisan politicking. And the IRS’s proposal to exempt houses of worship and religious organizations from the law but still enforce it for secular nonprofits would grant special favor to religion – an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation. We urge the court to reject the administration’s latest gambit to re-write the law through the judicial system.

American public overwhelmingly supports Johnson Amendment

“Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money. That’s why polls have repeatedly shown that a broad cross-section of Americans – including faith leaders, evangelical Christians and Republicans – don’t want houses of worship to endorse or oppose political candidates for office. And that’s why, when Trump threatened the law during his first administration, more than 4,600 faith leaders, 5,800 nonprofit organizations and 106 religious and denominational organizations weighed in to strongly oppose weakening or repealing the current law.”

Private school voucher scheme advances Project 2025’s Christian Nationalist agenda

“The American people don’t like vouchers, which is why this harmful provision received bipartisan opposition. But President Trump and a majority in Congress ignored the will of the people and hatched the nation’s first national private school voucher scheme, advancing a Christian Nationalist agenda called for in Project 2025.

“Public funds belong in public schools, which are open to all and educate 90% of America’s students. With this voucher, Trump and Congress will divert billions of taxpayer dollars to private religious schools that indoctrinate and can discriminate against students and their families based on the schools’ beliefs.

“The separation of church and state means that we each should get to decide how and whether to support religion. It also protects the independence of religious schools. Yet this voucher program opens the door to the federal government’s regulation of private, religious schools.

“Private school vouchers don’t just trample our religious freedom – they also don’t work, breed fraud, foster discrimination, and enrich the wealthy. We need a national recommitment to keep church and state separate – our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

Faith community opposed vouchers in reconciliation bill

More than 80 faith community organizations, denominations, and congregations representing 3.6 million people and 355 individual faith leaders sent letters to Congress explaining their strong opposition to the proposal because this private school voucher program would violate the foundational principle of religious freedom; benefit the wealthy while harming public schools, students and communities; and undermine the work of houses of worship by disincentivizing charitable giving.

The plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel.

Texas Ten Commandments law violates church-state separation, families’ religious freedom

In their complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Hindu, or nonreligious, assert that Senate Bill 10 violates the First Amendment’s protections for the separation of church and state and the right to free religious exercise. 

The plaintiffs also plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to prevent the defendants from implementing the law pending the resolution of the litigation.

“As a rabbi and public-school parent, I am deeply concerned that S.B. 10 will impose another faith’s scripture on students for nearly every hour of the school day,” said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan (she/her). “While our Jewish faith treats the Ten Commandments as sacred, the version mandated under this law does not match the text followed by our family, and the school displays will conflict with the religious beliefs and values we seek to instill in our child.”

“Posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is un-American and un-Baptist,” said plaintiff Pastor Griff Martin (he/him). “S.B. 10 undermines the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of my family’s Baptist heritage. Baptists have long held that the government has no role in religion – so that our faith may remain free and authentic. My children’s faith should be shaped by family and our religious community, not by a Christian nationalist movement that confuses God with power.” 

“S.B. 10 imposes a specific, rules-based set of norms that is at odds with my Hindu faith,” said plaintiff Arvind Chandrakantan (he/him). “Displaying the Ten Commandments in my children’s classrooms sends the message that certain aspects of Hinduism – like believing in multiple paths to God (pluralism) or venerating murthis (statues) as the living, breathing, physical representations of God – are wrong. Public schools – and the State of Texas – have no place pushing their preferred religious beliefs on my children, let alone denigrating my faith, which is about as un-American and un-Texan as one can be.”

Plaintiff Allison Fitzpatrick (she/her) added: “We are nonreligious and don’t follow the explicitly religious commandments, such as ‘remember the Sabbath.’ Every day that the posters are up in classrooms will signal to my children that they are violating school rules.”

Signed into law last month, S.B. 10 requires the scriptural postings to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a “conspicuous place” in each classroom. The commandments must be printed “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.” The law also mandates that a specific version of the commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display.

Families, not politicians, get to decide when and how public-school children engage with religion

“Our Constitution’s guarantee of church-state separation means that families – not politicians – get to decide when and how public-school children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “This law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and over nonreligion – in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We’re proud to defend the religious freedom of Texas schoolchildren and their families.”

“S.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional,”  said Heather L. Weaver (she/her), senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.  “States may not require children to attend school and then impose scripture on them everywhere they go.”

“In a state as diverse as Texas, families from both religious and nonreligious backgrounds are coming together to challenge this unconstitutional law. Their message is clear: Our public schools are not Sunday schools,” said Adriana Piñon (she/her), legal director of the ACLU of Texas. “Politicians do not get to dictate how or whether students should practice religion. We’re bringing this lawsuit to ensure that all students, regardless of their faith or nonreligious beliefs, feel accepted and free to be themselves in Texas public schools.”

“One need only read the First Commandment (‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’) to see how this state-imposed injunction is the antithesis of the First Amendment and its protections of religious liberty,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “The state of Texas has no right to dictate to children how many gods to worship, which gods to worship or whether to worship any gods at all.”

“The right to be free from government establishment of religion enshrined in the First Amendment is a bedrock principle of our republic,” said Jonathan Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department. “This law – in requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom throughout a child’s entire public school education – violates both the ban on establishment of religion as well as the protections the First Amendment gives to free exercise of religion.”

Texas Ten Commandments law at odds with Supreme Court precedent

The Supreme Court has long prohibited displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Forty-five years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Court struck down a similar Kentucky law. More recently, in Roake v. Brumley, a federal district court reached the same conclusion regarding a similar law in Louisiana. That ruling was unanimously affirmed last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

And just last week, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court held that a public school “burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”

New social studies standards replete with dozens of references to Christianity

The new curriculum standards are replete with several dozen references to the Bible and Christianity while containing few mentions of other faiths. The lawsuit demonstrates how these references target impressionable elementary-school children as young as first graders; inaccurately present Bible stories as literal, historical facts; inaccurately proclaim the Bible and Christianity’s influence on the founding of America and the country’s laws; and favor Christianity over other faiths and beliefs in other ways.

The lawsuit cites numerous writings from scholars to rebut historical and religious inaccuracies, as well as repeated examples of Walters’ remarks that make clear the new standards were designed to promote and favor Christianity. The lawsuit also explains that the new standards require other inaccurate teachings, including by presenting disproven contentions about the legitimacy of the 2020 election, and by conveying as unquestioned truth the controversial theory that the COVID-19 pandemic originated in a Chinese laboratory.  

The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. The plaintiffs include twelve parents of children who attend Oklahoma public schools, as well as children of the parents; the parents object to the state imposing religion on their children through the new standards. Two of the parents are also public school teachers who object to being forced to teach the standards’ inaccuracies and religious content.

One of the parents, the Rev. Dr. Lisa Wolfe, and plaintiffs the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall and the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke are Christian clergy who are concerned the standards will harm religious freedom, religion, and public education. All of the adult plaintiffs also oppose their tax dollars being spent on education standards that promote religion and inaccuracies.

‘As a Christian, I object to Oklahoma’s new social studies standards’

Lead plaintiff the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall of Norman, an ordained Baptist minister and CEO of Good Faith Media: “As a Christian, I object to Oklahoma’s new social studies standards that require teachers to deceive students by presenting inaccurate information as fact. To reduce the Bible to a history book – rather than treating it as a theological text – does a disservice to public school students, their families, their teachers and those who consider the Bible to be a book of faith. As a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, I am especially bothered by my tax dollars supporting state-mandated religious instruction. It’s a painful reminder of the forced religious proselytization my family members experienced in Native American boarding schools in Oklahoma. I urge the court to protect religious freedom for all Oklahomans and prevent implementation of these new standards.”

(Quotes from additional plaintiffs are available here.)

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United: “Oklahoma families, not politicians or public schools, should decide how and when children engage with religion. If implemented, these new social studies standards will violate students’ and families’ religious freedom by promoting one version of Christianity and advancing Christian Nationalist disinformation. Not on our watch. Public schools are not Sunday schools. That’s best for the sanctity of both religion and religious freedom.”

Brent Rowland, legal director of Oklahoma Appleseed: “These standards violate core constitutional principles and undermine trust in our schools and democracy. Every public school classroom —  likely a child’s first personal encounter with their government — must be inclusive and welcoming, and nurture curiosity, not impose religious or political agendas. Our lawsuit defends educational integrity and the public’s right to open, accountable government, and it defends the family as the source of the child’s religious upbringing.”

New social studies standards violated Open Meeting Act, Oklahoma Constitution

The lawsuit explains that the approval of the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act and other procedural requirements because Oklahoma officials gave no notice to the public – or even to members of the State Board of Education themselves – that the version of the standards submitted to the Board for a vote was substantially different from the version that had been publicly released.

The standards also run afoul of a statutory requirement that Oklahoma’s academic standards be accurate and age appropriate. And the new standards violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious-freedom protections by promoting and favoring one religion over others and over nonreligion in public schools, including to especially impressionable first and second graders.

The defendants are Walters; the Oklahoma State Department of Education; and the Oklahoma State Board of Education and its members.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Alex Luchenitser and Luke Anderson at Americans United and Colleen McCarty and Brent Rowland at Oklahoma Appleseed. The organizations and many of the plaintiffs also are involved in a separate lawsuit challenging Walters’ Bible-education mandate; that case, Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

SCOTUS decision advances Christian Nationalism in public schools

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s ultra-conservative justices yet again are undermining church-state separation to advance Christian Nationalism in our public schools. The court is allowing a handful of vocal parents with anti-LGBTQ+ religious beliefs to dictate what is taught in public school classrooms – a violation of other students’ and families’ religious freedom.

“Rather than implement an unworkable system of opt-outs to certain books or lessons, public schools are more likely to strike content from the curriculum that could be challenged – which is the ultimate goal of the Christian Nationalists backing this case. What’s next? Objecting to books featuring single moms? Demanding opt-outs from students learning about evolution? Objecting to LGBTQ+ teachers present in the classroom? LGBTQ+ students? We need a national recommitment to church-state separation; our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

AU brief explained reading LGBTQ+ books does not violate religious freedom

Americans United was joined by 11 religious and civil rights organizations in an amicus brief that urged the Supreme Court to affirm that it is not a religious freedom violation for a public school district to expose students to secular concepts that may not align with their families’ religious beliefs. The brief explained that the inclusion of books with LGBTQ+ characters in a large Maryland school district’s language arts curriculum did not pressure or coerce schoolchildren to do anything that violates their families’ religious beliefs.

Court: Louisiana Ten Commandments law “is plainly unconstitutional”

Pointing to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stone v. Graham, which overturned a similar Kentucky law, the court of appeals held that Louisiana’s H.B. 71 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As the court explained, Stone remains good law that is binding on lower courts and “[u]nder Stone, H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional.” 

The court further explained that, “under the statute’s minimum requirements, the [Ten Commandments] posters must be indiscriminately displayed in every public school classroom in Louisiana regardless of class subject-matter,” and thus, if allowed to go up, “those displays will cause an ‘irreparable’ deprivation of [the Plaintiffs’] First Amendment rights.”

Represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools.  

“We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana,” said the Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Adrian Van Young. “As an interfaith family, we believe that our children should receive their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.”

Louisiana families should get to decide if, when and how children engage with religion

“This ruling will ensure that Louisiana families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation’s public-school children. Not on our watch.”

“This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “With today’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.”

“We are pleased that the First Amendment rights of students and families are protected by this vital court decision,” said Patrick Elliott, legal director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 

“Religious freedom—the right to choose one’s faith without pressure—is essential to American democracy,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Today’s ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiffs’ children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.”

Jon Youngwood, global co-chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department, added, “We are heartened by the Fifth Circuit’s well-reasoned and detailed opinion, which rests upon the wisdom of the First Amendment and the protections it affords regarding the separation of church and state.

More information about the Louisiana Ten Commandments lawsuit is available here.

Transgender health care bans legislate Christian Nationalist view of gender

“The Supreme Court’s ultra-conservative justices are allowing Christian Nationalists and their allies to legislate a narrow, religious view of gender that will harm countless children and families. Not only has the court failed to protect America’s children, but this decision will encourage Christian Nationalists to further restrict any and all health care that doesn’t align with their narrow religious beliefs. LGBTQ+ people, women, religious minorities, the nonreligious and other traditionally marginalized communities are particularly at risk.

“Christian Nationalists have achieved yet another milestone in their decades-long effort to drag our country back in time. We need a national recommitment to church-state separation, which ensures freedom without favor and equality without exception. At Americans United, we will continue to fight for the right of all Americans to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they do not harm others. That includes our gender-nonconforming and transgender family members, coworkers, friends, and neighbors.”

AU joined amicus brief opposing transgender health care ban

Americans United joined Kentucky parents of transgender children and civil rights groups in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case involving the Tennessee ban, explaining that transgender health care bans intentionally discriminate against transgender youth by denying them medications that are prescribed for other youth. These laws do not ban these medications for all minors, but only when they are prescribed for transgender minors. As a result of this discriminatory treatment, transgender youth are unable to obtain the only effective treatment for the severe distress caused by gender dysphoria.

AU’s brief was among more than 30 friend-of-the-court briefs in which bioethicists, medical providers, medical historians, family law professors, and additional families in states where care has been banned had urged the Supreme Court to rule against bans on essential medical care for transgender adolescents so that families can make the health care decisions that are best for their children.

“Today’s meeting confirmed what we predicted when President Trump announced this commission last month: The commission’s goal is to promote Christian Nationalism, not true religious liberty. From the setting at the Museum of the Bible to the political appointees to the speakers invited to testify, it’s clear this commission was created to advance the myth that the United States was founded for white Christians and that our laws and policies must continue to favor their beliefs.

Church-state separation should be the centerpiece of Religious Liberty Commission

“The Constitution’s promise of church-state separation – the shield that protects everyone’s right to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they don’t harm others – should be the centerpiece of any American religious liberty commission. And yet many of today’s speakers have actively worked to undermine church-state separation and weaponize religious freedom as a license to discriminate.

“Trump designed this commission to favor religious extremists, especially those who want to use the power of our government to impose their religion on others. We need a national recommitment to church-state separation if we’re to achieve our country’s promise of freedom without favor and equality without exception.”

Americans United submitted written public comments to the commission explaining the critical role church-state separation plays in protecting religious freedom for all and the current threats this foundational principle faces.

AU investigating VA’s implementation of Anti-Christian Bias Task Force

AU is investigating the creation and implementation of the task force, which Trump mandated in a February executive order filled with lies and disinformation about purported anti-Christian bias. In April, the VA was among the first federal agencies to announce the formation of its own version of the task force and asked employees to report allegations of “anti-Christian discrimination.”

On May 7, Americans United filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the VA, seeking records on any reports of anti-Christian or anti-religious bias dating back to Jan. 1, 2017. AU also requested records related to the formation of the VA’s Anti-Christian Bias Task Force and implementation of Trump’s executive order. The VA failed to respond to AU’s request within 30 days, as required by federal law.

Anti-Christian Bias Task Force advances Christian Nationalism

“The Trump administration created the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force based on the false claim that there’s rampant Christian persecution within the federal government. We’ve called their bluff and demanded that they prove it – show us the evidence of widespread anti-Christian discrimination. So far the Trump administration is ignoring our request in violation of federal transparency law – what are they hiding?” demanded Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser.

“The Department of Veterans Affairs serves veterans of all religions and none. Rather than protect everyone’s religious beliefs, this task force will misuse department resources and the principle of religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws. This task force is not a response to Christian persecution; it’s an attempt to privilege Christian Nationalism. Not on our watch. Americans United will not stop fighting for church-state separation and for this nation to live up to its promise of freedom without favor and equality without exception.” 

The lawsuit, Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. It argues that the VA unlawfully withheld records related to the creation and implementation of its task force, which the VA was required to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

AU Litigation Counsel Alexandra Zaretsky is the lead attorney on the case. More information about the lawsuit is available here.

Depts. of State, VA should rescind employee ‘anti-Christian bias’ orders

In addition to the federal lawsuit, AU attorneys today sent letters to the State Department and the VA urging each to “rescind any directives instructing employees to report on anti-Christian bias and to shut down any politically motivated investigations stemming from such reports.” The letters explain the problems with attempting to enforce Trump’s executive order, including that it’s a transparent attempt to favor “Christian employees and silence those who disagree.” Extending “preferential treatment” to one particular religion violates the Constitution and federal law.

Arkansas Act 573 of 2025 requires the scriptural displays to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a “conspicuous place” in each classroom and library. The text of the Ten Commandments must be printed “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.” The law also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display. 

Jewish, Unitarian Universalist & non-religious families challenge Ten Commandments law

In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, or non-religious, assert that Act 573  violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Following this precedent, a federal district court held last year in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to Act 573 violates parents’ and students’ First Amendment rights. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs here, is currently on appeal.

“As American Jews, my husband and I deeply value the ability to raise our children in our faith, without interference from the government,” said plaintiff Samantha Stinson. “By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children.”

Plaintiff Carol Vella agreed: “My children are among a small number of Jewish students at their school. The classroom displays required by Act 573 will make them feel like they don’t belong simply because they don’t follow the government’s favored religion. The displays will also violate core Jewish tenets, which emphasize tolerance and inclusion and prohibit evangelizing others.”

Ten Commandments law interferes with families’ religious freedom

According to the complaint, which includes claims under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, Act 573’s classroom and library displays will interfere with parents’ First Amendment right to direct their children’s religious upbringing and create a religiously coercive school environment:

“Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library—rendering them unavoidable—unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that Act 573 requires schools to display—do not belong in their own school community and pressures them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences.”

In addition to the complaint, the plaintiffs plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, which will ask the court to issue an order temporarily preventing implementation of the law, which takes effect on Aug. 5, 2025, while the lawsuit is pending.

“Our Constitution’s guarantee of church-state separation means that families – not politicians – get to decide if, when and how public-school children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “This law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and nonreligion – in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We’re proud to defend the religious freedom of Arkansas schoolchildren and their families.”

“The right to decide which religious beliefs, if any, to follow belongs to families and faith communities, not the government,” said John Williams, legal director for the ACLU of Arkansas. “We will not allow Arkansas politicians to misuse our public schools to impose scripture on children.”

Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU added: “Public schools are not Sunday schools. Apparently, Arkansas lawmakers need a lesson in the First Amendment.”

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said, “This is a clear imposition of religious doctrine on Arkansas public school children. We will fight to uphold this nation’s foundational constitutional principles.”

More information about the case is available here.

At a June 4 rally organized by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Popular Democracy, Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, Pastors for Children and others, speakers shared how important public education is to American society and criticized the reconciliation process for targeting public education in its severe cuts to the social safety net.

In particular, the GOP’s reconciliation bill includes a $20 billion tax giveaway for private school vouchers to wealthy, private schools at the expense of Medicaid, the fourth largest funder of public schools. Not only will this bill deny health care to millions of Americans, but it will also leave public education vulnerable to defunding and privatization.

Speakers called out religious extremists for abandoning public school students, and made a clear demand: No more cuts to kids’ futures. Instead, Congress and our political leaders must stop the reconciliation bill and make meaningful investments in our public schools.

A video recording of last week’s rally is available here. Photos also are available and interviews can be arranged with participants upon request. Excerpts of speakers’ remarks are included below:

Private school vouchers undermine separation of church and state

“ECCA harms public schools and undermines the American principle of separation of church and state,” said Rabbi Robert Barr, founding rabbi of Congregation Beth Adam, Ohio, and a member of Americans United’s Faith Advisory Council. “It is our moral responsibility to make sure our public education meets the highest standards. … Public education is vital because it serves all children without any form of discrimination, whereas private schools can reject students and staff based on their race, their ethnicity, their sexuality, and even based on their religion. We as faith leaders know that religious freedom is essential for our democracy. While we value religious freedom, it’s wrong for public dollars to be funding it. No citizen of our nation should be forced to fund another person’s religious beliefs. This violates the very spirit of what America is. When religion and government are co-mingled, it will hurt our government, it will hurt our nation, and it will hurt religion itself.” 

‘We’re here in the shadow of this Capitol to send a message: No vouchers!’

“We’re here in the shadow of this Capitol to send a message: No vouchers! Public education is an American value. The ink in the Constitution wasn’t even dry when John Adams said: ‘let there not be one square mile without a school in it, paid for not by a wealthy charitable person, but for the public at the public’s expense.’ For all children!” said the Rev. Charles Foster Johnson, founder and executive director of Pastors for Children. “…for 30 years in Texas, we have defeated vouchers in a bipartisan coalition, and here in the national legislature we are going to defeat vouchers in a bipartisan coalition. … Vouchers are a corruption of God’s common good.”

“To those who believe in true goodness, equitable grace, and universal mercy, we believe that our work here today will not be in vain,” said the Rev. James Golden of Pastors for Florida Children. “We hope to find enough unhypocritical cooperation, unlimited compassion, and enduring courage among the Senators in this federal government that will allow them to be a representative government, of the people, for the people, and by the people, and that will give them the spirit to defeat the pernicious evil of these vouchers, which this first anti-president and his minions seek for their own evil purposes.”

‘Vouchers do not advance religious freedom’

“One thing should be clear: Parents shouldn’t have to state a religious testimony to access a government benefit,” said the Rev. Jennifer Hawks of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. “Vouchers (for private religious schools) do not advance religious freedom. If we want to see robust, healthy churches that are making a difference in their communities, vouchers cannot be on the game board. … We want public funds, in public schools, that have public accountability.”

“I come here from Texas, where our state Republicans passed a voucher scam,” said Ayaan Moledina of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT). “Vouchers simply don’t work – a $10k voucher scam cannot cover private education. For families living paycheck to paycheck, how can they cover the extra twenty, thirty thousand for tuition? And most private schools don’t accept vouchers, I know mine didn’t. What it is, is a tuition discount for ultrawealthy families already going to these schools.”

‘Our public schools are the foundation of our democracy’

“Our public schools are a nourishing and stabilizing force in the lives of many American communities, the pillar in our communities, and the foundation of our democracy. More than 90 million American students attend public schools, but their education is threatened by million-dollar giveaways to the wealthy,” said Grace Francis of Step Up Louisiana. “I want to stop, take off the Band-Aid, and represent the bleeding of the Black and Brown communities.”

“This administration seeks to harm the most vulnerable among us, and tries to hide behind their faith to do that. We’re here to remind them that Jesus taught us to feed and clothe those who are in need, and to treat people with dignity and respect,” said Kyla McKay, board member of Texas Impact. “As a substitute teacher, I have worked in many schools, and in all of them I see the same thing: dedicated educators on a shoestring budget spending their own money to close gaps that shouldn’t exist. … Republicans want to take more money out of our already underfunded public schools and give it to private institutions that pick and choose whom they would like to serve. If we allow this, foster children, children with disabilities, low-income families, and those committed to public education will be left behind in schools whose funding has been gutted.”

“Public schools are the heart of our communities and the glue that holds together a functioning democracy – while the actions of this administration prove yet again their heartlessness. We all deserve access to free, high-quality education, and we will work tirelessly to defend it. Senators must lead with compassion as well as reason, and vote against this devastating reconciliation bill,” said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of Popular Democracy.

Rep. Mary Miller’s comments are what white Christian Nationalism looks like

“Today’s comments by Rep. Mary Miller are an affront to our nation’s ideals. This is what white Christian Nationalism looks like. 

“America was not founded as a ‘Christian nation,’ but as a nation committed to religious freedom for all. The separation of church and state is what guarantees that religious freedom and protects the sanctity of all religions, including Christianity. This episode is a clear reminder about why government-sanctioned prayers in Congress — or any state legislatures, city councils, and school boards — are divisive, unwise and un-American. 

“Deleting a social media post is not enough; Miller owes Giani Surinder Singh and the nation an apology.”

On June 25, more than two dozen organizations that advocate for religious freedom, including AU, Interfaith Alliance, the Sikh Coalition, religious denominations, nonreligious groups and civil rights organizations, sent a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to condemn Rep. Miller’s comments.

More information is available here on why Americans United opposes government-sponsored prayer.

This ban is just the latest version of the cruel Muslim Ban

“This ban is just the latest version of the cruel Muslim Ban enacted during the last Trump presidency that started with Trump’s call for a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.’ The platform of Trump’s Republican Party called for bringing back the ‘travel ban,’ so this continuation of those policies is as unsurprising as it is cruel. It’s part of the white Christian Nationalist playbook to use immigration law to gerrymander America into a white Christian nation.

“One of the great promises of America is that people of all religions and none are welcome here. Americans United we will continue to fight for freedom without favor and equality without exception, both in and out of court.”

Tracing Trump’s travel ban back to its anti-Muslim, Christian Nationalist roots

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” Trump declared in Dec. 2015. He then tweeted: “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” 

In the debates, Trump affirmatively answered a question about whether “the Muslim ban still stands,” and said, “It’s called extreme vetting.” He later said, “We’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country,” adding later, “They want sharia law.” 

A week after taking office in 2017, Trump implemented the first Muslim Ban with an executive order that banned citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order even barred refugees from those countries, but made an exception for religious minorities (i.e., Christians.) In other words, the Muslim Ban banned Muslims, while favoring Christians. 

AU and allies challenged first Muslim Ban in court

Muslim Ban 1.0 was challenged and blocked by courts repeatedly. The administration rewrote it as Muslim Ban 2.0, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which was also repeatedly challenged in court and blocked by judges. 

In September 2017, Trump signed Muslim Ban 3.0, which limited travel from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Americans United was co-counsel in the first new case filed to challenge this third version of Trump’s Muslim Ban. Trump’s inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela was generally recognized as a clumsy attempt to undercut arguments that clear anti-Muslim bigotry motivated the orders. Despite this clear anti-Muslim bias, the favoring of one religion (Christianity) over others, and the church-state problems with dividing people along religious lines, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this ban. 

The 2024 Republican Party platform promised to bring back the Muslim Ban and to use immigration laws and “extreme vetting” against “foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists” and “jihadist and jihadist sympathizers” (a term that Trump deploys as an epithet for all Muslims). 

“We don’t want them here,” Trump said when announcing the continuation of these first-term policies on June 4, 2025, in tightly scripted remarks. He confessed that this new travel ban is a continuation of those same policies that were motivated by anti-Muslim bias: “In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies.” Trump also noted that he started this latest policy “on my first day back in office.”

Supreme Court favored employers over protections for workers

“In a narrow decision, the U.S. Supreme Court favored the purported religion of companies and organizations over protections for individual workers. Unemployment insurance is a critical protection for hard-working Americans who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Today’s decision could be used to hamstring courts’ ability to ensure that employers must contribute to this safety net when they are not qualified for the limited religious exemptions under the law.

“This case continues a dangerous trend we’ve seen from Christian Nationalist legal outfits for more than a decade now: From health care access to retirement benefits to antidiscrimination protections and now unemployment insurance, they argue that companies and organizations can simply claim a religious motive in order to sidestep worker protections. If these religious extremists succeed, the mere invocation of religious beliefs will erase important social safety nets and civil rights protections for workers. Americans United will continue to unite the religious and nonreligious to fight for workers’ rights.”

AU, joined by religious organizations, had filed brief with Supreme Court

Americans United, joined by seven religious and civil-rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case to remind the court of the country’s multi-century tradition of laws and courts relying on objective factors to determine whether entities qualify for religious exemptions.

The brief warned that if the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the rationale of Catholic Charities and its lawyers at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, any entity that claims a religious motivation could exempt itself from laws protecting employees, our civil rights, and much more – all with no objective review from courts.

Under S.B. 10, every public elementary and secondary school in Texas must display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments “in a conspicuous place in each classroom.” The bill mandates that the display be no smaller than 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall and that the Commandments be set forth “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.” The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, selected by lawmakers and associated with Protestant faiths, be used for every display.

S.B. 10 is prohibited by longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Following this precedent, a federal district court recently held in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to S.B. 10 violates parents’ and students’ rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the displays will religiously coerce students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-sponsored religious messages, and will usurp families’ right to direct children’s religious education. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by Americans United, the ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the ACLU of Louisiana, is currently on appeal in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In response to the passage of S.B. 10, the groups intending to challenge the law issued the following joint statement:

“S.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional. We will be working with Texas public school families to prepare a lawsuit to stop this violation of students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights. 

“We all have the right to decide what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. Government officials have no business intruding on these deeply personal religious matters. S.B. 10 will subject students to state-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments for nearly every hour of their public education. It is religiously coercive and interferes with families’ right to direct children’s religious education. 

“Texas communities and public schools are religiously diverse. Many public school families do not practice any religion at all, while many others practice religions that do not consider the Ten Commandments to be part of their faith traditions. Even among those who may believe in some version of the Ten Commandments, the particular text they adhere to can differ by religious denomination. The version of scripture set forth in S.B. 10, however, is associated only with Protestant faiths, and does not reflect the beliefs of most Jewish and Catholic families. 

“S.B. 10 will co-opt the faith of millions of Texans and marginalize students and families who do not subscribe to the state’s favored scripture. We will not allow Texas lawmakers to divide communities along religious lines and attempt to turn public schools into Sunday schools. If Governor Abbott signs this measure into law, we will file suit to defend the fundamental religious freedom rights of all Texas students and parents. We encourage all concerned public school parents to contact us at au.org.”

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the City from proceeding with its unconstitutional plan during the pendency of the lawsuit. They are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

No one should have to pass religious statues to access a public safety building

“This isn’t about opposing anyone’s faith — it’s about keeping government neutral so that everyone, regardless of what they believe, feels equally welcome and protected,” said plaintiff Gilly Rosenthol. “No one should have to walk past giant religious monuments just to access a public safety building. That sends the wrong message about who our city serves — and who it doesn’t.”

In early February, the Patriot Ledger published the first report about Mayor Koch’s plan to display two ten-foot-tall bronze statues of Catholic saints, which would flank the entrance of the Quincy Police Department’s new headquarters. According to the lawsuit, the mayor had already commissioned the statues — with a cost to taxpayers of at least $850,000 — by the time the plans were uncovered by local media.

Although the City Council voted numerous times to approve funding for the new public safety building, Mayor Koch’s plan was never presented or discussed at those meetings, and the public was never given an opportunity to weigh in on it. At a council meeting later that month, the mayor’s staff dismissed all concerns about the cost, transparency, and legality of his plan.

In the weeks following news of the religious statues, multiple groups wrote letters to the mayor and City Council — including Americans United, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation — raising serious constitutional concerns. In addition, a group of local faith leaders from the Quincy Interfaith Network issued a statement objecting to the plan.  

‘Mayor Koch is abusing the power of his office to impose religion on all Quincy residents’

“Mayor Koch is abusing the power of his government office to impose religious beliefs on all Quincy residents,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The core principles of church-state separation and religious freedom promised in the Massachusetts Constitution require government buildings and other public spaces to be inclusive of people of all religions and none. By installing religious statues in front of the government building dedicated to public safety, Koch and the City are violating that promise and sending a message to all who rely on city police and fire services that one faith is favored over all others.”

“Mayor Koch has made the costly decision to proceed with the unlawful plan to install two larger-than-life statues of Catholic saints at the entrance to a public building in Quincy,” said Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “This plan was conceived and implemented without public input and with total disregard for the concerns raised by constituents and local faith leaders. The statues send a message that the Quincy government favors one faith above all others. This flagrantly violates our state constitution.”

“The City has abandoned its constitutional duty  to remain neutral on matters of faith,” said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The new public safety building will be home to many critical government services, but the moment they walk in the door, Quincy residents who do not share the City’s favored religious beliefs will get the message that they are not welcome.”

“This is a clear breach of the constitutional wall of separation,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Quincy taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for an ostentatiously specific religious display.” 

Religious statues violate Massachusetts Constitution

The lawsuit alleges that the planned religious statues violate Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by imposing religious symbols upon all who work in, visit, or pass by the public safety building; by conveying the message that Quincy is exclusively a Catholic community and that non-Catholics do not belong or are less valued; and by excessively entangling the City with religion.

More information about the lawsuit is available here.

St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School cannot operate as a public charter school

“The Supreme Court’s stalemate safeguards public education and upholds the separation of church and state. Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which planned to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school. A religious public school would be an abject violation of religious freedom.

“We will continue our efforts to protect inclusive public education. We call on this nation to recommit to church-state separation before this safeguard of democracy and freedom is further attacked.” 

More information about the case is available here.

Trump administration misinterpreting SCOTUS to advance Christian Nationalist agenda

“President Trump is intentionally misinterpreting recent Supreme Court decisions in order to advance a Christian Nationalist agenda,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Trump is bypassing the law in his haste to funnel public money into religion while at the same time exempting religious institutions from laws and regulations aimed at protecting everyone’s civil rights. That’s not what these Supreme Court decisions said, and it’s also not what our Constitution says about church-state separation. Trump’s lawlessness will undermine religious freedom, which is neither a license to harm others nor to destroy the rule of law.”

Trump’s April 9 order directs all federal agencies to repeal – again, without process – regulations that they deem to be inconsistent with 10 recent Supreme Court decisions, including Carson v. Makin from 2022, which held that indirect aid, or voucher, programs must be open to religious schools, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo from 2020, which struck down public health measures during the pandemic.

AU letters correctly explain SCOTUS cases so agencies can apply precedents properly

In a fact sheet accompanying the executive order, the Trump administration included flawed two-sentence interpretations of these cases. AU’s letters correctly explain the Carson and Diocese of Brooklyn cases so that agency heads would apply the precedents properly when reviewing their regulations and not misuse them to justify repeals of vital regulations. 

AU’s letters, signed by Vice President of Public Policy Alessandro Terenzoni and Associate Vice President of Public Policy Dena Sher, were sent to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Office of Management and Budget; and the Small Business Administration.

“Public funds belong in public schools. Our country’s public schools are open to all and educate 90% of America’s students. Congress must not divert billions of taxpayer dollars to private religious schools that can discriminate and indoctrinate.

Congress should not add private school vouchers to reconciliation bill

“Congress should not create a nationwide private school voucher program – a key part of the Project 2025 playbook for undermining our public education system and our democracy and a goal President Trump advanced in one of his first executive orders. Christian Nationalists want to divert public money to private religious schools even as they strive to impose their narrow religious beliefs on public schoolchildren. Parents who care about their children’s education being governed by standards and taxpayers who care about inclusive and quality public schools that are the building blocks of our communities should vehemently oppose this scheme.

“Private school vouchers don’t work: They don’t improve student achievement, and they especially fail students with disabilities, low-income students and rural students. Vouchers only provide ‘school choice’ for a select few, primarily wealthy families whose children never attended public schools in the first place, and for the private, predominantly religious schools that can pick and choose which students to accept.

“Vouchers don’t provide a choice to the majority of families who can’t afford private school tuition even with a voucher; to the students whom private schools may discriminate against on the basis of religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristics; or to the taxpayers who are forced to fund religion, often times one that is not their own.

“Congress should reject this Christian Nationalist scheme. We need a national recommitment to keep church and state separate – our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

Faith organizations representing 3.3 million people oppose vouchers provision

Sixty faith community organizations, denominations, and congregations representing 3.3 million people and 260 individual faith leaders sent a letter to Congress yesterday explaining their strong opposition to the proposal because this private school voucher program would violate the foundational principle of religious freedom; benefit the wealthy while harming public schools, students, and communities; and undermine the work of houses of worship by disincentivizing charitable giving.

“We at Americans United mourn the loss of Justice David Souter, a champion of our Constitution’s promise of church-state separation. Both during his 19 years on the Supreme Court bench and afterward as a senior judge on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Souter repeatedly recognized that forcing taxpayers to fund private, religious education and other religious activity violated their religious freedom.

Souter ruled for religious freedom in public schools, LGBTQ+ equality and abortion rights

“Souter fought to protect children from facing religious coercion in public schools. He understood that students and their families, not public schools, should decide if, when and how children engage with religion.

“He upheld the Roe v. Wade decision, affirming a constitutional right to abortion, and several times voted to uphold the rights of LGBTQ+ people – spurning the court’s ultra-conservatives and religious extremists who wanted the court to impose narrow religious beliefs on all Americans. 

“Souter was a jurist who was guided by the law, not partisan inclinations. His much maligned judicial independence became a rallying cry for conservatives and Christian Nationalists to capture the court: ‘No more David Souters.’ 

“Justice David Souter refused to be put in an ideological box and instead ruled as the Constitution required. The bench could use more David Souters today.” 

Justice David Souter’s church-state separation legacy

Church-state separation cases Souter ruled on include:

• Lee v. Weisman (1992) – Souter agreed that prayers at public school graduations violated the separation of church and state, and wrote a strong concurrence.
• Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) – Souter wrote the majority opinion which held that a homogenous religious enclave could not form a special public school district that would effectively be run as a religious public school. 
• Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) – The court held that a public university’s refusal to pay for a religious student newspaper out of the student-activities fund amounted to improper discrimination against a religious viewpoint. Souter wrote a dissent which argued that the university’s refusal to support religious activities was compelled by the separation of church and state.
• Agostini v. Felton (1997) – Souter dissented from the majority, arguing that even indirect state aid to religious institutions violated the Establishment Clause.
• Mitchell v. Helms (2000) – Souter dissented when the court held that the Establishment Clause was not violated by a program that provided loans to both secular and religious schools.
• Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) – Souter again led the dissent when the court upheld a private-school-voucher program that resulted in state funds indirectly aiding religious schools. Souter argued that the program was barred by the Establishment Clause.
• McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry (2005) – The court split on two Ten Commandments cases. In McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, Souter wrote the majority opinion holding that a display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse violated the Establishment Clause. In Van Orden v. Perry, Souter dissented from the controlling plurality opinion that a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had been there for a long time.
• Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007) – The court curtailed taxpayers’ ability to challenge violations of church-state separation. Souter again wrote the dissent, arguing that taxpayers have standing to challenge Establishment Clause violations.
• Carson v. Makin (2020) – After his retirement from the Supreme Court, as a senior judge Souter was part of a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that ruled religious freedom protections in Maine’s Constitution meant religious private schools could be excluded from a taxpayer-funded private school tuition program. (The U.S. Supreme Court later reversed the 1st Circuit’s opinion.)

In letters sent this week to the band 3 Heath Brothers and Davidson County Schools in Lexington, N.C., Americans United Staff Attorney Ian Smith detailed how a March assembly held in an elementary school during the school day included religious music and the distribution of a 104-page children’s devotional and Bible study book – all in violation of our country’s constitutional promise of church-state separation and religious freedom.

3 Heath Brothers’ concert misrepresented as anti-bullying assembly

AU’s letter notes the school district told concerned parents the concert had been “misrepresented” as an anti-bullying assembly. But schools have a duty to vet outside groups coming in to present to students and even a cursory glance of 3 Heath Brothers’ website would clearly show the group described as “a Christian band … the ‘boyband of Christian music,’” as well as a prominent advertisement for the band’s crowdfunding campaign to “double our impact in the lives of public school students! … Sharing Jesus in a place where it’s needed most.” Davidson County Schools officials have no excuse for not knowing the band’s concerts would have coercive religious content that is impermissible in public schools.

AU’s letter to the band’s management also warns that 3 Heath Brothers could be held legally liable for violating students’ and parents’ religious freedom rights when the band acts jointly with public schools to present assemblies containing religious content. Because public school students are a captive audience, concerts and other assemblies hosted by public schools during the school day must be secular and cannot contain religious content.

Elementary school-age children forced to sit through coercive religious concert

“Our country’s promise of church-state separation and religious freedom means that families, not public school officials, get to decide if, when and how children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Parents are understandably outraged that elementary school-age children had no choice but to sit through a coercive religious concert under the guise of it being an ‘anti-bullying’ assembly. Not on our watch. We demand that Davidson County Schools take the necessary steps to protect students’ religious freedom and ensure this never happens again.

“Religious freedom means 3 Heath Brothers can stage their concerts in appropriate venues, but it also means the band cannot use the machinery of the state to impose its message on public schoolchildren,” Laser added. “I would hope the band wants their concerts to be enjoyable, spiritual events for those who choose to attend – not upsetting, coercive ordeals for nonconsenting children and families.”

Resources

• AU’s letter to Jonathan Heath, Manager of 3 Heath Brothers.
• AU’s letter to Davidson County Schools Superintendent Dr. Gregg Slate and the Board of Education.

The organizations, which already are representing Oklahomans in lawsuits that challenge church-state separation violations involving Oklahoma public schools, issued the following statement:

New social studies curriculum violates religious freedom

“Oklahoma families, not politicians or public schools, should decide if, when and how children engage with religion. If implemented, these new social studies standards will violate students’ and families’ religious freedom by promoting Christianity and advancing Christian Nationalist disinformation. Not on our watch. We are preparing to take the steps necessary to protect the religious freedom of all Oklahoma public school students and prevent these standards from undermining public education in Oklahoma.”

In a December press release announcing the proposed standards, Walters asserted that they contain “over 40 references to the Bible and Christianity.” He declared that this shows that “Oklahoma is putting the Bible and the historical impact of Christianity back in school.” Walters boasted in public remarks that the standards are intended to “champion the guidance that the Bible gave throughout American History.”

Oklahoma Legislature failed to intervene

In February, the Oklahoma State Board of Education approved the curriculum (though three new board members have said Walters deceived them by making last-minute changes to the standards without notifying them or the public). The standards then went to the Legislature for approval. Though Oklahoma Senate Education Committee Chairman Adam Pugh authored a resolution to reject the standards, the Legislature failed to act on it before adjourning yesterday. Without that legislative action, the standards will go into effect next school year.

“This commission is not about religious liberty, but about advancing Christian Nationalism. 

“True religious freedom requires equality among religions and between religion and nonreligion in the eyes of the law and at every level of our government. Trump clearly designed this commission to favor conservative Christians, especially those who want to use the power of our government to impose their religion on others.

“Both the majority of commissioners and commission’s six areas of focus show that it’s all about advancing Christian Nationalism. Chairman Patrick has frequently claimed that America is a ‘Christian nation’ and his actions repeatedly show a desire to impose his personal religion on all Americans using the machinery of the state – a gross violation of our religious freedom. 

“True religious freedom means we each have the right to live as ourselves and believe as we choose, so long as we don’t harm others. This commission makes a mockery of religious freedom.”

Trump questions importance of church-state separation

During the signing ceremony, Trump questioned the importance of the separation of church and state, asking “the separation, I don’t know, is that a good thing or a bad thing?”

Laser added in response, “The separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. Not only is it an American invention, but it’s also the only guarantee we have for true religious liberty. This country needs a renewed national recommitment – and a new and different commission – to defend church-state separation.”

“This case is an underhanded attempt to strike books and classroom lessons that don’t align with Christian Nationalist views from local public school districts. A handful of vocal parents with anti-LGBTQ+ religious beliefs do not get to dictate what appears in public school classrooms and libraries. This case is part of a broader Christian Nationalist agenda to impose a narrow set of religious beliefs on America’s schoolchildren. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Becket Fund’s scheme to undermine public education and church-state separation.”

AU’s brief: Inclusion of LGBTQ+ books, characters does not violate religious freedom

Americans United was joined by 11 religious and civil rights organizations in an amicus brief that urged the Supreme Court to affirm that it is not a religious freedom violation for a public school district to educate students about secular concepts that may not align with their families’ religious beliefs. The brief explained that the inclusion of books with LGBTQ+ characters in a large Maryland school district’s language arts curriculum does not pressure or coerce schoolchildren to do anything that violates their families’ religious beliefs.

Rather, the brief notes that it would harm religious freedom if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s rationale and requires public schools to implement an infeasible opt-out system for parents with religious objections to elements of the curriculum. School administrators will be more likely to remove any lessons, books or materials that could be challenged, resulting in public school curricula structured around the religious beliefs of some parents at the expense of others – especially for families from minority religions or who are nonreligious.

Religious organizations agree, join AU’s brief

Organizations joining Americans United’s brief include Alliance of Baptists; Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Central Atlantic Conference United Church of Christ; Global Justice Institute; Hindu American Foundation; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Sikh Coalition; and Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding.

The brief’s authors include, at Americans United, Litigation Counsel Jenny Samuels and Alexandra Zaretsky and Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser.

Trump’s orders threatening retaliation against lawyers violate First Amendment

In amicus briefs filed in three cases this week, AU and allies explained that Trump’s orders threatening retaliation against the law firms Perkins Coie LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Jenner & Block LLP violate attorneys’ First Amendment rights of freedom to petition the government and freedom of association. “The Order sets a dangerous precedent that, if permitted to stand, will stifle the President’s critics through unconstitutional threats of retribution and erode the rule of law,” the briefs note.

Trump’s threats could interfere with AU’s ability to challenge government actions that violate the separation of church and state because AU often partners with law firms that provide pro bono services to nonprofit organizations. 

‘We will – as always – continue to defend the Constitution.’

“Americans United condemns President Trump’s threats to the legal profession and joins with members of the nation’s legal community who refuse to be intimidated,” said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser. “For nearly 80 years, AU has defended religious freedom and the separation of church and state by challenging the government when it oversteps. We will – as always – continue to defend the Constitution, the rule of law and our cherished American experiment without regard to threats.”

The briefs were filed in the lawsuits Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. DOJ; and Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ.

Organizations joining one or more of the briefs include Advocates for Transgender Equality Education Fund; American Oversight; Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Campaign for Accountability; Center for Reproductive Rights; Children’s Rights Inc.; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Earthjustice; Environmental Law & Policy Center; GIFFORDS Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders; Human Rights Campaign; Immigration Equality; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government; Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council; National Health Law Program; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Women’s Law Center; Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.; Public Counsel; Public Rights Project; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; and Transgender Law Center.

Inclusion of books with LGBTQ+ characters does not violate religious freedom

In an amicus brief filed today in the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, AU and allies explained that the inclusion of books with LGBTQ+ characters in a large Maryland school district’s language arts curriculum does not pressure or coerce schoolchildren to do anything that violates their families’ religious beliefs.

Rather, the brief notes that it would violate the religious freedom of every parent and student if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s rationale and requires public schools to implement an infeasible opt-out system for parents with religious objections to elements of the curriculum. School administrators will be more likely to remove any lessons, books or materials that could be challenged, resulting in public school curricula structured around the religious beliefs of a select few parents – a clear violation of all students’ and families’ religious freedom, especially for families from minority religions or who are nonreligious.

Underhanded attempt to impose Christian Nationalist views on public schools

“This is an underhanded attempt to strike books and classroom lessons that don’t align with Christian Nationalist views from local public school districts,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “A handful of vocal parents with anti-LGBTQ+ religious beliefs do not get to dictate what appears in public school classrooms and libraries. This case is part of a broader Christian Nationalist agenda to impose a narrow set of religious beliefs on America’s schoolchildren. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Becket Fund’s scheme to undermine public education and church-state separation.”

Religious and civil rights organizations join brief

Organizations joining Americans United’s brief include Alliance of Baptists; Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Central Atlantic Conference United Church of Christ; Global Justice Institute; Hindu American Foundation; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Sikh Coalition; and Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding.

The brief’s authors include, at Americans United, Litigation Counsel Jenny Samuels and Alexandra Zaretsky and Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser.

Amicus brief explains Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled correctly

In an amicus brief filed today in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the group explained that the Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly ruled last year that Oklahoma’s charter schools are public schools and, as governmental entities, must abide by the U.S. Constitution’s protections for religious freedom and church-state separation. Therefore, the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which intends to indoctrinate students in one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school.

The amici, which include OKPLAC (the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition) and eight Oklahoman taxpayers, are plaintiffs in OKPLAC v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, a separate lawsuit in Oklahoma state court challenging the charter school board’s approval of St. Isidore’s application to become a public school. That case is on hold while the case before the U.S. Supreme Court is being resolved. The plaintiffs in OKPLAC are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, with support from Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann.

The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools

The organizations issued the following statement: 

“The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students. The Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly found that the state’s approval of a religious public charter school was unlawful and unconstitutional. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that ruling and safeguard public education, church-state separation, and religious freedom for all.

“Oklahoma taxpayers, including our clients, should not be forced to fund a religious public school that plans to indoctrinate students into one religion and discriminate against students and staff. Converting public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy.”

In addition to OKPLAC, today’s amicus brief was filed on behalf of Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke and Erika Wright.

The team of attorneys that represents the amici is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Luke Anderson of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Mason of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

This case is part of a dangerous trend

“This case is part of a dangerous trend: Christian Nationalist legal groups want employers who claim a religious motive to be able to sidestep worker protection requirements without demonstrating anything more. The employer might work in a secular business, operate in a secular way, receive government funding, and hire people of all religions and none, but still be exempt from important safeguards on religious grounds. If the Christian Nationalists succeed, the mere invocation of religious beliefs would be allowed to erase important social safety nets and worker and civil rights protections.  

“Unemployment insurance is among our country’s critical protections for hard-working Americans who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. We urge the Supreme Court to affirm that courts have a duty to ensure that employers seeking to evade contributing to this safety net are qualified for the limited religious exemptions under the law.”

Americans United & allies file Supreme Court brief

Americans United, joined by seven religious and civil-rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case to remind the court of the country’s multi-century tradition of laws and courts relying on objective factors to determine whether entities qualify for religious exemptions.

The brief warns that if the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the rationale of Catholic Charities and its lawyers at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, any entity that claims a religious motivation could exempt itself from laws protecting employees, our civil rights, and much more – all with no objective review from courts. A likely outcome is that legislators would repeal religious exemptions written into such laws to prevent an explosion in the number of entities exempted and the systems that protect employees from collapsing.

Organizations joining Americans United’s brief include the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; ACLU of Wisconsin; Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Interfaith Alliance; National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; and Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus.

The brief’s authors include Americans United Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser and Litigation Fellow Jess Zalph.

More information about the case is available here and here.

“Americans United condemns President Trump’s threats to the legal profession and joins with thousands of members of the nation’s legal community in refusing to be intimidated. For nearly 80 years, AU has defended religious freedom and the separation of church and state by challenging the government when it oversteps. We will – as always – continue to defend the Constitution, the rule of law and our cherished American experiment without regard to threats.”

AU signs letter urging DOJ to protect lawyers, rule of law

AU signed on to this letter spearheaded by Democracy Forward and the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to ensure the Department of Justice uses its full power to protect the legal profession and equal justice under law for all people.

Last week, the plaintiffs in Walke v. Walters asked the court to halt Walters’ attempt to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to buy Bibles, as well as a plan by Walters to buy Bible-based instructional materials. After additional pushback from the legislature, Walters dropped the plan to buy Bibles. Then, earlier this week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court temporarily blocked any other attempts to buy Bibles and the plan to buy Bible-based instructional materials.

But the same day that he dropped his plan to buy Bibles, Walters announced a Bibles Back in School Campaign, which is yet another plan to distribute Bibles to Oklahoma public schools. Walters has partnered with entertainer Lee Greenwood to ask people to buy through a special website, Greenwood and Donald Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bibles” for $71.50 per Bible. The Bibles — widely panned for advancing Christian Nationalism — are then automatically donated to the Oklahoma Department of Education, which Walters runs, and then distributed to public schools. The website tells people to give money for the Bibles because “GOD, CHRISTIANITY AND MORAL VALUES ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE.”

In today’s filing, the plaintiffs ask the court to stop Walters’ latest scheme. Again. Specifically, plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an order prohibiting Walters and other state officials from taking any action to implement the Bibles Back in School Campaign and from otherwise distributing Bibles to public schools.

The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice. The organizations offered the following statements:

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United: “Another week, another attempt by Ryan Walters to abuse his power and impose his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. When will the superintendent learn? Parents, judges, legislators, clergy, students, and families aren’t interested in public schools peddling Christian Nationalism.”

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: “Yet again, Walters is trying to use his preferred scripture to divide public-school students and their families along religious lines. But government officials should not be playing favorites with faith, and Oklahomans deserve better.”

Megan Lambert, legal director of ACLU of Oklahoma: “The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools. All students should feel safe and welcome, regardless of faith, but the Oklahoma Department of Education continues to undermine this critical goal. Oklahoma communities are religiously diverse, and we will not allow our religious freedom to be undermined.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation: “Oklahoma families should not have to contend with religious promotion in their children’s public school classrooms. And Oklahomans should not have to watch their tax dollars be used by their state to promote Ryan Walters’ preferred holy book.”

Colleen McCarty, Esq., executive director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice: “The costs of these outlandish actions by our State Superintendent continue to climb and he shows no signs of slowing. We’re facing a budget shortfall and Oklahomans simply cannot afford these stunts for much longer. Oklahomans need a leader who will maintain the rule of law and educate our kids.”

Case Background:
Walters issued a June 27, 2024, mandate unilaterally requiring every public school in Oklahoma to “incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments,” into their curricula, an abuse of power that ignored state laws. Walters then fast-tracked plans to spend $3 million of taxpayer money on 55,000 King James Bibles. Walters said he wanted to spend another $3 million on Bibles next year.

The lawsuit Walke v. Walters was filed Oct. 17, 2024, on behalf of 32 Oklahomans of diverse faiths who object to Walters’ extremist agenda that imposes his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. The lawsuit asserts that Walters’ plans to distribute Bibles to public schools violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious freedom protections because the government would be using state-funded resources to support religion, as well as favoring one religion over others by requiring the use of a Protestant version of the Bible.

Walters’ actions also violate the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and other state statutes because officials did not follow required rules for adopting new policies.

The plaintiffs come from a variety of faith traditions, including Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian (U.S.A.) and United Church of Christ, and some identify as atheist, agnostic or nonreligious. Some are of Indigenous heritage, and some have family situations – such as 2SLGBTQ+ members or children with special educational needs – that cause particular concerns around teaching the Bible in public schools, especially around bullying.

The defendants in the lawsuit are Walters; the Oklahoma State Department of Education; the Oklahoma State Board of Education and its members; and the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services and some of its officials.

The attorneys on the team representing the plaintiffs include Alex J. Luchenitser and Luke Anderson at Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver at the ACLU; Megan Lambert at the ACLU of Oklahoma; Patrick Elliott and Samuel Grover at FFRF; and Colleen McCarty and Brent Rowland at Oklahoma Appleseed.

The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice.

The Court’s order temporarily stayed “work on any new request by the OSDE for the purchase of Bibles.” In addition, the order paused work on a request for proposals issued by OSDE on February 21, 2025. This request for proposals sought suppliers for “supplemental instructional materials that effectively integrate the Bible and character education into elementary-level social studies curriculum.”

The organizations representing the plaintiffs will continue fighting Walters’ Bible-education mandate and additional filings are expected soon.

They issued the following joint statement on the win:

“This victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma. Superintendent Ryan Walters has been abusing his power and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walters’s extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state.

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, issued the following statement:

Do No Harm Act will ensure that religious freedom is not misused as a sword to harm others

“The Do No Harm Act will ensure that religious freedom – one of our country’s founding principles – is not misused as a sword to harm others and instead remains a shield that protects everyone’s freedom to live as themselves and believe as they choose.

“Congress must stop Christian Nationalists and their political allies from exploiting the 32-year-old the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to license discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, women, religious minorities, nonreligious people and other vulnerable communities. RFRA was intended to protect religious exercise, particularly for religious minorities. Originally supported by a broad coalition of unusual bedfellows, RFRA was never meant to be weaponized as a tool to circumvent nondiscrimination protections and deny people access to health care, jobs and government-funded services.

“The Do No Harm Act will preserve RFRA’s original intent of protecting religious freedom while clarifying that it cannot be misused to deny people’s basic civil rights.

“We thank Reps. Scott, Raskin, Cohen, and Scanlon and Sen. Booker for sponsoring the Do No Harm Act. We urge Congress to quickly pass this critical bill to ensure that religious freedom remains a shield that protects all of us and is not misused as a sword to harm others.”

Background on Do No Harm Act

In 1993, Americans United joined a diverse group – religious and nonreligious, liberal and conservative – to support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was intended to protect the free exercise of religion, particularly for people of minority faiths. But today, the law is being misused to create exemptions from laws that protect people’s basic civil rights. That is why an increasing number of organizations and individuals, including many who supported RFRA in 1993, agree that RFRA needs to be fixed.

The Do No Harm Act will preserve RFRA’s power to protect religious freedom, while also clarifying that it may not be used to harm others. The Do No Harm Act will amend RFRA to ensure that is not misused to: 

• Undermine nondiscrimination laws 
• Deny access to health care 
• Evade child labor laws 
• Thwart workplace protections (such as fair wage and equal pay laws) 
• Refuse to provide government-funded services
• Refuse to perform duties as a government employee

Broad coalition has endorsed the Do No Harm Act

More than 100 civil rights, LGBTQ+, reproductive rights, health, labor and faith groups have endorsed the Do No Harm Act. That includes more than 30 organizations representing diverse faith traditions, such as the United Methodist Church General Board of Church & Society; T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministry; Uri L’Tzedek: Orthodox Social Justice; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A); American Baptist Home Mission Society; Circle Sanctuary; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community Churches; KARAMAH; and the National Council of Churches.

More information on the Do No Harm Act is available here.

Ending Dept. of Education is part of Christian Nationalist agenda set out in Project 2025

“The Trump Administration’s attempt to end the Department of Education is part of the Christian Nationalist agenda set out in Project 2025 to destroy public education that benefits all communities in favor of private, religious education. Every public school district and most colleges and universities in the country rely on the Department of Education as do the students and communities served by those schools.

“Among its many important functions, the Department of Education ensures that millions of American students receive financial aid for higher education and that public schools respect students’ civil rights. The stroke of a magic marker cannot take away those important functions and rights from American students.

“Public education is one of the great promises of America – our pledge to our children that they have the power to brighten our collective future. This order signals that Trump wants to betray that promise and indoctrinate a new generation of Americans into Christian Nationalism. Americans United will continue to fight for public schools and against the Christian Nationalist assault on public education.”

In an amicus brief filed today in the case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, AU and allies reminded the court of the country’s multi-century tradition of laws and courts relying on objective factors to determine whether entities qualify for religious exemptions.

Amicus brief warns against collapse of workers’ protections

The brief warns that if the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the rationale of Catholic Charities and its lawyers at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, any entity that claims a religious motivation could exempt itself from laws protecting employees, our civil rights, and much more – all with no objective review from courts. A likely outcome is that legislators would repeal religious exemptions written into such laws to prevent an explosion in the number of entities exempted and the systems that protect employees from collapsing.

Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser issued the following statement:

“This case is part of a dangerous trend: Christian Nationalist legal groups want employers who claim a religious motive to be able to sidestep worker protection requirements without any court review of the claim. The employer might work in a secular business, operate in a secular way, receive government funding, and hire people of all religions and none, but still be exempt from important safeguards on religious grounds. If the Christian Nationalists succeed, the mere invocation of religious beliefs would be allowed to erase important social safety nets and worker and civil rights protections.  

Courts have a duty to ensure employers qualify for religious exemptions

“Unemployment insurance is among our country’s critical protections for hard-working Americans who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. We urge the Supreme Court to affirm that courts have a duty to ensure that employers seeking to evade contributing to this safety net are qualified for the limited religious exemptions under the law.”

Organizations joining Americans United’s brief include the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; ACLU of Wisconsin; Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Interfaith Alliance; National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; and Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus.

The brief’s authors include Americans United Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser and Litigation Fellow Jess Zalph.

The plaintiffs in Walke v. Walters noted that already pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court is a request for an injunction to stop Walters from spending millions in taxpayer dollars on Bibles and from implementing his mandate that all public schools in the state incorporate the Bible into their curricula. After the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) submitted new requests for proposals in January and February for 55,000 Protestant Bibles and “supplemental instructional materials that effectively integrate the Bible and character education into elementary-level social studies curriculum,” the plaintiffs asked state officials to agree to pause the RFPs until the court issues a final ruling in the plaintiffs’ case, but the officials did not agree to do so.

Latest RFPs for Bibles and Bible-infused materials are also unlawful

In today’s brief, the plaintiffs demonstrate how the new RFPs are unlawful for the same reasons as the original RFP for Bibles that OSDE issued in September 2024, including that they would violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious freedom protections by using state funds to support one particular religion; would use state funds to support an unlawful rule – Walters’ Bible-instruction mandate; and would spend public money without legislative authority.

The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice. The organizations offered the following statements: 

Superintendent Ryan Walters continues to abuse the power of his office

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United: “The separation of church and state guarantees that families and students – not politicians – get to decide if, when and how to engage with religion. Superintendent Ryan Walters continues to abuse the power of his office to advance a Christian Nationalist agenda and impose his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. Not on our watch. We’re proud to defend the religious freedom of all Oklahomans, from Christians to the nonreligious.”

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: “This Bible mandate is a deliberate power grab that violates Oklahoma law and flouts the separation of church and state. Public-school students, families, and teachers – and the taxpayers who support them – deserve better.”

Megan Lambert, legal director of ACLU of Oklahoma: “Oklahoma schools should be a safe and welcoming environment, focused on providing an equal education to all students, regardless of faith. Today’s brief is another demonstration of how communities can come together for a common fight to reject the use of religion as a cover for repression. We must continue to protect the individual rights of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation: “Oklahoma families should not have to contend with religious promotion in their children’s public school classrooms. And Oklahomans should not have to watch their tax dollars be used by their state to promote Ryan Walters’ preferred holy book.”

Colleen McCarty, Esq., executive director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice: “The costs of these outlandish actions by our State Superintendent continue to climb and he shows no signs of slowing. We’re facing a budget shortfall and Oklahomans simply cannot afford these stunts for much longer. Oklahomans need a leader who will maintain the rule of law and educate our kids.”

Case Background

Walters issued a June 27, 2024, mandate unilaterally requiring every public school in Oklahoma to “incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments,” into their curricula, an abuse of power that ignored state laws. Walters then fast-tracked plans to spend $3 million of taxpayer money on 55,000 King James Bibles. Walters said he wants to spend another $3 million on Bibles next year. 

The lawsuit Walke v. Walters was filed Oct. 17, 2024, on behalf of 32 Oklahomans of diverse faiths who object to Walters’ extremist agenda that imposes his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. The lawsuit asserts that Walters’ plans to spend state funds on Bibles violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious freedom protections because the government would be spending public money to support religion, as well as favoring one religion over others by requiring the use of a Protestant version of the Bible. Walters’ actions also violate the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and other state statutes because officials did not follow required rules for implementing new policies and for spending public money.

The plaintiffs come from a variety of faith traditions, including Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian (U.S.A.) and United Church of Christ, and some identify as atheist, agnostic or nonreligious. Some are of Indigenous heritage, and some have family situations – such as 2SLGBTQ+ members or children with special educational needs – that cause particular concerns around teaching the Bible in public schools, especially around bullying.  

The defendants in the lawsuit are Walters; the Oklahoma State Department of Education; the Oklahoma State Board of Education and its members; and the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services and some of its officials.

The attorneys on the team representing the plaintiffs include Alex J. Luchenitser and Luke Anderson at Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver at the ACLU; Megan Lambert at the ACLU of Oklahoma; Patrick Elliott and Samuel Grover at FFRF; and Colleen McCarty and Brent Rowland at Oklahoma Appleseed.

Resources

• Today’s supplemental brief
• The complaint filed Oct. 17, 2024

Televangelist Paula White is unfit to serve in the White House

“Televangelist Paula White was unfit to serve in the White House when Trump first appointed her in 2019 and she’s still unfit today – particularly in a position that could focus on combatting discrimination and advancing religious freedom for all. White is a Christian Nationalist powerbroker who’s spent much of her career operating in the shadows to influence public policies that discriminate against women, LGBTQ+ people and religious minorities, and the nomination of partisan judges who will support those harmful policies.

“This appointment is yet another example of President Trump pandering to his Christian Nationalist supporters and rewarding his loyalists. We can’t forget White’s role in amplifying the Christian Nationalist permission structure that led directly to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, delivering what experts called ‘an explicitly Christian nationalist and openly militant prayer.’ The potential for White to abuse this office to unconstitutionally promote or impose religion on the people is far too great.

“Trump’s National Prayer Breakfast remarks show that his administration is not attempting to further religious freedom, but rather to impose Christian Nationalism on us all. VP Vance reiterated this goal in his attacks on USAID, wrongly claiming that foreign aid is ‘spreading atheism.’ The American people – religious and nonreligious alike – deserve public servants who will work to ensure that we can all live as ourselves and believe as we choose, so long as we don’t harm others.

‘We the People’ don’t want Christian Nationalism

“‘We the People’ don’t want Christian Nationalism. We want freedom without favor and equality without exception. Americans United will not stop fighting alongside our hundreds of thousands of supporters until we get that. AU will be examining the formation of this office, the ’anti-Christian bias’ task force, and White and Bondi’s work – and challenging them when they step out of line.”

‘Task force will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination’

“Americans United believes that all people, including Christians, should be able to live as themselves and believe as they choose so long as they don’t harm others. But rather than protecting religious beliefs, this task force will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws. We’ve seen Christian Nationalists do this already, turning the sacred concept of religious freedom on its head and into a license to harm others.

“If Trump really cared about religious freedom and ending religious persecution, he’d be addressing antisemitism in his inner circle, anti-Muslim bigotry, hate crimes against people of color and other religious minorities, but instead, he’s abolishing federal programs and protections that address those wrongs. This task force is not a response to Christian persecution; it’s an attempt to make America into an ultra-conservative Christian Nationalist nation.

“This is part of the Christian Nationalist crusade to remake our country. Not on our watch. Americans United and our hundreds of thousands of supporters across the country will not stop fighting for church-state separation until this nation lives up to its promise of freedom without favor and equality without exception.”

Anti-Christian bias task force part of Republican Party Platform

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been preparing for this announcement since the idea first surfaced in the Republican Party Platform: “To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.” Just days before the election, Trump declared this ominous task force to be a priority: “I will create a new federal task force on fighting anti-Christian bias. That’ll be done immediately.”

New Texas curriculum favors Christianity

The curriculum has faced widespread criticism since it was first introduced by the Texas Education Agency in May 2024 for embedding religious content that favors certain forms of Christianity over all other religious perspectives. Despite overwhelming public outcry, the State Board of Education approved the Bluebonnet curriculum in an 8-7 vote on Nov. 22, 2024.

The following quotes can be attributed to the organizations that signed on to the letter:

Curriculum part Christian Nationalist scheme to impose religious beliefs students

“Students and their families, not politicians or public school officials, should decide if, when, and how to engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We urge all Texas school districts to reject this Bible-infused curriculum, which is part of a Christian Nationalist scheme to impose their religious beliefs on public school students. Public schools should be open and welcoming to all of our children.”

“State politicians are trying to indoctrinate our children by imposing a set of religious beliefs on them,” said Chloe Kempf (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “Doing so would violate students’ constitutional rights to be free of state-sponsored religious coercion and put certain students at risk of bullying, harassment, and stigmatization. Students of all religious backgrounds deserve to feel included and welcomed in school. School districts must reject the Bluebonnet curriculum’s religious teachings. Families and faith communities have the right to instill religious beliefs, or none at all — not the government.”

Public schools are not Sunday schools

“School districts should steer clear of this deeply flawed, Bible-infused curriculum,” said Daniel Mach (he/him), director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Public schools are not Sunday schools, and Texas students and their families deserve better.”

“This curriculum is a blatant attempt to score political points with white Christian Nationalists, who only approve of Texas meddling in religion when the state is promoting their preferred religious doctrine,” said Sam Grover (he/him), senior litigation counsel for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “The Constitution protects all people — whether they are Christian, belong to a minority religion, or are nonreligious — from government overreach in matters of faith. Families, not the government, should decide the religious or nonreligious upbringing of their children.”

“The Bluebonnet curriculum represents a clear and obvious Establishment Clause violation, even if Texas legislators have decided to pretend otherwise,” said Richard Conn (he/him), general counsel for the Center for Inquiry. “We urge school superintendents not to make that same mistake and instead to stand up for the rights and constitutionally protected freedoms of the students, families, and communities they serve.”

“Our public schools are the cornerstone of our communities and our democracy. These students are the future leaders of our country, and we must teach them the truth about America’s past, both good and bad.

Trump’s order seeks to turn public schools into re-education camps

“Trump’s executive order is an attack on our public schools and seeks to turn them into re-education camps for white Christian Nationalist disinformation. The order, including the attempt to reestablish the ineffective 1776 Commission, would advance narrow Christian Nationalist beliefs about gender and a white-washed American history. We know from last time that this Commission is bent on tearing down the separation of church and state instead of lifting it up as an American original, a founding principle of this nation.”

Public funds belong in public schools.

“Rather than funding private religious schools that can discriminate and indoctrinate, Trump should focus on providing adequate resources to our country’s public schools that are open to all students and serve 90 percent of America’s children. Public funds belong in public schools.

“Expanding private school vouchers is part of the Project 2025 playbook for undermining our public education system and our democracy. Christian Nationalists want to divert public money to private religious schools even as they continue to strive to impose their narrow religious beliefs on public schoolchildren. Parents who care about their children’s education and taxpayers who care about quality public schools that are the building blocks of our communities should vehemently oppose this scheme.

Private school vouchers don’t work

“Private school vouchers don’t work: They don’t improve student achievement, and they especially fail students with disabilities, low-income students and rural students. Vouchers only provide ‘school choice’ for a select few, primarily wealthy families whose children never attended public schools in the first place, and for the private, predominantly religious schools that can pick and choose which students to accept. Vouchers don’t provide a choice to the majority of families that can’t afford private school tuition even with a voucher; to the students whom private schools may discriminate against on the basis of religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristics; or to the taxpayers who are forced to fund religion, often times in a faith that is not their own.

“Christian Nationalists are trying to use the machinery of the state to impose their religious beliefs on all of our children – and to get taxpayers to fund it. This scheme tramples the religious freedom of every taxpayer, forcing them to fund religion. Not on our watch. We need a national recommitment to keep church and state separate – our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

‘The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools’

“The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students. The Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly found that the state’s approval of a religious public charter school was unlawful and unconstitutional. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that ruling and safeguard public education, church-state separation, and religious freedom for all. Oklahoma taxpayers, including our plaintiffs, should not be forced to fund a religious public school that plans to discriminate against students and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. Converting public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy.”

AU, the ACLU, ELC, and FFRF, with support from Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, represent Oklahomans who object to their tax dollars funding a religious public charter school that will discriminate against students and employees based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, won’t commit to adequately serving students with disabilities, and will indoctrinate students into one religion. These nine Oklahomans and OKPLAC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education, filed their lawsuit, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on July 31, 2023, in the District Court of Oklahoma County.

AU’s case on hold pending developments at Supreme Court

Following the June 2024 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in Drummond v. OSVCSB, the OKPLAC plaintiffs and defendants reached a court-approved agreement to put the OKPLAC case on hold until at least Feb. 1, 2025, while developments in the Drummond case are pending. St. Isidore agreed not to accept charter-school funding from the state or open to students as a charter school during the 2024-25 school year as part of that agreement.

The plaintiffs in the OKPLAC case include the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition, Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Jenny Samuels of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Mason of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources:

● The June 25, 2024, Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
● The petition in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.

“Since 1965, our government has protected federal contract workers from religious and other forms of discrimination. With the swipe of his black magic marker, Trump has rolled civil rights protections back 60 years for employees of taxpayer-funded federal contractors.

“Religious freedom means no one should be turned away from a government-funded job because they can’t meet a religious test.

Trump order eliminates critical layer of protection for federal contract workers

“White Christian Nationalism seeks to perpetuate privilege and power for white Christian men. Trump’s action does exactly that by eliminating a critical layer of protections against discrimination based on religion, as well as sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and more. Trump continues to advance the agenda of white Christian Nationalists who are using the machinery of the state to impose their narrow beliefs on all of us.

“America doesn’t need more Christian Nationalism. We need a national recommitment to keep church and state separate – our freedoms, equality and democracy depend on it.”

“Religious freedom and church-state separation mean that clergy must be free to preach without threats from government officials and free from the demands of presidents,” Laser said.

“It’s one thing for talking heads like Charlie Kirk or Matt Walsh to go after this bishop, but when the President of the United States and Members of Congress attack clergy for exercising their religious freedom, they are crossing a line. This abuse of power is precisely the kind of authoritarianism our founders sought to prevent when they separated church and state.”

Bishop Mariann Budde urged Trump to “have mercy”

Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., delivered a sermon during the Washington National Cathedral’s inauguration worship service on January 21. In it, the bishop urged Trump to “have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now” – remarks that America’s promise of religious freedom gives her the right to make. Americans United has long fought for the separation of church and state precisely because it is the only guarantee of true religious freedom.

Trump inauguration presents Christian Nationalist claim he was anointed by god

“Trump used the inaugural ceremony to claim he was chosen and anointed by god to lead this nation, but this Christian Nationalist idea is fundamentally un-American. In this country, ‘We the People’ choose our leaders and our leaders are answerable to us.

“When those leaders abuse their power to impose one narrow religious belief on us all, about gender or abortion or anything else, they are trampling our founding principles. True religious freedom, which is promised by our Constitution, gives us the right to believe as we choose, but also to live as ourselves – not having to pass a government-imposed religious test that favors some of our beliefs over others.

“Our Founders understood that when the government favors one religion over others, it divides us. That’s why they built a country based on church-state separation. Mixing religion and government divides people along religious lines, favoring some while excluding all others. Trump cannot be a ‘peacemaker and a unifier’ without separating church and state.

Trump Executive Order on gender reflects Christian Nationalist Project 2025 agenda

“Betraying these founding principles, and true to Project 2025’s mandate, Trump announced a coming order that would impose a narrow Christian Nationalist view of gender, saying that it will be ‘the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.’

“All Americans deserve to live according to our beliefs and identities so long as we are not hurting others, and that includes our gender-nonconforming and transgender children, coworkers, friends, and neighbors.

“America doesn’t need more Christian Nationalism. We need a national recommitment to keep church and state separate – our freedoms, equality and democracy depend on it.”

‘Discrimination has no place in our public colleges and universities’

“The Trump/DeVos rule forces colleges to choose between protecting students and losing federal funding. Discrimination has no place in our public colleges and universities,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Although today’s ruling was not what we had hoped for, the fight goes on. We will have our day in court. When taxpayer-funded colleges and universities allow discrimination in the name of religion, it violates religious freedom for all.”

The rule requires public colleges and universities to exempt religious student clubs from nondiscrimination provisions that apply to all other student clubs that are officially recognized by the colleges and funded by activity fees paid by all students. The plaintiffs argued the rule undermines the nondiscrimination policies that many colleges and universities have enacted to ensure that clubs don’t reject students from membership or leadership positions on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or other protected characteristics.

Case will continue; court did not decide constitutional, nondiscrimination claims

The lawsuit had argued that the Department of Education had no authority to issue this rule, and this is what the court decided in favor of the government. The lawsuit also argues that the rule imposed requirements that directly conflict with the U.S. Constitution as well as statutory nondiscrimination laws, which was not decided. The lawsuit had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to invalidate the rule, which went into effect on Nov. 23, 2020.

“This unlawful rule was part of the Trump administration’s campaign to pander to Christian Nationalists and weaponize religious freedom to justify discrimination,” said Geoffrey T. Blackwell, legal director at American Atheists. “Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value that protects everyone’s right to believe or not, as long as they don’t harm others. It does not give people or organizations the right to ignore civil rights protections and discriminate.”

Trump rule would force students to subsidize student groups that discriminate

American Atheists and Americans United had sued on behalf of the Secular Student Alliance (SSA), the national nonreligious student organization, and SSA student members.

The Secular Student Alliance, the organizational plaintiff in this lawsuit, has student members at numerous public colleges and universities who would be harmed by this rule. The rule would have forced these students, who pay student-activity fees at their colleges, to subsidize religious organizations that discriminate in their membership or leadership. Students who are LGBTQ, religious minorities, nonreligious, or otherwise marginalized – including SSA members – are especially vulnerable to this discrimination.

Court held the Ten Commandments law is unconstitutional in all possible applications

Reminding superintendents that a federal district court held in Rev. Roake v. Brumley that H.B. 71 is unconstitutional in all possible applications, the letter reveals that the AG’s guidance provides sample posters to schools that are nearly identical to sample posters already included and rejected in the Roake litigation. As the district court explained, “regardless of what iterations of the displays AG Defendants are able to conjure up for purposes of their briefing, the fundamental requirements of the Act mandate that the displays occur in a specific time, place, and manner that contravene the First Amendment.” As a result, the district court enjoined the Roake defendants from enforcing or implementing the statute.

The letter also rebuts the AG’s assertion that all school boards, except for the five school-board defendants in Roake, must comply with H.B. 71, noting that all school districts – even if they are not party to the ongoing lawsuit and technically not subject to the district court’s injunction – have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. As the letter explains, and as the AG has acknowledged, some school districts have already stated that they will delay implementation of H.B. 71 until the legal proceedings in Roake are resolved. The organizations urged all school districts to take the same approach, noting that appellate oral argument is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2025, in the Roake case.

Today’s letter follows an initial letter sent by the same four organizations last month warning superintendents against implementing H.B. 71. In June of 2024, the organizations filed Roake on behalf of a multifaith group of nine families with children in Louisiana’s public schools, asserting that H.B. 71 violates the First Amendment’s religious-freedom protections.

Schools that follow AG’s misleading guidance will be playing with fire

The groups issued the following statement regarding today’s letter:

“The AG’s guidance is grossly misleading and schools that follow it will be playing with fire. School districts should refrain from implementing H.B. 71 at this time and reject the AG’s invitation to go against a federal district court ruling. It is the only responsible and lawful course of action to ensure that students’ and families’ constitutional rights remain protected.”

Although the Roake ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it remains in full force and effect while the appeal proceeds, after the appellate court rejected a request by the defendants to temporarily suspend the lower court’s injunction.

More information about the Roake lawsuit is available here.

“We at Americans United mourn the loss of President Jimmy Carter, a human rights advocate who championed the separation of church and state because of his deep religious faith. We thank President Carter for his service to our country and for including church-state separation and religious freedom among the important issues he championed. We extend our heartfelt condolences to his friends and family.

“A devout Baptist and Sunday school teacher, Carter often referenced Baptists’ traditional esteem for church-state separation as the shield that protects religious freedom for everyone. Carter opposed religious leaders and houses of worship politicking, taxpayer funding of religious organizations (especially those that discriminate), removing evolution from school science classes, and coercing students to pray in public schools. ‘I think the government ought to stay out of the prayer business,’ he said in 1979.

“Carter recognized his responsibility to divorce his personal religious views on abortion from presidential policies and his administration made strides on LGBTQ+ rights. In 2012 Carter was the first of any current or former president to voice support for marriage of same-sex couples.

“Carter publicly split from his lifelong membership in the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 in large part because of the denomination’s union with conservative politics. He explained the dangers of this union in 2003: ‘When a group of Christians tr[ies] to implant through government our beliefs on others as superior, that subverts the basic constitutional prohibition concerning separation of church and state. And when we try to use the federal government to intercede in religious affairs, it inherently weakens the unique character of Christ’s kingdom.’”

“Ryan Walters, backed by his Christian Nationalist allies, is once again abusing his power to proselytize our public school students and further a political agenda instead of teaching our students facts and history,” said Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser, adding that “some of the most problematic standards are aimed at the youngest, most impressionable students: first and second graders.”

In his press release about the proposed standards, Walters emphasized that they contain “over 40 references to the Bible and Christianity.” He declared that this shows that “Oklahoma is putting the Bible and the historical impact of Christianity back in school.” Walters boasted in public remarks that the standards are intended to “champion the guidance that the Bible gave throughout American History.” 

The problems with the curriculum that Laser cited are many, but just a few examples include: 

• It requires first grade students to “identify stories from ancient Israel” that supposedly influenced America’s founders, including the Ten Commandments – yet mainstream scholars of religion and history agree that the Bible did not influence the creation of America’s secular government.
• It mandates that second graders link stories from the New Testament – including the teachings of Jesus – with the founding of America.
• The entire curriculum, from second grade through high school, heavily focuses on “Judeo-Christian ideals” and “ethics.” Eighth graders are directed to “evaluate the role of Judeo-Christian ideals in supporting colonial demands for independence,” purporting that the Bible was a “frequently cited authority by America’s Founders.” Yet a historical study of the framing of our Constitution and founding of our government found there was no evidence of biblical influence.  

Americans United noted that the curriculum is also marred by what it lacks. Despite its emphasis on religion, the curriculum doesn’t cover the development of the separation of church and state, which was an American innovation, or explain how that foundational principle protects religious freedom, democracy, and equality. 

“Walters has consistently sought to use Oklahoma’s public schools to further the version of far-right, MAGA-infused Christianity he favors – a version that many American Christians don’t accept,” Laser said.

Americans United has two ongoing lawsuits against Walters to protect the religious freedom of all Oklahomans: one over the state’s approval of a religious public school and another over his attempt to push the Bible in public school classrooms. “AU intends to take a closer look at the proposed standards and take any steps necessary to continue to protect the religious freedom of all Oklahoma public school students,” Laser concluded.

“Politicians should not force release time policies on schools in hopes of promoting religious instruction. Religious freedom means that all students, no matter their religion or beliefs, should feel equally welcome in public schools and that the dedicated time for school focuses on secular education. But release time programs do just the opposite—they inject religion into the school day, take away from already limited instructional time, and alienate students by dividing them along religious lines. This is just the latest in a long line of attacks on public education. Gov. Dewine should veto this bill.”

In November, Americans United submitted testimony to the Ohio House of Representatives Primary and Secondary Education Committee about the problems with this bill and urged it to oppose the measure.

The letter notifies officials of a recent federal district court decision in Rev. Roake v. Brumley, which ruled that H.B. 71 violates the First Amendment and prohibited the defendants in the case from taking steps to implement or enforce the statute. The letter further explains:

Even though your district is not a party to the ongoing lawsuit, and therefore is not technically subject to the district court’s injunction, all school districts have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes state law, public-school officials may not comply with H.B. 71.

Earlier this year, a multifaith group of nine families with children in Louisiana’s public schools filed suit in Roake v. Brumley, asserting–among other claims–that H.B. 71 directly contravenes the Supreme Court’s 1980 ruling in Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar Kentucky statute.  The four organizations that sent today’s letter also represent the plaintiffs in Roake and issued the following statement:

We strongly urge all Louisiana school districts to refrain from implementing H.B. 71 at this time. A federal court has already ruled that the statute “is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional in all applications.” Public-school officials are legally required to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of students and families, including their right to religious freedom under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Implementing H.B. 71 would violate this obligation and could result in litigation being filed against school districts that do so.

Although the Roake ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it remains in full force and effect while the appeal proceeds, after the appellate court rejected a request by the defendants to temporarily suspend the lower court’s injunction. Appellate oral argument in the case is currently set for January 23, 2024 in New Orleans.

“Texas’ new Bible-infused elementary curriculum is part of the nationwide effort by Christian Nationalists to impose their religious beliefs on public school students. Families, not politicians or public school officials, should decide if, when and how their children engage with religion. Public schools are not Sunday schools. We urge all Texas school districts not to implement this curriculum. If families learn their public schools are using this curriculum, or introducing any coercive religious lessons in their classrooms, we encourage them to contact us at au.org. Our attorneys are standing by and ready to defend their religious freedom.”

Americans United wrote to the state board in August, explaining how the proposed curriculum would violate the U.S. Constitution’s religious freedom protections.

The clergy plaintiffs are represented by a legal team that includes Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), and Missouri civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman.

“Challenging Missouri’s abortion ban was an expression of faith”

The Rev. Traci Blackmon, named petitioner and an ordained United Church of Christ minister, said: “Challenging Missouri’s abortion ban was an expression of my faith, which calls us to defend the dignity and autonomy of all people. We aren’t truly free unless we can control our own bodies, lives, and futures.”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, said: “Americans United is proud to have represented these faith leaders and to be part of the broader effort to restore abortion access in Missouri. Even as we celebrate this victory for the people of Missouri, abortion rights and church-state separation, we know the fight for equity and bodily autonomy is not over. We are committed to ensuring that everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions about their own bodies based on their own beliefs. Church-state separation and religious freedom require reproductive freedom.”

K. M. Bell, senior litigation counsel at NWLC, said: “This case was about protecting the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom for all Missourians. With the passing of Amendment 3, the people of Missouri have made it clear that they reject efforts to control personal health care decisions based on religious beliefs. State officials must now respect the will of the people and comply with the Constitution. NWLC is honored to have supported the Petitioners in this crucial fight.”

Case Background

The lawsuit was filed in January 2023 on behalf of 13 clergy whose various faiths call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. Religious traditions represented by the plaintiffs include Baptist, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator.

The faith leader plaintiffs are Rev. Traci Blackmon, Rabbi Doug Alpert, Rev. Jan Barnes, Rabbi Jim Bennett, Rev. Cindy Bumb, Rabbi Andrea Goldstein, Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, Rev. Darryl Gray, Rt. Rev. Deon K. Johnson, Rev. Holly McKissick, Rev. Barbara Phifer, Rabbi Susan Talve, and Rev. Krista Taves.

The lawsuit alleged that Missouri’s total abortion ban and other related restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in House Bill No. 126 and Senate Bill 5. One of the provisions of H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.

Missouri lawmakers wrote their religious beliefs into the abortion ban

In passing the legislation, Missouri lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in the language of a statute that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.”

In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Mike Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Director Paula F. Nickelson; multiple county prosecutors; and officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.

An appeal in the lawsuit was pending before the Missouri Supreme Court after St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Jason Sengheiser had ruled that Missouri’s abortion ban does not violate the church-state provisions of the Missouri Constitution.

On Thursday, to promote his new “Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism,” Walters emailed all superintendents within the state a “Mandatory Announcement” that linked to a video entitled “Prayer for the Nation.” Additionally, the email asserted that all Oklahoma schools must play the video for all their students and send it to their parents. In the video, Walters blames the “radical left” and “woke teachers unions” for “attacking” religious liberty and then delivers a lengthy prayer supporting President-elect Donald Trump. Walters encourages students to join in his prayer.

Coalition letter urges Oklahoma superintendents not to show Walters’ video

On Friday, the coalition sent a letter to every superintendent in Oklahoma urging them not to show or disseminate Walters’ prayer video. The letter emphasizes the constitutional requirement for public schools to remain secular and warns that promoting the video to students and parents would violate both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The letter also points out that Walters lacks the authority to require local school districts to play the video (or any other video) to their students.

“Requiring students to watch a prayer video violates students’ religious freedom, including their Establishment Clause rights,” the letter warns. “It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise[.]”

The coalition reminds superintendents of their responsibility to protect all students’ religious freedom, regardless of their personal beliefs. By promoting a specific religious perspective, schools risk alienating students who do not share those beliefs, fostering an environment of exclusion and discrimination.

Americans United urges any Oklahoma families and educators whose school district attempts to show Walters’ video or implement Walters’ unlawful and unauthorized Bible-instruction directives to contact AU at www.au.org/report-a-violation.

Ryan Walters kowtowing to President-Elect Trump

“Superintendent Ryan Walters is willing to throw every public school kid in Oklahoma under a bus in order to kowtow to President-Elect Trump,” said Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “Walters is abusing the power of his office to advance a Christian Nationalist agenda and impose his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. Not on our watch. The separation of church and state guarantees that families and students – not politicians – get to decide if, when and how to engage with religion.”

Walters’ email read as follows:

“We are in a dangerous time for this country. Student’s[sic] rights and freedoms regarding religious liberties are continuously under assault. The newly created Department of Religious Liberty and Patriotism will be working to thwart any attempts to disrupt our Oklahoma student’s[sic] fundamental freedoms.

“In one of the first steps of the newly created department, we are requiring all of Oklahoma schools to play the attached video to all kids that are enrolled. We are also requiring that that[sic] school districts send this video to all parents as well.

“Students are encouraged but not required to join me in this prayer.”

“I pray for our leaders to make the right decisions,” Walters said in the video attached to the email. “I pray in particular for President Donald Trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country.” Walters also prays schools “continue to teach love of country to our young people, and that our students understand what makes America great.”

Walters separately announced on Thursday that he purchased more than 500 Bibles for Advanced Placement (AP) government classrooms. In October, the AU and allies filed a lawsuit on behalf of 32 Oklahomans urging the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block Walters’ mandate that all public schools incorporate the Bible into their curricula.

This coalition is committed to defending the rights of every student to receive a secular education free from religious influence.

In the ruling, Judge John W. DeGravelles determined that Louisiana’s H.B. 71, enacted last June, violates the First Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state statute, holding that the First Amendment bars public schools from posting such displays. The defendants conceded during oral argument that Stone remains good law and is binding on lower courts. In his 177-page opinion, the judge explained:

[T]hese displays must be posted in every “classroom in each school,” all year round, regardless of subject matter, and regardless of the age of the student. Thus, the question is not whether the Biblical laws can ever be put on a poster; the issue is whether, as a matter of law, there is any constitutional way to display the Ten Commandments in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Act. In short, the Court finds that there is not. First, Stone remains good law and is directly on point, and this Court is bound to follow it. Second, even putting Stone aside . . . , Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that H.B. 71 fails to comply with the Establishment Clause analysis laid out in Kennedy and Fifth Circuit precedent.

Judge DeGravelles also recognized that H.B. 71 would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the children-plaintiffs in the case by imposing religious doctrine on them for nearly every hour of the school day, throughout their entire public-school education. And, pointing to the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Steven K. Green, the court found that there is no historical support for permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms and that doing so would be at odds with our nation’s Founders’ understanding of the separation of church and state. The court’s opinion concludes:

“Each of the Plaintiffs’ minor children will be forced “in every practical sense,” through Louisiana’s required attendance policy, to be a “captive audience” and to participate in a religious exercise: reading and considering a specific version of the Ten Commandments, one posted in every single classroom, for the entire school year, regardless of the age of the student or subject matter of the course. And, despite the differences among the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs (be they Unitarian Universalist, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, or atheist/agnostic), the common threads are (1) that the required posting of the Decalogue conflicts with specific parts of their faith, and (2) that one of those articles of faith, shared by nearly all Plaintiff parents, is raising their children in accordance with their own beliefs and values. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Act and its requirements are coercive and inconsistent with the history of First Amendment and public education.”

The court further ruled that H.B. 71 also violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause.

After finding that the law violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the court prohibited the defendants from “(1) enforcing H.B. 71; (2) adopting rules or regulations for the enforcement of H.B. 71; and (3) requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public-school classroom in Louisiana in accordance with H.B. 71.”

The Court additionally directed the state defendants to provide notice of its order and H.B. 71’s unconstitutionality to all Louisiana public elementary, secondary, and charter schools, and all public post-secondary education institutions. Because the court denied the defendants’ request to pause (or “stay”) the preliminary injunction while they seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it immediately takes effect.

“H.B. 71 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we’re pleased and relieved that the court ruled in our favor,” said the Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Adrian Van Young. “As an interfaith family, we expect our children to receive their secular education in public school and their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.”

“This ruling will ensure that Louisiana families – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation’s public school children. Not on our watch.”

“This ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity,” said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Public schools are not Sunday schools, and today’s decision ensures that our clients’ classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.”

“We are pleased that the First Amendment rights of students and families are protected by this vital court decision,” said Patrick Elliott, Legal Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

“Religious freedom—the right to choose one’s faith without pressure—is essential to American democracy,” said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Today’s ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiff’s children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.”

Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department, added, “We are heartened by the District Court’s well-reasoned and detailed opinion, which rests upon the wisdom of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the protections it affords regarding the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion.”

Represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools.

Today’s opinion, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, is available here.

“We are deeply dismayed, but undeterred. Christian Nationalism has seized power in a way it could not on Jan. 6, 2021, and we have a serious fight ahead,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Trump and his Christian Nationalist inner circle will try to abuse their power to privilege a chosen few at the expense of our most marginalized communities.

“We’ve been warning of the dangers of Project 2025 and white Christian Nationalism and we know that the majority of Americans are against their agenda. ‘We the People’ are with us. That is our path to victory. For nearly 80 years Americans United has defended church-state separation and repelled previous waves of white Christian Nationalism. We’ve been through a Trump administration before. It was a hard four years, but we fought back and ultimately defeated many of the harmful policies he enacted, either through the 10 lawsuits AU brought challenging Trump administration policies or by working with the Biden administration and Congress to reverse his policies and block his agenda. We’re not giving up now.

“We know people are scared for their family and friends and themselves. But we are building a movement that will be a bulwark against this rising tide of white Christian Nationalism. We’re organizing and fighting in every community, county, city, and state – everywhere. Church-state separation is the cure for white Christian Nationalism, and it’s also the foundation of our democracy. Americans United is ready. We were made for moments like this.”

The 32 plaintiffs include 14 public school parents, four public school teachers and three faith leaders who object to Walters’ extremist agenda that imposes his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children – in violation of Oklahomans’ religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The plaintiffs come from a variety of faith traditions, including Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian (U.S.A.) and United Church of Christ, and some identify as atheist, agnostic or nonreligious. Some are of Indigenous heritage, and some have family situations – such as LGBTQ+ members or children with special educational needs – that cause particular concerns around teaching the Bible in public schools, especially around bullying.

The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice.

Plaintiff the Rev. Lori Walke, senior minister of Mayflower Congregational United Church of Christ in Oklahoma City: “I am a faith leader who cares deeply about our country’s promise of religious freedom and ensuring that everyone is able to choose their own spiritual path. The state mandating that one particular religious text be taught in our schools violates the religious freedom of parents and children, teachers, and taxpayers. The government has no business weighing in on such theological decisions. I’m proud to join this lawsuit because I believe Superintendent Walters’ plan to use taxpayer money to buy Bibles and force public schools to teach from them is illegal and unconstitutional.”

Plaintiff the Rev. Mitch Randall of Cleveland County, a Baptist pastor and CEO of Good Faith Media: “As a Christian, I’m appalled by the use of the Bible – a sacred text – for Superintendent Walters’ political grandstanding. As a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, I’m alarmed by the parallels between this Bible mandate and the religious proselytization and forced assimilation my relatives faced in government boarding schools. As a taxpayer, I object to the state spending public funds on religious texts. The separation of church and state is a bedrock principle protecting religious liberty for every citizen; I urge the court to uphold this principle and strike down this mandate.

Plaintiff Erika Wright of Cleveland County, the founder and leader of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition and a parent of two children who attend public schools: “As parents, my husband and I have sole responsibility to decide how and when our children learn about the Bible and religious teachings. We are devout Christians, but different Christian denominations have different theological beliefs and practices. It is not the role of any politician or public school official to intervene in these personal matters. Oklahoma’s education system is already struggling, ranking nearly last in national standings. Mandating a Bible curriculum will not address our educational shortcomings. Superintendent Walters should focus on providing our children and teachers with the resources they need; our families can handle religious education at home.”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United: “The separation of church and state guarantees that families and students – not politicians – get to decide if, when and how to engage with religion. Superintendent Ryan Walters is abusing the power of his office to advance a Christian Nationalist agenda and impose his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. Not on our watch. We’re proud to defend the religious freedom of all Oklahomans, from Christians to the nonreligious.”

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: “This Bible mandate is a blatant power grab that violates state law and tramples the separation of church and state. Public-school students, families, and teachers – and the taxpayers who support them – deserve better.”

Tamya Cox-Touré, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma: “By filing this lawsuit, Oklahomans have come together in a common fight to reject the State Board of Education’s use of religion as a cover for repression. All families and students should feel welcome in our public schools and we must protect the individual right of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation: “Superintendent Ryan Walters cannot be allowed to employ the machinery of the state to indoctrinate Oklahoma’s students in his religion. Thankfully, Oklahoma law protects families and taxpayers from his unconstitutional scheme to force public schools to adopt his preferred holy book.”

Colleen McCarty, Executive Director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice: “The constant use of Oklahoma as a testing ground for religious extremism is growing tiresome. Oklahoma families deserve a public school system devoted to the education of their children, and instead we get flash-bulb political stunts and attempted erosion of the Constitution. The buck stops here. We will defend the principles our nation is built on, starting with the separation of church and state.”

Background:

Ryan Walters issued a June 27 mandate unilaterally requiring every public school in Oklahoma to “incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments,” into the curriculum for grades 5-12, an abuse of power that ignored state laws. Walters then fast-tracked plans to spend $3 million of taxpayer money on an expensive, Christian Nationalist version of the King James Bible that includes the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance, and Bill of Rights, another abuse of power and gross violation of Oklahoma taxpayers’ religious freedom. Walters wants to spend another $3 million on Bibles next year.

The lawsuit asserts that the Bible-education mandate violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious freedom protections because the government is spending public money to support religion, as well as favoring one religion over others by requiring the use of a Protestant version of the Bible. The mandate also violates the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and other state statutes because officials did not follow required rules for implementing new policies and for spending public money.

The defendants in the lawsuit are Walters; the Oklahoma State Department of Education; the Oklahoma State Board of Education and its five members, Donald Burdick, Sarah Lepak, Katie Quebedeaux, Zachary Archer and Kendra Wesson; and the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services, its Executive Director Rick Rose, State Purchasing Director Amanda Otis and Contracting Officer Brenda Hansel.

The attorneys and legal staff on the team representing the plaintiffs include Alex J. Luchenitser, Luke Anderson, Scott Lowder, and Jess Zalph at Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver at the ACLU; Megan Lambert at the ACLU of Oklahoma; Patrick Elliott and Samuel Grover at FFRF; and Colleen McCarty and Leslie Briggs at Oklahoma Appleseed.

‘Alessandro has extensive experience as a civil-rights leader’

“I’m thrilled that Alessandro Terenzoni is bringing his knowledge and experience to the Americans United team and our mission to protect the separation of church and state. With white Christian Nationalists attempting to infuse their narrow religious beliefs into  public policy across the country at all levels of government, our rights and freedoms are under threat like never before,” said Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United.

“Alessandro has extensive experience as a civil-rights leader in the federal government and as an access-to-justice expert in Washington, D.C,” Laser said. “I welcome him to the growing AU community. It’s a critical time to unite Americans of all beliefs with the nonreligious to defend this foundational Constitutional principle.”

Will oversee work to promote public policy that supports church-state separation

As AU’s Vice President of Public Policy, Alessandro Terenzoni will oversee and coordinate the organization’s critical work to promote public policy that supports church-state separation at the federal and state levels while defeating legislative and executive efforts to advance Christian Nationalism.

Prior to joining AU, Terenzoni served as the deputy director of the Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. He led the office’s civil-rights enforcement and technical-assistance work, ensuring that Department of Justice grant recipients did not unlawfully discriminate based on race, sex, religion, disability, and other federally protected bases.

‘Eager to collaborate with individuals of all religions and none’

“I am profoundly excited to join Americans United as its Vice President of Public Policy. What drew me to Americans United, above all other organizations, is its steadfast commitment to genuine religious freedom and a respect for the positive role faith can play in our communities. I look forward to leading AU’s exceptional public policy team in advancing our critical mission,” Alessandro Terenzoni said.

“I am eager to collaborate with individuals of all religions and none during this critical moment when white Christian Nationalists are advancing a religious extremist agenda, as exemplified by Project 2025,” Terenzoni said. “My career journey – from my early days as a public-school teacher to over a decade enforcing civil-rights laws across two federal agencies – has led me to AU’s important public policy work.”

Formerly, Terenzoni was a supervisory attorney in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. His first step into government work was at the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings, where he created and managed one of the first self-help centers in the country for unrepresented litigants at the administrative level.

Commitment to public-interest law began as a housing lawyer and advocate

Terenzoni’s commitment to public-interest law formally began when he started his legal career as a housing lawyer and advocate at the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia. He now serves on the board of the Washington Council of Lawyers, D.C.’s public-interest bar association dedicated to expanding access to justice. He was a member of the adjunct faculty at the George Washington University Law School for over a decade, teaching legal research and writing, introduction to advocacy, and public-interest lawyering, and continues his service to the GW Law School as vice chair of the dean’s Public Interest Advisory Council. 

Terenzoni is a graduate of GW Law and Tufts University and holds a certificate in diversity and inclusion from Cornell University. He was a Wasserstein Fellow at Harvard Law School for the 2022-23 academic year and is an alumnus of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Senior Executive Fellows Program.

Terenzoni’s full biography and photo are available here.

Grants for religious school facilities violate U.S. & Ohio Constitutions

In a legal analysis accompanying the records request, AU attorneys warned that Ohio’s earmarks of One Time Strategic Community Investment Fund (OTSCIF) grants for facilities of religious schools violates the religious freedom protections in both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions by forcing taxpayers to support religious instruction. AU is urging the state to terminate the grants and refrain from distributing public money to religious schools, or restrict the use of the grants to facilities where religious instruction or activity will not occur.

‘Forcing taxpayers to fund the buildings of private religious schools obliterates religious freedom’

“The separation of church and state guaranteed in our Constitution means that we each get to decide if, when and how to engage with religion. This protects both taxpayers’ religious freedom and the sanctity of religion. By forcing taxpayers to fund the buildings of private religious schools, Ohio is obliterating that promise of religious freedom,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United.

“This is all part of the Christian Nationalist playbook for undermining our public education system: Divert public money to private religious schools while imposing their religious beliefs on public schoolchildren,” Laser said. “Rather than funding private religious schools that can discriminate and indoctrinate, Ohio should focus on providing adequate resources to public schools that welcome and serve all families. Public funds belong in public schools.”

Grants to religious schools are unconstitutional even if the schools are participating in a private school voucher program

AU’s legal analysis notes that the OTSCIF grants to religious schools are unconstitutional even if the schools are participating in a private school voucher program. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case that voucher programs are constitutional because public voucher funds go to families who decide at which schools to use the vouchers. In this grant program, the public money goes directly to private religious schools selected by the state Legislature; families and taxpayers have no choice.

AU is requesting all OBM records and communications, including grant applications, awards, contracts, program rules and other documents, that relate to OTSCIF grants awarded to private schools, as well as applications for the grants from all other educational institutions. Religious schools that reportedly received grant money include Bellefontaine Calvary Christian School, Cornerstone Community School, Holy Trinity Orthodox Christian Academy and Preschool, Mansfield Christian School, St. Edward High School, St. Mary School, Temple Christian School, and Victory Christian School.

The requests are made in the public interest, so that AU and its Ohio members can determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their duties as public servants. AU asked for a response by Oct. 18, 2024.

Oklahoma plans to spend millions on Bibles for public schools

In particular, the organizations are seeking records related to Walters’ announced funding for the mandate, made at a Sept. 26 meeting where the Oklahoma State Board of Education approved a $3 million budget request for the 2025-26 fiscal year “to provide Bibles to the Oklahoma classrooms.” Walters said this “$3 million-dollar ask … would be in conjunction with the $3 million dollars that we’re putting forth currently to provide Bibles in the classroom. So this would give us the ability to utilize $6 million dollars in less than two years to ensure that the Bible hasn’t been driven out of Oklahoma classrooms.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and Freedom From Religion Foundation are requesting that the Oklahoma State Department of Education provide all records of expenditures during the current fiscal year related to the provision of Bibles for Oklahoma public-school classrooms, including communications, contracts, invoices, receipts and payment records. The organizations have asked for a response by Oct. 17, 2024.

Civil-rights coalition requesting additional records on Bible mandate

The organizations on July 26 also requested records relating to Walters’ June 27 directive that all Oklahoma school districts incorporate the Bible “as an instructional support into the curriculum” for grades five through twelve; his July 9 news release about “a complete overhaul” to the state’s social studies standards to “incorporate the introduction of the Bible as an instructional resource”; and the July 24 memorandum disseminated to all school districts providing guidance on the implementation of his Bible-instruction mandate. The State Department of Education has not produced the requested records yet.

The requests are made in the public interest, so that the organizations and their Oklahoma members can determine whether those entrusted with government power are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants.

‘Oklahoma taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll Superintendent Walters’ Christian Nationalist agenda’

“Oklahoma taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll Superintendent Walters’ Christian Nationalist agenda,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “His latest scheme – to mandate use of the Bible in Oklahoma public school curriculum – is a transparent, unlawful effort to indoctrinate and religiously coerce public school students. Not on our watch. Public schools are not Sunday schools.”

Americans United urges any Oklahoma public-school teachers and parents who want to learn more about what they can do to fight Walters’ unlawful and unauthorized Bible-instruction directives to contact AU at americansunited@au.org.

‘Religious institutions should also be concerned that Oklahoma is attempting to supplant their role’

“All Oklahoma students deserve to learn in an inclusive environment free from religious proselytization,” said Megan Lambert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “Not only should taxpayers be concerned that the state is spending millions of dollars of their money on religious texts, but religious institutions should also be concerned that Oklahoma is attempting to supplant their role as a religious authority.”

“Every Oklahoman, whether Christian, nonreligious, or part of a minority religion, should be outraged at Walters’ attempts to push his personal religious beliefs onto other people’s children,” noted FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover. “Mandating the use of bibles in public schools is an extreme abuse of government power.”

‘Public schools are a cornerstone of our democracy and must serve all students’

“Public schools are a cornerstone of our democracy and must serve all students, regardless of faith,” said Dan Mach, Director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Diverting millions of taxpayer dollars to purchase Bibles is nothing more than a blatant attempt to divide Oklahomans along religious lines and undermine the public-school system.”

Transgender health bans discriminate against trans youth

The brief argues that the bans in Tennessee and Kentucky, like those passed in other states, intentionally discriminate against transgender youth by denying them medications that are prescribed for other youth. These laws do not ban these medications for all minors, but only when they are prescribed for transgender minors. As a result of this discriminatory treatment, transgender youth are unable to obtain the only effective treatment for the severe distress caused by gender dysphoria.

“If America is to make good on its promises of freedom without favor and equality without exception, families and their doctors, not politicians, must be able to make health care decisions for transgender youth,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We urge the Court to protect everyone’s right to live as their true selves, free from discrimination or litmus tests, and to access the medical care they need.”

‘Denying treatments to transgender youth is unlawful and heartbreaking’

“The parents challenging these laws have seen firsthand the positive impact appropriate medical care has had on their children’s wellbeing, and the detrimental health impacts their kids experience without it,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director at the ACLU of Kentucky. “Denying these treatments to transgender youth who need them is not only unlawful, it is heartbreaking for parents. We are proud to represent these Kentucky families and will continue to fight for their right to make decisions for their families without government interference.”

“You don’t have to know about transgender health care to know that these bans are not about medicine – they are about discrimination,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “They ban safe, effective and widely available medications only when they are prescribed for transgender adolescents. The discrimination baked into these laws is intentional, clear, and devastating. The Supreme Court in Bostock powerfully affirmed that discriminating against transgender people is sex discrimination. Under that standard, no state can justify denying transgender adolescents essential medical care.”

“Families, not the government, should make decisions about medical care,” said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “These bans target youth whose doctors have determined they need this care and whose parents have made informed decisions about what is best for their own children.”

Established medical treatments are safe, effective, and necessary

The overwhelming consensus among medical professionals is that established medical treatments are safe, effective, and necessary to protect transgender adolescents’ wellbeing. Yet, 26 states have passed laws banning essential medical care for transgender youth.

Across the country, federal district courts have held that bans like those in Tennessee and Kentucky single out transgender youth in order to deny them safe, effective, and well-established medical care. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Sixth Circuit opinion which reversed district court decisions blocking these bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the Tennessee case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, and the U.S. Solicitor General will argue against the ban when the Supreme Court hears the case later this year.

‘Hormone therapy is safe, effective, and can be life-saving’

“Transgender older adults have lived through eras where access to hormone therapy was severely limited or non-existent,” said Aaron Tax, SAGE’s managing director of government affairs and policy advocacy. “Fortunately, today we have evidence-based clinical guidelines that affirm what we now know: hormone therapy is safe, effective, and can be life-saving. Every generation deserves the right to access this vital, gender-affirming care.”

“The National Trans Bar Association endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make clear that denying individuals medically necessary treatment on the basis of their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause,” said Rafael Langer-Osuna, co-chair of the National Trans Bar Association. “The National Trans Bar Association supports the right of all transgender people, regardless of age, to have access to medically necessary gender-affirming care. As transgender and non-binary attorneys and law students, we unequivocally stand with the plaintiffs and with the transgender youth of Tennessee and Kentucky, and condemn these states’ discriminatory attempts to deny their citizens life-saving medical care. We will continue to use our legal training and experience to protect transgender people throughout the U.S. and the world against discriminatory attacks on basic human rights.”

‘We abhor Tennessee and Kentucky’s discriminatory attacks on transgender adolescents’

“BALIF unequivocally supports the right for transgender youth to have access to gender-affirming medical care,” said Dustin Helmer, co-chair of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). “The consequences of denying this right are not only immoral, but often life-threatening. BALIF endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make it clear that bans on medicinal treatment for transgender adolescents violate the Equal Protection Clause. We abhor Tennessee and Kentucky’s discriminatory attacks on transgender adolescents, and we will continue to fight for policies that uplift and provide safety and dignity for transgender people all over the U.S. and world.”

“Transgender young people and their families need access to medically necessary treatment, and they need the Court to recognize their right to determine, with their doctors, what is best for them without unjustifiable and discriminatory government interference,” said Thomas W. Ude, Jr., legal and public policy director at Mazzoni Center.

More than 30 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in opposition of transgender health bans

The Kentucky families’ brief is among over 30 friend-of-the-court briefs being filed today. Bioethicists, medical providers, medical historians, family law professors, additional families in states where care has been banned and more are urging the Supreme Court to rule against bans on essential medical care for transgender adolescents so that families can make the health care decisions that are best for their children.

The clergy plaintiffs are represented by a legal team that includes Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), and Missouri civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman. The team issued the following statement:

‘We’re ready to fight all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court’

“We’re ready to fight all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court to defend reproductive and religious freedom for all Missourians. The state’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive rights. When lawmakers enacted these laws, they made it clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on the entire state. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”

Case Background

The lawsuit, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, was filed in January 2023 on behalf of 13 clergy members whose various faiths call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. Religious traditions represented by the plaintiffs include Baptist, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator.

The faith leader plaintiffs are Rev. Traci Blackmon, Rabbi Doug Alpert, Rev. Jan Barnes, Rabbi Jim Bennett, Rev. Cindy Bumb, Rabbi Andrea Goldstein, Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, Rev. Darryl Gray, Rt. Rev. Deon K. Johnson, Rev. Holly McKissick, Rev. Barbara Phifer, Rabbi Susan Talve, and Rev. Krista Taves. Additional information about the plaintiffs, including photos and remarks, is available here.

Missouri abortion ban enshrines into law lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs

The lawsuit alleges that Missouri’s abortion ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in House Bill No. 126 and Senate Bill 5. One of the provisions of H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.

Lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in one statute that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.” Transcripts and video of several of the legislators’ remarks are available here.

In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Mike Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Director Paula F. Nickelson; multiple county prosecutors; and officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.

Resources

• The most recent order from Judge Sengheiser dismissing the clergy plaintiffs’ claims.
• The lawsuit complaint.
• A media kit including information and photos of the plaintiffs and transcripts of Missouri legislators’ remarks.

Rabbi Merrill Shapiro, president of the Atlantic Coast (Fla.) Chapter of Americans United:

“Florida’s public school children deserve counselors experienced in offering guidance and mental-health services. As hundreds of chaplains themselves have said, chaplains are not qualified to provide those services. Florida’s governor, Legislature and Department of Education should focus on providing public schools with the resources needed to adequately serve all students, rather than advancing laws and policies that will violate students’ and their families’ religious freedom and the constitutional promise of church-state separation.”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United:

“The Florida Department of Education’s ‘model policy’ on public school chaplains is a model of unconstitutionality. It doesn’t include any constitutionally required safeguards for students’ religious freedom – chaplains are not barred from proselytizing students or discriminating against students who don’t share their beliefs. It doesn’t require chaplains to be trained to provide guidance or mental-health counseling to students. In a clear attempt to allow public schools to unlawfully discriminate against chaplains of disfavored religions, the policy attempts to define what the state considers a ‘real’ religion in a way that will exclude many faiths and denominations.

“The policy permits chaplains to provide ‘spiritual guidance’ to students, but that is not the role of public school officials. Public schools are not Sunday schools, and people of faith along with the nonreligious all have a stake in keeping church and state separate. Religious freedom means students and their parents – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide if, when and how to engage with religion. Florida’s public school boards should refuse to implement this, or any, policy on public school chaplains.”

Contact Americans United if public schools implement school chaplains policy

Americans United urges any family whose public school is implementing a school chaplains policy to contact AU at https://www.au.org/report-a-violation.

Earlier this year, AU joined more than 200 individual chaplains, 38 faith groups, and 34 civil rights organizations in speaking out against the public school chaplains bills that were introduced in 15 states in 2024. Only two states – Florida and Louisiana – signed chaplains bills into law. They followed Texas, which implemented a similar law last year.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of Oklahoma, American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice are requesting the Oklahoma State Department of Education to provide records related to three official mandates by Walters:

Records requested relating to three Walters mandates

• On June 27, a directive to all school districts within the state was issued ordering the incorporation of the Bible “as an instructional support into the curriculum” for grades five through twelve.
• Following this action, “a complete overhaul” to the state’s social studies standards and the creation of an Executive Review Committee to oversee those revisions with the purpose to “incorporate the introduction of the Bible as an instructional resource” was announced in an official news release on July 9.
• Finally, on July 24, a memorandum was disseminated to all school districts providing guidance on the implementation of the original directive to incorporate the Bible into classroom instruction.

Under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, the groups are requesting all records related to each event. This includes records created after Jan. 8, 2023, sent or received by Walters or any other official or employee of the Oklahoma State Department of Education related to teaching or using the Bible in public schools, records related to the selection of the Executive Review Committee to oversee the revisions to Oklahoma’s social studies standards as well as all communications with members or prospective members, and records related to funding or paying for the Bible mandate.

The request is made in the public interest, so that the organizations and their Oklahoma members can determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their duties as public servants. The organizations ask that the requested records be provided by Aug. 10, 2024.

‘Unlawful effort to advance Christian Nationalism’

“Public schools are not Sunday schools. Superintendent Walters has repeatedly made clear that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “His latest scheme – to mandate use of the Bible in Oklahoma public school curriculum – is a transparent, unlawful effort to advance Christian Nationalism and indoctrinate and religiously coerce public school students. Not on our watch.”

Americans United urges any Oklahoma families and educators whose school district attempts to implement Walters’ unlawful and unauthorized Bible-instruction directives to contact AU at www.au.org/report-a-violation.

‘All families and students should feel welcome in our public schools’

“All families and students should feel welcome in our public schools,” said Megan Lambert, ACLU of Oklahoma legal director. “Courts have repeatedly ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to ‘coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.’ Oklahoma children have the right to attend public school and to access the full range of school services without having government-sponsored religion imposed on them. Freedom of religion means that parents and faith communities—not politicians—have the right to direct their children’s religious education and development.”

“Ryan Walters lacks the legal authority to order schools to do this,” notes FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “Walters is attempting to compromise students’ education in order to score political points with a narrow set of his Christian Nationalist supporters.”

‘Oklahomans deserve a State Superintendent devoted to quality, unbiased education’

“State Superintendent Ryan Walters has made his agenda in Oklahoma clear: partisan rhetoric, Christian Nationalism, and a national platform to further his political ambitions. S.S. Walters’ track record in actually addressing the real concerns of students and parents is abysmal,” said Colleen McCarty, executive director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. “Oklahomans deserve a State Superintendent who is devoted to providing a quality, accessible, and unbiased education to Oklahoma’s kids rather than unconstitutionally tearing down the wall between church and state.”

“Once again, Ryan Walters is pushing religiously divisive policies to score cheap political points in Oklahoma,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “But decisions about kids’ religious education are best left to families and faith communities, not government bureaucrats.”

Guidelines exceed Ryan Walters’ authority

“Oklahoma’s public school districts, not State Superintendent Ryan Walters, are empowered by state law to establish their own curriculum and select what texts are taught in public schools. Oklahoma families, not politicians pushing a political and religious agenda, should get to decide whether, when and how their children engage with religion.

“Public schools are not Sunday schools. Walters has repeatedly made clear that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference. His latest scheme – to mandate use of the Bible in Oklahoma public school curriculum – is a transparent, unlawful effort to indoctrinate and religiously coerce public school students.

‘This is textbook Christian Nationalism.’

“This is textbook Christian Nationalism. Walters is abusing the power of his public office to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else’s children. Not on our watch. Americans United is ready to step in and protect all Oklahoma public school children and their families from violations of their constitutionally protected religious freedom and other unlawful conduct. We urge any Oklahoma families and educators whose school district attempts to implement Walters’ unlawful and unauthorized guidelines to contact AU at www.au.org/report-a-violation.”

Oklahoma law provides that “[s]chool districts shall exclusively determine the instruction, curriculum, reading lists and instructional materials and textbooks” that are used in public-school classrooms. (Title 70, Section 11-103.6a(F), of the Oklahoma Statutes.) Walters’ Bible-instruction guidelines are plainly prohibited by this statute.

Requirements for teaching Bible in public schools

And a long line of court decisions makes clear that strict constitutional requirements apply when attempting to teach the Bible in public school classrooms. In accordance with the Constitution, public schools may teach about religion but they may not preach any religion. AU has issued “Know Your Rights” guides that explain this in detail.

Study after study shows that when Christian Nationalists push for public school classes focused on the Bible, they fail to meet these constitutional requirements and end up religiously coercing students. Families whose religious freedom has been violated often have no choice but to challenge them in court.

Gabe and Liz Rutan-Ram’s story puts human face on threat Project 2025 poses

In a dramatic new video, backed with digital and print ads, billboards, and more, and centered on Milwaukee this month and Chicago next month, Americans United is helping Liz and Gabe tell their story of the discrimination they experienced and that Project 2025 would inflict on non-Christian and LGBTQ+ parents. The communications campaign puts the human story into the bigger context of the threat Project 2025 poses.

“If Project 2025 can come for us, it can come for anyone,” Gabe Rutan-Ram warns in the video, adding that the Christian Nationalists behind the project are “hellbent on trying to make us second-class citizens.”

“To know Project 2025 recognizes what’s happening and is supporting it, it’s really hard to swallow,” Liz Rutan-Ram added. “It’s an injustice.”

Project 2025 would expand abuse of religious freedom as a license to discriminate

“The Project 2025 architects want to expand the abuse of religious freedom as a license to discriminate to social service agencies, employers, schools, hospitals and many other entities and turn it against countless religious and racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people, women, the nonreligious and other often-marginalized groups. We are all at risk,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “America doesn’t need Project 2025. It needs a national recommitment to the separation of church and state – the antidote that can stop Christian Nationalists.”

Project 2025’s 900-page, 4-pound playbook reflects the agenda of white Christian Nationalists who advance the lie that America was founded as and must remain a Christian nation, and that our laws and policies must ensure that white Christians hold onto power and privilege. Project 2025 includes Christian Nationalist goals of diverting public funds to private religious schools, rolling back the rights of LGBTQ+ people, banning the most accessible form of abortion and limiting reproductive health care, erecting roadblocks to racial justice, and redefining religious freedom as a license to discriminate.

As part of this campaign, Americans United has launched a new website to compile information about Project 2025 and its connections to the billion-dollar shadow network of Christian Nationalist organizations and political powerbrokers seeking to undermine church-state separation, overthrow our democracy and install a theocracy.

Background on Rutan-Ram case

The Rutan-Rams began the process of fostering to adopt a child in 2021, initially seeking to adopt a boy from Florida. They were told they needed to complete Tennessee-mandated foster-parent training and a home-study certification. The couple contacted the only agency in their area that was willing to provide those services for out-of-state placements – Holston Home for Children (then called Holston United Methodist Home for Children).

Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would work with them. But the day the couple was scheduled to start their training, the agency informed the Rutan-Rams it wouldn’t serve them because they are Jewish. Holston said it “only provide[s] adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” Because there was no other agency in the Knox County area that would provide the required training and certification for the adoption of an out-of-state child, the Rutan-Rams were unable to adopt the boy from Florida.

Americans United filed the lawsuit Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services in January 2022 on behalf of the Rutan-Rams and six Tennessee residents (four of them faith leaders) who object to their tax dollars being used to fund religious discrimination in foster care. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville ruled in August 2023 that the plaintiffs have standing – the right to sue. The Tennessee Supreme Court in May 2024 denied the state’s application for review, paving the way for the Rutan-Rams’ case finally to proceed on the merits in the trial court.

More information about the Rutan-Rams’ case is available here.

Urgent need for judicial intervention

Emphasizing the urgent need for judicial intervention, the plaintiffs’ brief supporting their motion explains:

“When students across Louisiana, including the minor-child Plaintiffs, return to school this August, they will be subjected—as early as their first day of school and no later than the Act’s January 1, 2025, compliance deadline—to unavoidable, permanently displayed religious directives such as ‘I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’; ‘Thou shalt not make thyself any graven images.’; ‘Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.’; ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’; and ‘Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'”

Ten Commandments displays will violate longstanding Supreme Court precedent

As argued in the brief, these displays will violate longstanding Supreme Court precedent. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state law, holding that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

The plaintiffs comprise a multi-faith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools. They are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel.

In addition to their motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs also filed today a motion to expedite briefing and the court’s consideration of their injunction request.

‘We are eager to ensure that our family’s religious-freedom rights are protected’

In response to today’s filings, Rev. Darcy Roake, a plaintiff in the case, issued the following statement:

“We are eager to ensure that our family’s religious-freedom rights are protected from day one of the upcoming school year. The Ten Commandments displays required under state law will create an unwelcoming and oppressive school environment for children, like ours, who don’t believe in the state’s official version of scripture. We believe that no child should feel excluded in public school because of their family’s faith tradition, and we are optimistic that the court will grant our motion for a preliminary injunction.”

Signed into law on June 19, 2024, by Gov. Jeff Landry, H.B. 71 requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom on “a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches.” The Commandments must be the “central focus” of the display and “printed in a large, easily readable font.” The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, which is associated with Protestant beliefs, be used for every display. Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on June 24, 2024, alleging in their Complaint that the law violates their rights under the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• On July 1, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, the court’s first post-Roe abortion opinion. The court ruled that many abortion restrictions enacted by Missouri legislators were unconstitutional.
• On July 3, 1919, Missouri became the 11th state to ratify the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote nationwide.
• And just over two years ago, on June 24, 2022, Missouri’s governor and attorney general signed documents making a near-total abortion ban the law of the state – just hours after conservative Supreme Court justices overturned Roe v. Wade.

The legal team representing the clergy plaintiffs — which includes Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), and local civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman — issued the following statement:

“We’re ready to fight all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court to restore Missourians’ reproductive and religious freedom. We respectfully disagree with the circuit court’s decision, which noted that the case ‘presents an extremely difficult question.’ Judge Sengheiser dates the state’s first abortion ban to 1825, and yet acknowledged the ‘historical inequality’ of upholding a total abortion ban based on laws passed when women were still shut out of the electoral and legislative process. Unfortunately this Court’s order recognizes, and yet still perpetuates, these historical inequalities. Earlier this year, when anti-abortion extremists attempted to enforce Arizona’s similarly antiquated 1864 abortion ban, the legislature there repealed it amid tremendous public backlash. 

“Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom. Lawmakers made clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on all Missourians when they enacted these laws. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”

Sengheiser ruled that Missouri’s abortion ban does not violate the church-state provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The ruling means that the clergy plaintiffs’ case cannot proceed in the circuit court.

Case Background

The lawsuit, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, was filed in January 2023 on behalf of 13 clergy members whose various faiths call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. Religious traditions represented by the plaintiffs include Baptist, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator.

The faith leader plaintiffs are Rev. Traci Blackmon, Rabbi Doug Alpert, Rev. Jan Barnes, Rabbi Jim Bennett, Rev. Cindy Bumb, Rabbi Andrea Goldstein, Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, Rev. Darryl Gray, Rt. Rev. Deon K. Johnson, Rev. Holly McKissick, Rev. Barbara Phifer, Rabbi Susan Talve, and Rev. Krista Taves. Additional information about the plaintiffs, including photos and remarks, is available here.

The lawsuit alleges that Missouri’s abortion ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in House Bill No. 126 and Senate Bill 5. One of the provisions of H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.

Lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in one statute that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.” Transcripts and video of several of the legislators’ remarks are available here.

In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Mike Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Director Paula F. Nickelson; and officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts. 

Resources: 

• The June 14, 2024, order from Judge Sengheiser.
• The lawsuit complaint.
• A media kit including information and photos of the plaintiffs and transcripts of Missouri legislators’ remarks.

‘Ryan Walters is incapable of distinguishing between public schools and Sunday schools’

“Public schools are not Sunday schools. Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters has repeatedly made clear that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference and is unfit for office. His latest scheme – to mandate use of the Bible in Oklahoma public schools’ curriculum – is a transparent, unconstitutional effort to indoctrinate and religiously coerce public school students.

“This is textbook Christian Nationalism: Walters is abusing the power of his public office to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else’s children. Not on our watch. Americans United is ready to step in and protect all Oklahoma public school children and their families from constitutional violations of their religious freedom. It won’t be the first time: We’re already facing Walters and other state officials in court to stop the nation’s first religious public charter school.

‘Christian Nationalism is on the march across this country’

“Christian Nationalism is on the march across this country. It’s not just happening in Oklahoma; we’re seeing it from Texas to West Virginia, from Florida to Idaho. Just this week we filed a lawsuit with our allies to stop Louisiana from requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments – something legislators in other states, including Oklahoma, have also proposed. Christian Nationalists and their lawmaker allies want to replace school counselors with religious chaplains; allow teachers and coaches to pray with students; teach Creationism in science classes; and ban books and censor curricula that feature LGBTQ+ people and racial and religious minorities.

“Americans United will do everything in our power to stop Christian Nationalists like Ryan Walters from trampling the religious freedom of public school children and their families. This nation must recommit to our foundational principle of church-state separation before it’s too late. Public education, religious freedom and democracy are all on the line.”

Public schools routinely violate students’ religious freedom when they try to teach the Bible

A long line of court decisions makes clear that strict constitutional requirements apply when attempting to teach the Bible in public school classrooms. In accordance with the Constitution, public schools may teach about religion but they may not preach any religion.

Study after study shows that when Christian Nationalists push for public school classes focused on the Bible, they fail to meet these constitutional requirements and end up religiously coercing students. Families whose religious freedom has been violated often have no choice but to challenge them in court.

Christian Nationalism is based on the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation. Core tenets of that myth appear in Walters’ memo. Walters, a former history teacher, gets his history wrong in the memo launching this plan when he writes that “the Bible had a substantial influence on … the foundational principles of our Constitution.” The records from the Constitutional Convention show the Bible was almost never invoked. The Ten Commandments were never cited.

‘The court has left pregnant patients’ rights in limbo while litigation toils on’

“Today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule definitively that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care to pregnant patients in Idaho and other states with abortion bans. The court has left these patients’ rights in limbo while litigation toils on in the lower courts. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, no one should be denied urgent care because of someone else’s religious views. Every single one of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs.

“The ultra-conservative bloc of the Supreme Court has been advancing the dangerous agenda of Christian Nationalists who want to force us all to live by their narrow beliefs. Overturning Roe v. Wade was just the start. Today’s decision does not halt the emboldened religious extremists who are endangering people’s lives by banning abortion and enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into law.

“The Christian Nationalist Project 2025 agenda, which attacks the right to abortion and contraceptives, LGBTQ+ equality and democracy, not surprisingly includes the goal of taking away EMTALA protections for pregnant patients. We must not let Christian Nationalists win. Our basic freedoms, our lives and the future of our democracy are all at stake. Church-state separation is the antidote to Christian Nationalism. Americans United is calling for a national recommitment to separate church and state.”

AU joined Supreme Court amicus brief

Americans United had joined more than 100 reproductive rights, civil rights, religious and other social justice organizations in an amicus brief that urged the Supreme Court to affirm that EMTALA guarantees everyone the right to emergency medical treatment nationwide, including pregnant people who may require abortion care to stabilize emergency medical conditions. Idaho’s abortion ban directly conflicts with this nearly 40-year-old federal law, endangering the health and lives of pregnant people, especially Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people working to make ends meet and others who already face excessive barriers to health care.

More information about the case is available here.

Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision safeguards public education,  separation of church and state

“The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision safeguards public education and upholds the separation of religion and government. Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school. We will continue our efforts to protect public education and religious freedom, including the separation of church and state.”

Background on OKPLAC lawsuit

The organizations, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, represent faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates who object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, won’t commit to adequately serving students with disabilities, and will indoctrinate students into one religion. These nine Oklahomans and OKPLAC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education, filed their lawsuit, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on July 31, 2023, in the District Court of Oklahoma County.

The plaintiffs in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

A group of the plaintiffs also filed an amicus brief in the Attorney General’s case, Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on Dec. 27. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion incorporates many of the arguments made in that amicus brief.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Sarah Taitz and Jenny Samuels of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources:

• Today’s Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
• The petition in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.
• The amicus brief in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
• Media kit that includes quotes, photos and descriptions of the plaintiffs.

In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and non-religious, assert that the newly enacted statute violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state law, holding that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. No other state requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.

H.B. 71 ‘substantially interferes with and burdens’ parents’ First Amendment rights

The complaint further alleges that H.B. 71 “substantially interferes with and burdens” parents’ First Amendment right to direct their children’s religious education and upbringing, and that, in approving and mandating the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments, the law runs afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition against the government taking sides on questions of theological debate. Moreover, the complaint highlights the religiously coercive nature of the displays mandated by H.B. 71:

“Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every Louisiana public-school classroom–rendering them unavoidable– unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that H.B. 71 requires schools to display—do not belong in their own school community and should refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences.”

Plaintiffs include: Unitarian Universalist minister, Rev. Darcy Roake, her husband Adrian Van Young, and their two children; the Rev. Jeff Simms, a Presbyterian (U.S.A.) minister, and his three children; nonreligious parents Jennifer Harding and Benjamin Owens and their child; Erin and David Hawley and their two children–a Unitarian Universalist family; Dustin McCrory, an atheist, and his three children; Christy Alkire, who is nonreligious, and her child; and Joshua Herlands, who is Jewish and has two elementary-age children.

In connection with today’s filing, plaintiffs in the case issued the following statements:

Reverend Darcy Roake & Adrian Van Young

“As an interfaith family, we strongly value religious inclusion and diversity, and we teach our children that all people are equal and have inherent dignity and worth. The Ten Commandments displays required by this law fly in the face of these values and send a message of religious intolerance. They will not only undermine our ability to instill these values in our children, but they will also help create an unwelcoming and oppressive school environment for children, like ours, who don’t believe in the state’s official version of scripture. We believe that no child should feel excluded in public school because of their family’s faith tradition.”

Reverend Jeff Sims

“By favoring one version of the Ten Commandments and mandating that it be posted in public schools, the government is intruding on deeply personal matters of religion. I believe that it’s critical for my children to receive and understand scripture within the context of our faith, which honors God’s gift of diversity and teaches that all people are equal. This law sends a contrary message of religious intolerance that one denomination or faith system is officially preferable to others, and that those who don’t adhere to it are lesser in worth and status. As a pastor and father, I cannot, in good conscience, sit by silently while our political representatives usurp God’s authority for themselves and trample our fundamental religious-freedom rights.”

Jennifer Harding and Benjamin Owens

“As a nonreligious family, we oppose the government forcibly subjecting our child to a religious scripture that we don’t believe in. The State of Louisiana should not direct a religious upbringing of our child and require students to observe the state’s preferred religious doctrine in every classroom.”

Erin Hawley and David Hawley

“We instill moral and ethical values in our children through positive concepts, such as love and caring for others, not biblical commandments. As Unitarian Universalists, we strongly believe that every person has the right to undertake a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. That cannot happen when the government forces scripture on people, especially children—who are at the beginning of their spiritual journeys.”

Joshua Herlands

“As a parent, an American, and a Jew, I am appalled that state lawmakers are forcing public schools to post a specific version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. These displays distort the Jewish significance of the Ten Commandments and send the troubling message to students that one set of religious laws is favored over all others. Tolerance is at the heart of our family’s practice of Judaism, and this effort to evangelize students, including my children, is antithetical to our core religious beliefs and our values as Americans.”

In connection with today’s filing, the civil-rights organizations representing the plaintiffs issued the following statements:

‘All across the country, Christian Nationalists are seeking to infiltrate our public schools’

“This lawsuit is necessary to protect the religious freedom of Louisiana public schoolchildren and their families,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Not just in Louisiana, but all across the country, Christian Nationalists are seeking to infiltrate our public schools and force everyone to live by their beliefs. Not under our watch. Secular, inclusive public schools that welcome all students regardless of their belief system form the backbone of our diverse and religiously pluralistic communities. This nation must recommit to our foundational principle of church-state separation before it’s too late. Public education, religious freedom and democracy are all on the line.”

‘This law is a disturbing abuse of power by state officials’

“This law is a disturbing abuse of power by state officials,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Louisiana law requires children to attend school so they can be educated, not evangelized. In bringing today’s lawsuit, we intend to make sure that Louisiana public schools remain welcoming to all students, regardless of their faith.”

‘Public schools are not Sunday schools’

“By filing this lawsuit, Louisianans clap back and let the Governor know he can’t use religion as a cover for repression,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Public schools are not Sunday schools. We must protect the individual right of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles; the ten commandments are not.”

‘We look forward to protecting the constitutional rights of all families in Louisiana’

“A state may not force religion upon a captive audience of young and impressionable students with varying religions — or none at all,” said FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “We look forward to protecting the constitutional rights of all families in Louisiana.”

Jon Youngwood, Global Co-Chair of the Litigation Department at Simpson Thacher, added, “As the Complaint states, Louisiana’s law inhibits our clients’ First Amendment rights to choose whether and how they engage with religious doctrines. We look forward to expeditiously presenting this case to the district court for a speedy resolution.”

H.B. 71 requires schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom

Signed into law earlier today by Gov. Jeff Landry, H.B. 71 requires schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom on “a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches.” The Commandments must be the “central focus” of the display and “printed in a large, easily readable font.” The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, which has been dictated by the state legislature, be used for every display. Displays that depart from this state-sanctioned version of scripture would violate Louisiana law.

The law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state statute, holding that the First Amendment bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. No other state requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.

The displays mandated by H.B. 71 will result in unconstitutional religious coercion of students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-sponsored religious messages. They will also send a chilling message to students and families who do not follow the state’s preferred version of the Ten Commandments that they do not belong, and are not welcome, in our public schools.

“We are preparing a lawsuit to challenge H.B. 71.”

In response to the passage of H.B. 71, the groups intending to challenge the law issued the following joint statement:

“We are preparing a lawsuit to challenge H.B. 71. The law violates the separation of church and state and is blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.

“Louisiana’s communities and public schools are religiously diverse, yet H.B. 71 would require school officials to promote specific religious beliefs to which people of many faiths, and those of no faith, do not subscribe. Even among those who may believe in some version of the Ten Commandments, the particular text that they adhere to can differ by religious denomination or tradition. The government should not be taking sides in this theological debate, and it certainly should not be coercing students to submit day in and day out to unavoidable promotions of religious doctrine.

“All students should feel safe and welcome in our public schools. H.B. 71 would undermine this critical goal and prevent schools from providing an equal education to all students, regardless of faith. We will not allow Louisiana lawmakers to undermine these religious-freedom rights.”

Papers concluding Janny’s case based on a settlement agreement that awards $100,000 in monetary damages to Janny were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Janny v. Gamez. The agreement was reached with the Colorado Department of Corrections to settle the case brought against Janny’s parole officer, John Gamez. Gamez violated Janny’s First Amendment religious-freedom rights in 2015 when he sent Janny back to jail for refusing to participate in worship services, Bible studies, and religious counseling mandated by Gamez.

‘This is a victory for Mark Janny and for religious freedom.’

Rachel K. Laser, CEO and president at Americans United: “This is a victory for Mark Janny and for religious freedom. Our country’s fundamental principle of church-state separation guarantees that everyone has the right to believe as they choose, so long as they don’t harm others. Jailing someone for refusing to attend worship services and to engage in Bible study is not religious freedom – it’s religious coercion.”

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: “The government presented Mr. Janny with an unconstitutional dilemma: Go to church, or go to jail. The First Amendment squarely prohibits such religious coercion, and we’re pleased that this settlement helps vindicate Mr. Janny’s religious liberty.”

Janny was required him to live at a Christian homeless shelter

When Mark Janny was on parole in February 2015, Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Officer John Gamez required him to live at the Denver Rescue Mission, a Christian homeless shelter that offers religious programming for parolees and other residents. Gamez had an arrangement with the Mission’s director to place parolees there, with the understanding that they would take part in compulsory religious worship and practice.

Janny, an atheist, objected to the mandatory worship services, Bible studies, and religious counseling, and he asked to be excused from religious programming or to be permitted to live elsewhere. Gamez and the Mission’s staff refused Janny’s request, threatening him with reimprisonment if he did not continue living at the Mission and did not agree to participate in the required religious activities.

Janny was incarcerated for another five months

When Janny ultimately declined to attend worship services, Gamez had him arrested and initiated parole revocation proceedings. As a result, Janny was incarcerated for another five months.

Janny filed a federal lawsuit, asserting violations of his First Amendment rights; he represented himself at the district court level. After the district court wrongly dismissed his case, Americans United, the ACLU, and DLA Piper stepped in to represent him in an appeal, which was filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2020. In Aug. 2021, the 10th Circuit ruled in Janny’s favor, allowing his case to proceed. In Nov. 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that Janny was entitled to seek certain categories of damages, including compensatory damages for the alleged constitutional violations and punitive damages. Prior to the settlement agreement, the case had been scheduled to go to trial in July.

Janny’s appeal and the proceedings on remand have been litigated by Charles Wayne and Nicole Kozlowski of DLA Piper, Alex Luchenitser of Americans United, and Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU.

More information about the case is available here.

‘I’m thrilled that super talents like Mari and Rebecca are joining the Americans United team’

“With White Christian Nationalism on the rise and church-state separation under threat like never before, I’m thrilled that super talents like Mari and Rebecca are joining the Americans United team,” said Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United. “Rebecca has extensive experience successfully defending church-state separation in the courts, Mari has an impressive resume of program-coordination, litigation and civil liberties work, and both share AU’s commitment to leading a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. I welcome them to the growing AU community. It’s a critical time to unite Americans of all beliefs with the nonreligious to defend this foundational Constitutional principle.”

About Mariko Hirose

As AU’s first Chief Program Officer, Mari Hirose will oversee and coordinate the organization’s program strategies, including Legal, Public Policy, Communications, Outreach and Engagement, and the Legal Academy. Prior to joining AU, Hirose served as the U.S. Litigation Director at the International Refugee Assistance Project, where she founded the organization’s impact litigation department and led several program coordination efforts.

“I am honored to join AU at a time when white Christian Nationalism is threatening so many of the civil rights and liberties that I have been fighting for—from racial justice, gender equality, reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights, to immigrants’ rights,” Hirose said. “The United States’ beauty lies in the multitude of beliefs and lived experiences of its people, and church-state separation will secure a more just and humane future for all of us.”

About Rebecca Markert

Rebecca Markert comes to AU from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, where she was the Legal Director of a team of attorneys for 15 years. Markert is also a co-host and creator of the “We Dissent” podcast, a popular monthly podcast featuring secular women attorneys discussing religious liberty and church-state separation. Americans United now joins FFRF and American Atheists in sponsoring the podcast.

“I’m thrilled to join AU at a time when protecting the principle of church-state separation is more important than ever. AU’s legal team has always been the experts in this field and I’m honored to be leading the department as we work to achieve AU’s mission: to fight for and build a country where we have freedom without favor and equality without exception,” Markert said.

Additional biographical information

Prior to IRAP, Hirose worked at the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, and the workers’ rights law firm Outten & Golden LLP. She has taught at the New York University School of Law and Fordham School of Law, and her writings have appeared in the New York Law Journal, Stanford Law Review Online, and Connecticut Law Review. Hirose graduated from Stanford Law School and clerked for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She holds a Certificate in Strategic Management from the Georgetown University School of Continuing Education.

Before dedicating her career to church-state separation, Markert worked for then-U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold both in his legislative office in Washington, D.C., and in his campaign office in Madison, Wisc. Markert received her B.A. in political science, international relations, and German from the University of Wisconsin and received her J.D. from Roger Williams University School of Law. She currently serves as a program chair for the Madison Lawyers’ Chapter of the American Constitution Society. Markert is also the board secretary of Pregnancy After Loss Support (PALS) and a contributing writer to PALS’ online magazine. She formerly served as the president for the Legal Association for Women in Madison, WI.

Hirose’s full bio and photo are available here. Markert’s full bio and photo can be found here.

‘We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri’

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, and will be discussing next steps with our faith leader clients. Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom. Missouri lawmakers made clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on all Missourians when they enacted these laws. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”

The clergy plaintiffs from seven diverse denominations are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the law firm Arnold & Porter, and local civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman.

Sengheiser ruled that Missouri’s abortion ban does not violate the church-state provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The ruling means that the clergy plaintiffs’ case cannot proceed in the circuit court. The plaintiffs have a right to appeal Sengheiser’s ruling or to ask him to reconsider it. In June 2023, Sengheiser had denied the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and had thereby then allowed the clergy to move forward with their challenges to the abortion ban and several other restrictions on abortion access.

Case Background

The lawsuit, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, was filed in January 2023 on behalf of 14 members of the clergy whose various faiths call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. Religious traditions represented by the plaintiffs include Baptist, Episcopalian, Orthodox Judaism, United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator.

The faith leader plaintiffs are Rev. Traci Blackmon, Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, Rabbi Doug Alpert, Rev. Jan Barnes, Rabbi Jim Bennett, Rev. Cindy Bumb, Rabbi Andrea Goldstein, Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, Rev. Darryl Gray, Rt. Rev. Deon K. Johnson, Rev. Holly McKissick, Rev. Barbara Phifer, Rabbi Susan Talve, and Rev. Krista Taves.

The lawsuit alleges that Missouri’s abortion ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in House Bill No. 126 and Senate Bill 5. One of the provisions of H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.

Lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in one bill that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.”

In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson; and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.

Resources

• Today’s decision from Judge Sengheiser.
• A copy of the lawsuit complaint.
• More information about the lawsuit.

‘Today, religious extremists suffered a setback’

“Today, religious extremists suffered a setback in their quest to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny standing to anti-abortion activists and leave in place the FDA’s approval of mifepristone is not only a welcome victory for abortion access, but also for the separation of church and state. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. ”

“This mifepristone case was a textbook example of how Christian Nationalist groups manufacture these cases in an effort to strip people’s rights. Alliance Defending Freedom brought this case before a friendly judge, who previously worked for First Liberty Institute. ADF was supported by a slew of anti-abortion organizations, from Family Research Council to American Center for Law and Justice.

“Even as we celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision today, we know reproductive rights remain at risk across the country, thanks in large part to the ultra-conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. It’s on the Project 2025 agenda to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone, among many other attacks on abortion, contraceptives, LGBTQ+ equality and democracy. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

AU had joined brief urging SCOTUS to protect access to mifepristone

Americans United joined nearly 240 reproductive rights, civil rights, religious and other social justice organizations in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect access to mifepristone. The brief stressed that more than 20 years of evidence supported the FDA’s conclusion that medication abortion with mifepristone is safe and effective. The groups asserted that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unprecedented decision to severely restrict access to mifepristone imperils the health and safety of millions of people.

More information about the case is available here.

“We applaud Reps. Huffman, Lieu, Barragán, Chu, Pocan, DeGette, Raskin, and Jayapal for forming a task force to combat Project 2025, an existential threat to American democracy. Project 2025 is a detailed playbook for restructuring the federal government in order to accomplish the policy goals of Christian Nationalists, including banning abortion and restricting birth control access, rolling back LGBTQ+ rights and erasing marriage equality, eliminating the Department of Education and diverting public funds to private religious schools, and redefining religious freedom as a license to discriminate. If we allow Project 2025 to be implemented, Christian Nationalists will trample the wall of church-state separation and upend our democracy. We must fight this un-American agenda and all the ways Christian Nationalists are trying to impose their narrow religious beliefs on all of us.”

‘This abortion ban violates Indiana’s promise of religious freedom’

“This abortion ban violates Indiana’s promise of religious freedom by enshrining legislators’ religious beliefs into law,” said Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United. “If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. Abortion bans are a direct attack on church-state separation. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

In an amicus brief filed today in Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, AU and its allies explain: “Indiana legislators sought to impose their religious beliefs about when life begins on all Hoosiers by enacting S.E.A. 1. The abortion ban thus threatens the state’s healthy religious pluralism, compounds the threat of religiously based strife, and increases the already substantial mistrust of our political institutions by miring them in theological matters that they are not empowered to resolve.”

Religious freedom and civil rights groups join AU’s brief

Joining Americans United on the brief are Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community Churches; Interfaith Alliance Foundation; Men of Reform Judaism; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; The Sikh Coalition; Union for Reform Judaism; and Women of Reform Judaism.

Judge Ogden denies nearly all of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case

During a hearing today, Judge Richard Ogden of the District Court of Oklahoma County issued a new ruling in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, denying nearly all of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case.

The OKPLAC plaintiffs are represented by AU, the ACLU, ELC and FFRF, as well as by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann. The organizations issued the following statement:

“We’re pleased that the Court will allow our plaintiffs’ case to proceed. Oklahoma law is clear: Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and welcome all students. Oklahoma taxpayers, including our plaintiffs, should not be forced to financially support St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, which plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. Our lawsuit aims to protect public education, the separation of church and state, and all Oklahomans’ religious freedom by preventing St. Isidore from receiving state funds or operating as a public charter school.”

Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction still pending

Still pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction to prevent St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School from operating and receiving state funds as a public charter school. In a motion filed last Friday, the plaintiffs explained to the court the importance of ensuring that no taxpayer money funds St. Isidore and that the school does not open as a public charter school during the 2024-25 school year while litigation is ongoing in their case and in a similar lawsuit filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. St. Isidore is, and has always been, free to open as a private religious school that taxpayers would not be forced to support.

Background

AU, ACLU, ELC and FFRF, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, represent nine Oklahomans and OKPLAC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education, in the lawsuit OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, filed on July 31, 2023, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The plaintiffs object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, will not commit to adequately serving students with disabilities, and will indoctrinate students into one religion.

The plaintiffs include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Sarah Taitz and Jenny Samuels of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources

• Motion for temporary injunction.
• Amended petition.
• Media kit that includes quotes, photos and descriptions of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs: St. Isidore can’t open as public charter school while litigation is ongoing

The plaintiffs explained to the court the importance of ensuring that no taxpayer money funds St. Isidore and that the school does not open as a public charter school during the 2024-25 school year while litigation is ongoing in their case, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, as well as in a similar lawsuit filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. St. Isidore is, and has always been, free to open as a private religious school that taxpayers would not be forced to support.

The OKPLAC plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, as well as by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann. The organizations issued the following statement:

‘Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students.’

“Oklahoma’s public schools must remain free from discrimination and religious indoctrination. And Oklahoma taxpayers, including our plaintiffs, should not be forced to financially support a religion that many of them do not share. The law is clear, and we’re hopeful the courts will soon agree: Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students.

“Nothing prevents St. Isidore from operating as a private religious school. But because St. Isidore plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, it cannot operate as a public charter school. To protect public education, the separation of church and state, and all Oklahomans’ religious freedom, it’s crucial that the court prevent the state from funding St. Isidore and recognizing it as a public charter school until decisions have been reached in the cases brought by our plaintiffs and the attorney general.”

Background

AU, ACLU, ELC and FFRF, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, represent nine Oklahomans and OKPLAC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education, in the lawsuit OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, filed on July 31, 2023, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The plaintiffs object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, won’t commit to adequately serving students with disabilities, and will indoctrinate students into one religion.

The plaintiffs include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Sarah Taitz and Jenny Samuels of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources

• Motion for temporary injunction.
• Amended petition.
• Media kit that includes quotes, photos and descriptions of the plaintiffs.
• More information about the case is available here.

“The Appeal to Heaven flag that flew at Justice Alito’s vacation home is the flag of the Christian Nationalist movement in America, the endpoint of which is nothing less than the toppling of our democracy. Christian Nationalists believe that the United States should be a Christian theocracy. Insurrectionists carried the flag when they attacked the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Partisan politicians – like U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, and Pennsylvania state Senator and failed gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano – fly this flag to announce their sympathies to fellow Christian Nationalists.

“That this partisan Christian Nationalist flag flew at the beach house of a Supreme Court justice raises serious questions about impartiality and the fair administration of justice at the nation’s highest court. Congress must hold hearings to assure the American people that Justice Alito will honor his oath of office and put the Constitution first, before the tenets of the Christian Nationalist movement.”

Rutan-Rams turned away by Holston United Methodist Home for Children

Americans United filed the lawsuit, Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, in January 2022 on behalf of Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, who sought to adopt a child. Because Liz and Gabe aren’t Christian, they were turned away by Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a state-funded agency that provides foster care placement, training and other services on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville ruled in August 2023 that the Rutan-Rams have standing – the right to sue – as prospective foster parents and as taxpayers. This decision reversed a ruling by a state trial court that the Rutan-Rams had no right to sue. In October 2023, the state asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied the state’s application for review on Thursday, paving the way for the Rutan-Rams’ case finally to proceed on the merits in the trial court.

‘Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram suffered outrageous discrimination because they are Jewish’

“Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram suffered outrageous discrimination because they are Jewish,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “This loving couple wanted to help a child in need, only to be told they wouldn’t be served by a taxpayer-funded agency because they’re the wrong religion. Liz and Gabe deserve their day in court, and Americans United intends to see that they get it. The constitutional promise of church-state separation means that the state can’t allow religious freedom to be weaponized and used as a license to discriminate.”

The Tennessee Court of Appeals had additionally ruled that six Tennessee taxpayers who joined the Rutan-Rams as plaintiffs also have the right to sue. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case allows these six taxpayers to proceed as plaintiffs in the trial court as well. The six other plaintiffs are Rev. Jeannie Alexander, Rev. Elaine Blanchard, Rev. Alaina Cobb, Rev. Denise Gyauch, Dr. Larry Blanz and Mirabelle Stoedter. They joined the suit because they object to their tax dollars being used to fund religious discrimination in foster care.

Rutan-Ram case background

The Rutan-Rams began the process of fostering to adopt a child in 2021, initially seeking to adopt a child from Florida. They were told they needed to complete Tennessee-mandated foster-parent training and a home-study certification. The couple contacted the only agency in their area that was willing to provide those services for out-of-state placements – Holston.

Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would work with them. But the day that the Rutan-Rams were scheduled to start their training, the agency informed the couple it wouldn’t serve them because they are Jewish. Holston said it “only provide[s] adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” Because there was no other agency in the Knox County area that would provide the foster-parent training and certification for the adoption of an out-of-state child, the Rutan-Rams were unable to adopt the boy from Florida.

Tennessee Dept. of Children’s Services violating state constitution

In addition to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, the lawsuit also names the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services as a defendant. The suit explains that the department and its commissioner are violating the religious-freedom and equal-protection guarantees in Articles I and XI of the Tennessee Constitution by funding religious discrimination in foster care services.

The August 2023 opinion of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the June 2022 ruling of a state trial-court panel. The appeals court agreed with Americans United, which argued that the Rutan-Rams have standing to sue because they continue to face religious discrimination by Holston and other taxpayer-funded, religiously affiliated foster care agencies in the state. They therefore lack access to the same services available to Christians, and they continue to suffer the stigma that discrimination inflicts on its victims.

Attorneys working on the case include Americans United Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser, Americans United Litigation Fellow Sarah Taitz, and Scott Kramer of The Kramer Law Center.

More information about the case is available here. A photo of Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram is available here.

“U.S. commissioners appointed to protect worldwide religious freedom should advance religious freedom for all. Former U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler has a demonstrated record of doing the opposite – advancing Christian Nationalism and weaponizing religious freedom as a license to discriminate. She’s the wrong choice for this honor,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Hartzler can’t condemn religious freedom violations in other countries when she doesn’t support true religious freedom in her own country.

“Sadly, it’s just one more example of Speaker Johnson using his position of power to impose his personal religious beliefs on the country, and now the world. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state to protect our democracy and ensure freedom without favor and equality without exception for all.”

Hartzler’s nephew, AU Youth Organizing Fellow Andrew Hartzler, disappointed by appointment

Joining Laser in criticizing Hartzler’s appointment is Andrew Hartzler of Missouri, a Youth Organizing Fellow at Americans United and Vicky Hartzler’s nephew. After then-Rep. Vicky Hartzler notoriously wept on the House floor in 2022 as she protested LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality during passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, Andrew Hartzler created a poignant, viral TikTok video that explained he’d recently come out as gay to his aunt and criticized her attempts to “force your religious beliefs onto everyone else.”

“My aunt is a Christian Nationalist who believes the government, laws, and machinery of the state should impose her version of conservative Christianity on to everyone else, regardless of their religion or lack thereof,” Andrew Hartzler said in response to Vicky Hartzler’s appointment. “In her ideal country – a Christian nation – LGBTQ+ equality, abortion rights, true religious freedom, and so much more would be impossible. There can be no religious freedom until we as a nation recommit to separating church and state.”

“Recognition in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall is a unique honor that should be reserved for those who most purely embody our American ideals of freedom and equality for all. The late Rev. Billy Graham – with his history of advancing Christian Nationalism, making antisemitic statements, crusading against LGBTQ+ equality and a less-than-stellar record on civil rights for Black Americans – does not deserve this honor.

“North Carolina officials were right to remove the statue of a white supremacist from the U.S. Capitol. But we should not swap one divisive, exclusionary figure for another; two wrongs don’t make a right.

“Speaker Mike Johnson should remember that the U.S. Capitol is the People’s House – a potent symbol of American democracy and its constitutional promise of church-state separation. The Capitol is not Johnson’s personal church, but he’s blurring the line by relocating the National Prayer Breakfast to Statuary Hall and now presiding over the installation of a statue to honor a controversial Christian pastor.

“We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state to protect our democracy and ensure freedom without favor and equality without exception under the law.”

‘No one should have to give up their religious freedom in order to access critical services’

“This is a victory for religious freedom and the millions of often vulnerable and marginalized people who use government-funded social services. Our constitutional promise of church-state separation means that no one should have to give up their religious freedom in order to access critical services,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “No one should ever be pressured to participate in religious activities or be required to meet a religious litmus test in exchange for the help they need. We applaud the Biden administration for restoring these protections. While there is more work to be done, these are important steps on the path toward a country that promises freedom without favor and equality without exception.”

“Democracy Forward applauds the Biden Administration’s new rules, which restore protections from religious discrimination and make it easier for people and communities to access essential social services,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Religious freedom is a cornerstone of our democracy and these new rules are vital in correcting the injustices from the final days of the Trump administration. The hard work of all of our partners in this lawsuit helped bring about this necessary and meaningful change in policy.”

“These new rules will greatly help improve life further for secular Americans,” said Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “They are a win for true religious liberty!”

New Biden administration rules reinstate religious-freedom protections in social services

The Biden administration rules, which took effect at the beginning of April, replace Trump administration policies that stripped away religious freedom protections from people who use government-funded social services. Importantly, the new regulations reinstate the requirement that people seeking services be informed of their religious freedom rights, which include that they can’t be discriminated against because of their religion or because they are nonreligious; they can’t be required to pray or participate in religious activities; and they can file a complaint if their rights are violated.

The new rules also reinstate safeguards that ensure that people who obtain social services through vouchers are not forced to attend or participate in religious activities. The Biden rules additionally eliminate Trump-era provisions that were designed to allow social service providers to refuse to provide key services and that were intended to open the door to discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs.

Lawsuit filed to challenge Trump-era regulations

On Jan. 19, 2021, Americans United for Separation of Church and State partnered with Democracy Forward and Lambda Legal to file a lawsuit challenging the Trump regulations. The lawsuit, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger v. HHS, alleged that in putting forth the harmful regulations, the Trump administration provided no reasonable explanation for the rule change, failed to account for its harms, and failed to consider obvious alternatives to the changes – all in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Litigation had been on hold while the Biden administration finalized its new rules, and the case is now being dropped by the plaintiffs.

“No one should be denied emergency medical care because of someone else’s beliefs”

“No one in America should be denied emergency medical care because of someone else’s beliefs. Our Constitution’s promise of church-state separation means that all of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs.

“Abortion is a fundamental right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. But religious extremists in Idaho and across the nation are violating the separation of church and state by banning abortion and enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. We knew that the end of Roe signaled the beginning of a new wave of attacks on abortion rights and reproductive health care. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

AU joined more than 100 organizations in amicus brief to SCOTUS

Americans United joined more than 100 reproductive rights, civil rights, religious and other social justice organizations in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm that EMTALA guarantees everyone the right to emergency medical treatment nationwide, including pregnant people who may require abortion care to stabilize emergency medical conditions. Idaho’s abortion ban directly conflicts with this nearly 40-year-old federal law, endangering the health and lives of pregnant people, especially Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people working to make ends meet and others who already face excessive barriers to health care.

The brief was spearheaded by the National Women’s Law Center. Other organizations joining the brief include American Federation of Teachers, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, National Education Association, National LGBTQ Task Force, People For the American Way Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) and many others. A full list of organizations is available here.

More information about the case is available here.

In an amicus brief filed Thursday in the case Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creations, Americans United and allies explained that the state’s anti-discrimination law requiring businesses to treat customers equally does not violate constitutional religious freedom protections. The brief explains that the Unruh Act protects not only LGBTQ+ people from discrimination, but also religious minorities and customers with other protected characteristics, such as race, sex, age and ability.

“Everyone should have equal access to goods and services, regardless of who they love”

“In America, everyone should have equal access to goods and services, regardless of who they love, who they are, how they worship, or what they look like,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Our Constitution’s promise of church-state separation means that religious freedom cannot be turned into a license to discriminate.

“Christian Nationalists are trying to drag this country back to the days when people from marginalized communities were forced to go door to door because businesses displayed signs like ‘No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish.’ Decades ago we as a society agreed that when a business decides to open its doors to the public, it must be open to all. If religious extremists are successful in getting the courts to allow religiously motivated discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, that license to discriminate could harm other vulnerable communities too.

“We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state if we’re to save our democracy and ensure freedom without favor and equality without exception under the law.”

About AU’s brief in Cathy’s Creations case

Organizations joining AU’s brief include Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Global Justice Institute; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; and Sikh Coalition. The brief was authored by AU Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard and AU Legal Fellow Jenny Samuels.

“The court rightly found that Indiana’s abortion ban cannot override religious freedom protections in Indiana law. As we told the court, abortion bans undermine religious freedom by imposing one religious viewpoint on all of us. Abortion bans are a direct attack on the separation of church and state.

“If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

Judge L. Mark Bailey, the presiding judge of the first district Court of Appeals of Indiana, wrote a concurring opinion that cited several church-state provisions of the Indiana Constitution, including that “[n]o preference shall be given, by law, to any creed.” He observed, “Yet in this post-Dobbs world, our Legislature has done just that – preferred one creed over another” by taking a position on the question of when life begins. 

This is the argument Americans United, joined by 14 religious and civil-rights organizations, raised in an amicus brief in the case. We urged the court to protect religious freedom by affirming an injunction against a state abortion ban that imposes legislators’ religious views on all Hoosiers, in violation of the religious-freedom protections in the Indiana Constitution. The brief was authored by Interim Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser and Steven Gey Constitutional Litigation Fellow Kalli A. Joslin.

Judge Bailey wrote, “where theologians cannot agree, legislators are ill-equipped to define when life begins.” He also connected the protections of church-state separation to religious freedom and abortion rights:

“Legislators, an overwhelming majority of whom have not experienced childbirth, nevertheless dictate that virtually all pregnancies in this State must proceed to birth notwithstanding the onerous burden upon women and girls. They have done so not based upon science or viability but upon a blanket assertion that they are the protectors of ‘life’ from the moment of conception. In my view, this is an adoption of a religious viewpoint held by some, but certainly not all, Hoosiers. The least that can be expected is that the remaining Hoosiers of child bearing ability will be given the opportunity to act in accordance with their own consciences and religious creeds.”

More information about the case is available here.

AU’s amicus brief: EMTALA guarantees everyone the right to emergency medical treatment

In an amicus brief filed today in the consolidated cases Moyle v. U.S. and Idaho v. U.S., Americans United and allied groups stressed that EMTALA guarantees everyone the right to emergency medical treatment nationwide, including pregnant people who may require abortion care to stabilize emergency medical conditions. Idaho’s abortion ban directly conflicts with this nearly 40-year-old federal law, endangering the health and lives of pregnant people, especially Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people working to make ends meet and others who already face excessive barriers to health care.

The brief was spearheaded by the National Women’s Law Center. Other organizations joining the brief include American Federation of Teachers, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, National Education Association, National LGBTQ Task Force, People For the American Way Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) and many others. A full list of organizations is available here.

AU’s Laser: No one should be denied care because of someone else’s beliefs

“No one in America should be denied emergency medical care because of someone else’s beliefs,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Our Constitution’s promise of church-state separation means that all of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs.

“Abortion is a fundamental right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. But religious extremists in Idaho and across the nation are violating the separation of church and state by banning abortion and enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. We knew that the end of Roe signaled the beginning of a new wave of attacks on abortion rights and reproductive health care. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

More information about the case is available here.

“Religious extremists today have gained traction in their quest to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. Overturning Roe was just a start; now they are attempting to overturn a federal agency’s approval of mifepristone, a safe and effective drug used in medication abortions and miscarriage management.

Mifepristone case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist groups

“This mifepristone case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist groups that are part of a well-funded and politically connected shadow network that is working to undermine church-state separation and our democracy. Alliance Defending Freedom brought the case. First Liberty Institute is the former employer of the federal district judge who ruled against mifepristone access in the case, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. A slew of anti-abortion organizations filed briefs supporting the ban, from Family Research Council to American Center for Law and Justice to Advancing American Freedom.

“If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

AU joined amicus brief supporting mifepristone access

Americans United joined nearly 240 reproductive rights, civil rights, religious and other social justice organizations in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect access to mifepristone. The brief stresses that more than 20 years of evidence supports the FDA’s conclusion that medication abortion with mifepristone is safe and effective. The groups assert that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unprecedented decision to severely restrict access to mifepristone imperils the health and safety of millions of people.

“Abortion is a fundamental right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom,” Laser added. “Mifepristone plays a key role in ensuring equal access to abortion, especially for those who face excessive barriers to health care. The Fifth Circuit’s unconscionable decision to severely restrict access to mifepristone despite the FDA’s approval ignores long-established science, sound medical guidance and FDA expertise – in order to advance the agenda of religious extremists seeking to ban all abortions and force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs.”

More information about the case is available here.

Garrick experienced rampant sex discrimination at Moody Bible Institute

Soon after Moody Bible hired Garrick in 2014 she began experiencing and witnessing rampant sex discrimination. She was denied benefits offered to her male counterparts and directed to teach a heavier course load than them. She was also subjected to demeaning and hostile behavior: male colleagues critiqued her clothing, openly ridiculed her and questioned the ability of women to complete basic tasks. Garrick also saw that female students suffered sex discrimination on campus – they were ostracized because of their sexuality and publicly humiliated.

When Garrick tried to protect herself and her students, the college made it worse. She was denied a promotion for which she was qualified. Her supervisors began fictionalizing poor performance reviews in an effort to push her out. And when that failed, Moody Bible argued that Garrick’s views on gender equity (which the college was aware of when she was hired) made her incompatible with the school, which has religious views that call for the subordination of women in certain respects. Meanwhile, several male employees who shared Garrick’s egalitarian views and joined her in speaking out against sexism on Moody Bible’s campus faced none of the harassment or retaliation directed at Garrick.

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Garrick’s case can proceed

Garrick filed a federal Title VII lawsuit alleging sex discrimination after Moody Bible fired her in 2017. The U.S. District Court in Illinois in 2020 denied Moody Bible’s motion to dismiss Garrick’s case. Moody Bible appealed; on Monday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and paved the way for the case to proceed. Now, Garrick gets to litigate the case and attempt to vindicate her rights.

“The court’s decision today is a win for the rule of law and a critical step in our fight to stop the weaponization of religious freedom,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Janay Garrick was fired because she tried to combat rampant sex discrimination at the college. Our courts should not allow religious freedom to be distorted as a license to discriminate against women and deny them basic civil rights.

“This case brings to light a dangerous trend: backed by a shadowy network of conservative legal activists, religious employers are urging courts to rewrite the rules of legal procedure so that they can weaponize religious freedom against their employees. Americans United is not going to let that happen. We’re fighting to protect all workers and prevent these groups from sidestepping civil-rights laws.”

Garrick’s appeal was argued by Americans United Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard. Garrick’s legal team also includes or included AU Litigation Fellow Jenny Samuels, former AU Litigation Fellow Gabriela Hybel, and Jamie S. Franklin of the Civil Litigation Clinic of the Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Resources

• The opinion from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
• More information about Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute.

“We are still learning more about the death of Nex Benedict, but the finding of suicide does not absolve Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters or Chaya Raichik of their culpability.

“During his tenure, Walters has fostered an environment that embraces Christian Nationalism and is hostile to 2SLGBTQIA+ people and others. Walters has divided the schoolchildren of Oklahoma according to his personal religious beliefs, favoring some and alienating and persecuting others.

Walters appointed Chaya Raichik of anti-LGBTQ+ Libs of TikTok to ban books

“Walters appointed Raichik, an unqualified internet bully, to ban books and oversee school safety. Raichik runs the Libs of TikTok social media accounts that are known for attacking LGBTQ+ people and once smeared the Trevor Project, a LGBTQ+ youth suicide-prevention service, as a ‘grooming organization.’

“Following Nex’s death, Walters callously said: ‘There’s not multiple genders. There’s two. That’s how God created us.’ Walters worked to approve the nation’s first religious public school, which will discriminate against 2SLGBTQIA+ students, forcing Americans United to sue. Just last month, in a flagrant display of Christian Nationalism, Walters prayed before a captive audience of second-graders at Riverside Elementary School when he was supposed to be reading a book for story time.

“The framers of our Constitution understood that separating church and state was necessary for an inclusive, pluralistic democracy. It’s no coincidence that as the tide of White Christian Nationalism has been rising, our country has been more divided – and violent – than ever.

Walters and Raichik must be removed from office

“Walters created the un-American environment that drove this child – a child he’s supposed to protect – to a place of hopelessness and despair. The medical examiner’s finding does nothing to change that hostile environment. Without a change, this will happen again. Walters and Raichik must be removed from office.”

If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts or a crisis, please call or text 988. The Suicide & Crisis Lifeline provides 24-hour, confidential support to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress.

This year alone, bills in at least 14 states have proposed allowing public schools to employ (or accept as volunteers) chaplains to provide student-support services, including counseling and other mental-health assistance. The legislation follows a similar measure passed in Texas last year.

Letters highlight the dangers of allowing chaplains to minister in public schools

The open letters highlight the dangers of allowing chaplains, who are typically not trained or certified to provide educational or mental-health services to youth, to assume the responsibilities of qualified professional school counselors and other school staff. Students are likely to receive inadequate mental-health support that, in some cases, may be affirmatively harmful.

In addition, allowing chaplains in public schools would violate students’ and families’ religious-freedom rights by inevitably leading to religious coercion and evangelizing of students. As explained in the chaplains’ letter, chaplains are trained to provide religious counseling to people in spiritual need. Not only are they unqualified to provide student mental-health services, but chaplains typically do not have the necessary experience or training to ensure that they adhere to schools’ educational mandates and avoid veering into proselytizing and other promotion of religion, which is unconstitutional when undertaken by school employees or volunteers.

Public-school chaplains bills introduced in at least 14 states

To date, school-chaplain bills have been introduced in 14 states in 2024, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana (pre-filed), Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. The three open letters released today – one by a group of more than 200 individual chaplains, another signed by 38 faith groups, and the third endorsed by 34 civil rights organizations – urge state legislators to protect the integrity of public schools, as well as students’ religious freedom and mental well-being, by rejecting proposed chaplaincy programs.

“As trained chaplains, we strongly caution against the government assertion of authority for the spiritual development and formation of our public school children,” states the letter from more than 200 individual chaplains in 40 states. “Families and religious institutions–not public school officials–should direct the religious education of our children.”

“Government-sanctioned chaplains may be permissible in some limited settings—but not in our public schools,” the 38 faith groups write. “For example, our government has provided chaplains in the military, prisons, and hospitals—places where chaplains are needed to accommodate the religious-exercise rights of people who would otherwise not be able to access religious services. Public school children face no such barriers.”

“All should feel welcome in public schools,” write the 34 civil rights organizations. “Even well-intentioned chaplain policies will undermine this fundamental premise of our public-education system and violate our longstanding First Amendment principles.”

“Students and parents get to make their own decisions about religion”

“The constitutional promise of church-state separation requires that students and parents – not public school officials, state legislatures or government-imposed religious leaders – get to make their own decisions about religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Public schools should never force any particular religion on students. In order to protect the religious freedom of all students and families, legislators should ensure that certified school counselors – not chaplains – continue to support our students. In America, there shouldn’t be any doubt that public schools welcome and are inclusive of all students. Public schools are not Sunday schools.”

Comments from additional organizations opposing public-school chaplain programs can be found here. Participating organizations include the American Civil Liberties Union, American Atheists, BJC (Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty), Freedom From Religion Foundation, Interfaith Alliance, and Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

“We applaud the Biden administration for restoring religious freedom protections for the millions of often vulnerable and marginalized people who use government-funded social services.

“Religious freedom is a foundational American principle. No one should have to give up their religious freedom in order to have access to critical services. No one should ever be pressured to participate in religious activities or be required to meet a religious litmus test in exchange for the help they need.

“When the government funds vital services, it must ensure these programs are open to people of all faiths and the nonreligious and that religion is not being misused to deny people services or their civil rights.

“Americans United has worked tirelessly to restore these protections and address other Trump-administration policies that undermined church-state separation and transformed religious freedom from a shield that protects people into a sword to harm others. We’re pleased that the Biden administration is rolling back many harmful Trump regulations. While there is more work to be done, these are important steps on the path toward a country that promises freedom without favor and equality without exception.”

The regulations affect nine federal departments and agencies: The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Today’s rules replace Trump administration policies that stripped away religious freedom protections from people who use government-funded social services. The new regulations:

• Reinstate the requirement that people seeking services be informed of their religious freedom rights, which include that they can’t be discriminated against because of their religion or because they are nonreligious; they can’t be required to pray or participate in religious activities; and they can file a complaint if their rights are violated.

• Reinstate safeguards that ensure that people who obtain social services through vouchers are not forced to attend or participate in religious activities.
• Eliminate Trump-era provisions that were designed to allow social service providers to refuse to provide key services and that were intended to open the door to discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs.

On January 19, 2021, together with our co-counsel Democracy Forward and Lambda Legal, Americans United filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump regulations: MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger v. HHS. The lawsuit alleges that in putting forth the harmful regulations, the Trump administration provided no reasonable explanation for the rule change, failed to account for its harms, and failed to consider obvious alternatives to the changes they finalized – all in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The litigation has been on hold while the Biden administration finalized its new rules.

“While the details about the tragic death of Nex Benedict are still being sorted out, one thing is clear: Oklahoma officials failed this teenager. Backed by Gov. Kevin Stitt, Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters has launched a crusade to force fundamentalist Christianity into the public schools, with a cruel focus on trans youth. Oklahoma legislators have compounded the harm by passing laws undermining LGBTQ+ rights.

“Oklahoma approved the nation’s first religious public school, which will discriminate against LGBTQ+ students, and Walters appointed Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok, unqualified internet bully, to ban books and oversee school safety. The hostile, Christian Nationalist environment Walters and Stitt have nurtured in Oklahoma public schools has created a permission structure for anti-LGBTQ+ persecution, and it’s no surprise that teens noticed. State officials have sent the message that trans/nonbinary kids have something wrong with them and do not have equal rights – creating an atmosphere that empowers bullies, in this case with tragic results.

“We hope that Walters, Stitt and other Oklahoma officials learn from this horrific tragedy and pull back on their crusade to devalue LGBTQ+ people and destroy separation of church and state. All decent people must hold these state officials accountable for the consequences of their rhetoric and actions.

“The memory of Nex Benedict demands nothing less.”

“Our country’s promise of church-state separation is meant to protect citizens from government officials enshrining their personal religious views into law. The Alabama Supreme Court ignored that constitutional promise to impose on all Alabamians a policy rooted in religious theology about the origins of life. The decision imperils the ability of Alabamians to have children through in vitro fertilization and prevents people from making their own decisions about their reproductive health care based on their own beliefs.

“In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker says the quiet part out loud – repeatedly referencing God, his religious beliefs and even quoting from the Bible to justify his decision. He frankly admits that beliefs about life beginning at conception and that ‘God made every person in His image’ are theological, not legal or medical. These kinds of statements have no place in court decisions. 

“The Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion aligns with the Christian Nationalist agenda to ban abortion and limit access to reproductive health care. Religious extremists are trying to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. Americans United is calling for a national recommitment to the separation of church and state to stop these abuses of power. Church-state separation is the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

In an amicus brief filed Tuesday in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Americans United and allied groups stressed that more than 20 years of evidence supports the FDA’s conclusion that medication abortion with mifepristone is safe and effective. The groups assert that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unprecedented decision to severely restrict access to mifepristone imperils the health and safety of millions of people.

Other organizations joining the brief include Lambda Legal, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America), National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, People For the American Way and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. A full list of organizations is available here.

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, issued the following statement:

“Abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. Mifepristone – a medication unequivocally proven to be safe and effective – plays a key role in ensuring equal access to abortion, especially for Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people working to make ends meet and others who face excessive barriers to health care. The Fifth Circuit’s unconscionable decision to severely restrict access to mifepristone despite the FDA’s approval ignores long-established science, sound medical guidance and FDA expertise to advance the agenda of religious extremists seeking to ban all abortions and force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs.

“We knew that the end of Roe signaled the beginning of a new wave of attacks on abortion rights by religious extremists who are seeking to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. This case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist groups that are part of a well-funded and politically connected shadow network that is working to undermine church-state separation and our democracy. Alliance Defending Freedom brought the case. First Liberty Institute is the former employer of the federal district judge who ruled against mifepristone access in the case, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. A slew of anti-abortion organizations filed briefs supporting the ban, from Family Research Council to American Center for Law and Justice to Advancing American Freedom.

“Abortion bans violate the separation of church and state by enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

More information about the case is available here.

“‘School Choice Week’ is a farce. We should spend this week celebrating public schools – the building blocks of our communities – not promoting private school voucher schemes. Vouchers only provide ‘choice’ for a select few, primarily wealthy families whose children never attended public schools in the first place, and for the private, predominantly religious schools that can pick and choose which students to accept.

“Private school vouchers do not give a choice to the majority of families who can’t afford private school tuition even with a voucher, or to the students whom private schools may decide to discriminate against on the basis of disability, religion, sex, gender identity, or other characteristics. And far from enabling choice for taxpayers, private school vouchers force people to fund religion, often times in a faith that is not their own.

Private school vouchers don’t work

“Vouchers don’t work – they don’t improve student achievement, and they especially fail students with disabilities, low-income students and rural students. Vouchers divert resources away from public schools that welcome all and educate nearly 90% of our nation’s children. We should be providing our public schools with the resources they need to enable all of our children to thrive. Public funds belong in public schools.

“Christian Nationalists and their lawmaker allies across the country have been emboldened by recent Supreme Court decisions that undermined church-state separation. They are pushing private school voucher schemes like never before as part of their crusade against public education and to enlarge their own power. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. Our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

Learn more about why we should reject vouchers

Learn more at the National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE), which AU co-chairs.

“In recent times, this country has experienced many dark days with regard to the right to an abortion. But today we are inspired by the light shining bright in the state of Missouri and the announcement of a ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the Missouri Constitution.

Abortion bans violate church-state separation

“Abortion bans impose one narrow religious view on all of us. They violate religious and reproductive freedom and put lives at risk. The right to an abortion should not depend on where you live; we must never give up on protecting abortion rights in the ‘red’ states. That’s why Americans United sued on behalf of 14 Missouri faith leaders to overturn the state’s abortion ban. We’re also honored to co-lead the Missouri Abortion Access Project (MAAP), educating and encouraging Missourians to fight for abortion rights, which are essential to protecting religious freedom.

“Americans United is proud to work with the tireless advocates on the ground in Missouri, including many faith leaders, to restore abortion access across the state. Now is the time for a national recommitment to the separation of church and state.”

Lawsuit background

In Jan. 2023, Americans United, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the law firm Arnold & Porter, and St. Louis-based civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman filed Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri on behalf of 14 Missouri faith leaders whose various faiths call them to support abortion access.

The lawsuit demonstrates that Missouri’s abortion ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in laws passed in 2017 and 2019. The case is proceeding in St. Louis Circuit Court.

More information about the lawsuit is available here.

No one should be denied health care because of someone else’s religious beliefs

“We applaud the Biden administration for taking positive steps toward protecting both religious freedom and patients’ health by rescinding the Trump-era Denial of Care Rule. No one should be denied the health care they need because of someone else’s religious beliefs. 

“The Denial of Care Rule was a dangerous policy that weaponized religious freedom and put the health and lives of women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities and so many others in jeopardy. Today’s rule seeks to protect patients from harm and upholds the fundamental principle of church-state separation.

“Americans United has worked tirelessly to end this and other Trump-administration policies that sought to undermine church-state separation and transform religious freedom from a shield that protects people into a sword to harm others. We’re pleased that the Biden administration is rolling back many harmful Trump regulations. While there is more work to be done, these are important steps on the path toward a country that promises freedom without favor and equality without exception.”

The Denial of Care Rule was issued in May 2019 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under former President Donald Trump. It invited any health care worker to deny medical care to patients because of the worker’s personal religious or moral beliefs. Health care facilities risked losing essential federal funding unless they granted employees carte blanche to deny services. That risk could have forced many health care facilities to eliminate services such as reproductive and LGBTQ+ care.

AU fought Denial of Care Rule in court

Americans United and allies filed two federal lawsuits challenging the Denial of Care Rule, which led to federal courts blocking the rule from going into effect. The lawsuits – County of Santa Clara v. HHS and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Azar – argued that HHS during the Trump administration exceeded its authority and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to consider the rule’s potential harm to patients and the health care system, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

We also argued that the rule was unconstitutional because it favored specific religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment; violated patients’ rights to privacy, liberty and equal dignity as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment; and chilled patients’ speech and expression in violation of the First Amendment, all to the detriment of patients’ health and well-being.

More information about those lawsuits is available here. In March 2023, Americans United also filed comments with HHS urging the Biden administration to rescind the Trump-era rule.

“Abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. Mifepristone – a medication unequivocally proven to be safe and effective – is key to ensuring equal access to abortion, especially for Black, Indigenous and other people of color, people working to make ends meet, LGBTQ+ people and others who face excessive barriers to health care. 

“We knew that the end of Roe signaled the beginning of a new wave of attacks on abortion rights by religious extremists who are seeking to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. This case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist groups that are part of a well-funded and politically connected shadow network that is working to undermine church-state separation and our democracy. Alliance Defending Freedom brought the case. First Liberty Institute is where Judge Kacsmaryk, the district court judge to first ban mifepristone, worked prior to his lifetime judicial appointment. A slew of anti-abortion organizations filed briefs supporting the ban, from Family Research Council to American Center for Law and Justice to Advancing American Freedom. 

“Abortion and contraception bans violate the separation of church and state by enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

Americans United joined more than 200 reproductive rights, civil rights, religious and other social justice organizations in an earlier amicus brief that urged the Supreme Court to protect nationwide access to mifepristone after U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued the unprecedented decision to ban the drug, imperiling the health and safety of millions of people.

“Americans United today joins the millions of Americans who are mourning the death of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“Justice O’Connor was a trailblazer as the first woman to sit on the high court. And while her record on church-state separation was mixed overall, she clearly understood the vital role religious freedom plays in America and how separation protects it, and became increasingly supportive of church-state separation during the latter years of her tenure.

“Justice O’Connor put it succinctly in a 2005 decision when she observed: ‘Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?’

“We could use more of that spirit on the Supreme Court today. Rest in peace, Justice O’Connor.”

Last June, the faith leaders, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), and Arnold & Porter, defeated the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court granted the clergy permission to move forward with their challenges to the abortion ban.

Today’s hearing will address similar arguments on the state’s “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.” The court’s decision on this motion could significantly impact the future of reproductive rights in Missouri.

“Missouri’s abortion bans impose religious doctrine on all of us”

“Each of our faiths call upon us to defend the dignity and autonomy of all individuals,” said Rev. Traci Blackmon, named plaintiff and Associate General Minister of Justice & Local Church Ministries for The United Church of Christ. “Missouri’s abortion bans impose religious doctrine on all of us and in doing so deny equity and bodily autonomy. We aren’t truly free unless we can control our own bodies, lives, and futures. Our laws should protect our rights, not try to control and dehumanize us.”

Kalli Joslin, Steven Gey Constitutional Litigation Fellow at Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “We are committed to defending the fundamental right to be treated equally under the law. When lawmakers enshrine their narrow set of religious beliefs about abortion in law, it subordinates the health and lives of women and all who can become pregnant, inhibiting their ability to participate equally in society. We will continue to fight on behalf of our plaintiffs and all Missourians’ right to reproductive health access.”

“This case is about upholding the fundamental rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their bodies, without governmental interference,” said K.M. Bell, Senior Litigation Counsel at NWLC. “Lawmakers have no place interfering in someone else’s pregnancy decisions. We stand with our clients and the broader coalition of faith leaders in this fight for reproductive freedom.”

Watch the livestream of the hearing here.

Learn more about the case here.

The case, Janny v. Gamez, involves Mark Janny of Colorado, an atheist whose First Amendment religious-freedom rights were violated when he was sent back to jail after he refused to take part in worship services, Bible studies, and religious counseling mandated by his parole officer. More than two years ago, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that every person has “the basic right to be free from state-sponsored religious coercion.”

Now, the district court has ruled that Janny is eligible to recover damages for the violations of his religious freedom. Specifically, Janny is eligible to recover punitive damages, compensatory damages for loss of liberty and economic damages for loss of wages for part of the period of his confinement, and nominal damages. The case is scheduled to go to trial in July of 2024.

Janny is represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, and DLA Piper LLP (US).

Americans United and the ACLU issued the following statements in response to today’s decision:

Rachel K. Laser, CEO and president at Americans United: “This is a victory for Mark Janny and for religious freedom. Our country’s fundamental principle of church-state separation guarantees that everyone has the right to believe as they choose, so long as they don’t harm others. That means that our government must never force anyone to practice a faith that is not their own, and of course must never jail anyone for refusing to submit to religious proselytization.”

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: “The government presented Mr. Janny with a blatantly unconstitutional choice: Go to church, or go to jail. The First Amendment flatly prohibits such religious coercion, and state officials should know better.”

Case Background:

When Mark Janny was on parole in February 2015, Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Officer John Gamez required him to live at the Denver Rescue Mission, a Christian homeless shelter that offers religious programming for parolees and other residents. Gamez had an arrangement with the Mission’s director to place parolees there, with the understanding that they would take part in compulsory religious worship and practice.

Janny, an atheist, objected to the mandatory worship services, Bible studies, and religious counseling, and he asked to be excused from religious programming or to be permitted to live elsewhere. Gamez and the Mission’s staff refused Janny’s request, threatening him with reimprisonment if he did not continue living at the Mission and did not agree to participate in the required religious activities.

When Janny ultimately declined to attend worship services, Gamez had him arrested and initiated parole revocation proceedings, and Janny was incarcerated for another five months.

Janny filed a federal lawsuit, asserting violations of his First Amendment rights; he represented himself at the district court level. After the district court wrongly dismissed his case, Americans United, the ACLU, and DLA Piper stepped in to represent him on appeal. The appeal was filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2020. In Aug. 2021, the 10th Circuit ruled in Janny’s favor, allowing his case to proceed.

Janny’s appeal and the proceedings on remand have been litigated by Charles Wayne and Nicole Kozlowski of DLA Piper, Alex Luchenitser of Americans United, and Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU.

More information about Janny’s case is available here.

The organizations representing the plaintiffs – Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation – released the following statement:

“Oklahoma’s public schools must remain free from discrimination and religious indoctrination. We applaud and appreciate Attorney General Drummond’s efforts to protect public education and the separation of church and state in Oklahoma. We look forward to continuing our longstanding defense of these core American values.

“Our clients’ proposed intervention would benefit the Attorney General’s lawsuit”

“Our clients’ proposed intervention would benefit the Attorney General’s lawsuit because they are among the people – parents, students, families, educators, clergy, taxpayers, and a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation – who will suffer if a religious public school is permitted to open. They and their children will be excluded by the school’s discriminatory practices. They will be taxed by the government and forced to financially support a religion that many of them do not share. Their interests and diverse perspectives are valuable and will help the Oklahoma Supreme Court reach a just outcome.

“The legal team representing these individuals includes the nation’s top religious-freedom, church-state separation, and education-rights lawyers. These litigators have a breadth of knowledge, experience, and expertise that will add to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s understanding of the issues and arguments in this case. Our joining in the lawsuit makes sense.

“The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. Allowing a religious public charter school like St. Isidore to operate would be a sea change for our democracy.”

Background

On October 20, 2023, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board and its members to “undo the unlawful sponsorship of St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School.” The Board approved the religious public charter school contrary to an opinion issued by Drummond’s office, which explained that it would be unconstitutional. AG Drummond filed his lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

On July 31, 2023, AU, the ACLU, ELC, and FFRF, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, filed a lawsuit, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on behalf of a group of faith leaders, public-school parents, and public-education advocates who object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, fail to adequately serve students with disabilities, and indoctrinate students into one religion.

The lawsuit charges that the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the board’s own regulations when it approved St. Isidore’s application for charter school sponsorship on June 5, 2023.

The taxpayers seeking to join the Attorney General’s lawsuit are Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, and the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke.

The team of attorneys that represents the taxpayers in their effort to participate in the Attorney General’s lawsuit is led by Alex J. Luchenitser and Kenneth D. Upton Jr. of Americans United and includes Kalli A. Joslin, Jenny Samuels, and Sarah Taitz of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; and Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks.

Resources

• The legal documents filed by the taxpayers seeking to join the Attorney General’s lawsuit.
• Information about the taxpayers’ lawsuit, OKPLAC v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

Contacts

Requests for information or media interviews should be directed to:

• Americans United: Liz Hayes, media@au.org, 724.493.2834
• ACLU: ACLU Media, media@aclu.org, 212.549.2666
• Education Law Center: Sharon Krengel, skrengel@edlawcenter.org, 973.624.1815, x240
• FFRF: Patrick Elliott, patrick@ffrf.org or Annie Laurie Gaylor, 608.256.8900

“We applaud Attorney General Drummond for his efforts to protect church-state separation and public education in Oklahoma. The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. Allowing a religious public charter school like St. Isidore to operate would be a sea change for our democracy.

“Our clients filed OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board because they are committed to ensuring that our public schools  welcome and serve all Oklahomans. The lawsuit filed today demonstrates that AG Drummond shares this commitment.”

Background on lawsuit OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

On July 31, 2023, AU, the ACLU, ELC and FFRF, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, filed a lawsuit, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on behalf of nine Oklahoma residents and a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs are faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates who object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, fail to adequately serve students with disabilities, and indoctrinate students into one religion.

The lawsuit charges that the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the board’s own regulations when it approved St. Isidore’s application for charter-school sponsorship on June 5, 2023.

The plaintiffs in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser and Kenneth D. Upton Jr. of Americans United and includes Kalli A. Joslin of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources:

• A copy of the petition in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.
• Media kit that includes quotes, photos and descriptions of the plaintiffs.

###

Americans United is a religious freedom advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, AU educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Learn more at au.org. 

For more than 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all. For more information on the ACLU, visit www.aclu.org.

Education Law Center pursues justice and equity for public school students by enforcing their right to a high-quality education in safe, equitable, non-discriminatory, integrated, and well-funded learning environments. We seek to support and improve public schools as the center of communities and the foundation of a multicultural and multiracial democratic society. For more information about ELC, visit https://edlawcenter.org/. 

 The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

PragerU is a conservative organization that exists to disseminate often-misleading propaganda to children. PragerU offers materials, primarily in the form of cartoon videos, that undermine the country’s foundational principle of church-state separation and advance the myth that America was founded to be, and must remain, a Christian nation.

Despite the well-publicized bias and deceptive information in PragerU materials, the Florida Board of Education in July 2023 approved the use of PragerU Kids videos in public schools. In Sept. 2023, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters announced his department had entered an “ongoing partnership” with PragerU Kids, permitting the use of PragerU materials in public schools.

Americans United demands public records on PragerU review process

Americans United today formally requested all public records from the Florida Department of Public Education and the Oklahoma State Department of Education that detail communications with and about PragerU, as well as records pertaining to the review process the departments used to vet and approve the use of PragerU materials in public schools.

“Public schools are the building blocks of our democracy. We owe it to our children to ensure their public schools provide a high-quality education that is free from religious coercion and rooted in facts, not theology or political ideology,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “A shadow network of Christian Nationalists and their political allies are working to destroy public education and church-state separation. They’re trying to ban books; prevent public schools from teaching lessons about race, sexual orientation, gender identity and even menstruation; and encouraging teachers to pray with public school students while displaying the Ten Commandments and ‘In God We Trust’ in classrooms.

“Christian Nationalists are trying to use the machinery of the state to impose their religious beliefs on all of our children – and to get taxpayers to fund this. Not on our watch,” Laser said. “We need a national recommitment to keep church and state separate – our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

PragerU videos advance Christian Nationalism

PragerU content that advances a Christian Nationalist viewpoint includes:

• “Street Smarts: The Bill of Rights”: This video includes the “fun fact” that the literal words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution, but fails to explain how the principle of church-state separation is embedded in the First Amendment. (AU has a resource explaining the constitutional promise of church-state separation here.)
• “Craftory: God Bless America Ornament”: This video presents Americans’ right to religious freedom as being granted by the God of the “Hebrew and Christian Bibles.” The video further claims “America was founded on what’s called Judeo-Christian values” that are “at the very core of who America is.”
• “Leo & Layla’s History Adventures with George Washington”: This video includes an imagined meeting with the country’s first president in which he emphasizes the need for America to have “a religious and moral population.”
• “Craftory: American Trinity Platter”: This video presents the phrase “In God We Trust” as one third of the “trinity American values,” alongside e pluribus unum and liberty.
• Videos including “Guess or Mess: John D. Rockefeller,” “Leo & Layla Meet Christopher Columbus,” “India: Priya Overcomes Adversity” and “TBH History Russian Revolution: The Rise of Communism” praise several controversial historical figures or actions for their Christian beliefs or for spreading Christianity through colonialism.

“We are so excited to announce the formation of AU Collective and proud to join the many organizations like ours in forming a union, particularly at this critical time for the labor movement,” the AU Collective said. “Unions benefit not only workers but also employers by allowing everyone to work together to improve working conditions and increase workplace fairness. We are grateful to American United’s leadership for voluntarily recognizing us and look forward to productive bargaining.”

“We’re joining the ranks of the other top-tier nonprofits with unionized staff,” said President and CEO of Americans United, Rachel K. Laser. “AU fights in the courts, legislatures, and the public square for justice, equality, and fairness every day; and organized labor has played an important role in those same fights. We have chosen to voluntarily recognize the AU Collective and look forward to working with the union to make AU the best workplace for all of us.”

AU Collective will work with AU management to collectively bargain and reach an agreement on a union contract.

###
SEIU was first founded in 1921 and now includes nearly 2 million members united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide. Learn more at www.seiu.org.

Americans United is a religious freedom advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, AU educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Learn more at au.org.

“The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board is continuing on a misguided path to create the nation’s first religious public charter school in clear violation of Oklahoma law and the state’s promise of church-state separation and public schools that are open to all. The board is ignoring the legal and public education experts, religious freedom advocates, and Oklahoma taxpayers who all oppose St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School – a public school that plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. Our plaintiffs are fighting the approval of St. Isidore in court because they are committed to public schools that welcome and serve all Oklahomans.”

Lawsuit filed to stop the nation’s first religious public charter school

AU, ACLU, ELC & FFRF, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, on July 31 filed the lawsuit OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board on behalf of nine Oklahoma residents and a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs are faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates who object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, fail to adequately serve students with disabilities, and indoctrinate students into one religion.

The lawsuit charges that the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the board’s own regulations when it approved St. Isidore’s application for charter-school sponsorship on June 5, 2023.

The plaintiffs in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser and Kenneth D. Upton Jr. of Americans United and includes Kalli A. Joslin of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources

• A copy of the lawsuit complaint.
• Media kit that includes quotes, photos and descriptions of the plaintiffs.

“Greg Abbott is trying to strong-arm the Texas state legislature to pass private school vouchers even though there is clear bipartisan opposition. Regardless of what they are called, vouchers don’t work: they don’t improve student achievement, they lack accountability, they fund discrimination, and they divert desperately needed money away from public schools, especially those in rural areas.

“Vouchers also violate religious freedom by forcing taxpayers to pay for private religious education – which makes Abbott’s ploy to enlist faith leaders to sell his scheme on ‘School Choice Sunday’ (Oct. 15) all the more shameful. Everyone in Texas deserves better. Public funds belong in public schools.”

Americans United is co-chair of the National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE), a national anti-voucher coalition that works to oppose private school vouchers and protect public education.

“Foster care agencies working on behalf of the government should not be allowed to discriminate against prospective foster parents because they don’t live according to one narrow set of conservative religious beliefs. Religious freedom can never be a license to discriminate. Americans United is fighting to ensure that good and qualified people like Aimee Maddonna and her family, who wanted to help children in need of loving homes, are never turned away because they fail to pass a taxpayer-funded agency’s religious test.

“The court’s reasoning and application of recent Supreme Court precedent is erroneous. This opinion is the latest example of lower courts struggling to make sense of the wreckage left by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning decades, even centuries of precedent in so many critical areas, including religious freedom and church-state separation. This hard-right turn forces lower-court judges to become mystic historians who must divine the conservative bloc’s next whim in their crusade to allow religiously motivated harm to others. We are reviewing today’s decision with our client to determine our next steps.”

Americans United filed the lawsuit, Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, in January 2022 on behalf of Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, who sought to adopt a child. Because Liz and Gabe aren’t Christian, they were turned away by Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a state-funded agency that provides foster care placement, training and other services on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville ruled the Rutan-Rams have standing – the right to sue – as prospective foster parents and as taxpayers. The opinion reverses the June 2022 ruling of a state trial-court panel. The appeals court agreed with Americans United, which argued that the Rutan-Rams have standing to sue because they continue to face religious discrimination by Holston and other taxpayer-funded, religiously affiliated foster care agencies. They therefore lack access to the same services available to Christians, and they continue to suffer the stigma that discrimination inflicts on its victims.

“Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram suffered outrageous discrimination because they are Jewish”

“Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram suffered outrageous discrimination because they are Jewish,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “This loving couple wanted to help a child in need, only to be told that they couldn’t get services from a taxpayer-funded agency because they’re the wrong religion. Liz and Gabe deserve their day in court, and Americans United intends to see that they get it. Religious freedom must never be a license to harm others – and AU is the shield that protects us all from those who would weaponize it.”

The appeals-court panel also ruled that six Tennessee taxpayers, four of them faith leaders, who joined the Rutan-Rams as plaintiffs because they object to their tax dollars being used to fund religious discrimination in foster care also have the right to sue. The six other plaintiffs are Rev. Jeannie Alexander, Rev. Elaine Blanchard, Rev. Alaina Cobb, Rev. Denise Gyauch, Dr. Larry Blanz and Mirabelle Stoedter.

Case Background

The Rutan-Rams began the process of fostering to adopt a child from Florida in 2021. They were told they needed to complete Tennessee-mandated foster-parent training and a home-study certification. The couple contacted the only agency in their area that was willing to provide those services for out-of-state placements – Holston.

Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would work with them. But the day that the Rutan-Rams were scheduled to start their training, the agency informed the couple it wouldn’t serve them because they are Jewish. Holston said it “only provide[s] adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” Because there was no other agency in the Knox County area that would provide the foster-parent training and certification for the adoption of an out-of-state child, the Rutan-Rams were unable to adopt the boy from Florida.

The lawsuit also names the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services as a defendant. The suit explains that the department and its commissioner are violating the religious-freedom and equal-protection guarantees in Articles I and XI of the Tennessee Constitution by funding religious discrimination in foster care services.

The case was argued in March before the appeals court by AU Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel. Other attorneys working on the case include Americans United Associate Vice President and Interim Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser and Scott Kramer of The Kramer Law Center.

More information about the case is available here. A photo of Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram is available here.

The plaintiffs are faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates who object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, fail to adequately serve students with disabilities, and indoctrinate students into one religion — all in violation of Oklahoma law and our country’s promises of the separation of church and state and public schools that are open to all. (A link to a descriptive list of plaintiffs is available below.)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Education Law Center and Freedom From Religion Foundation represent the plaintiffs in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. They are assisted by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann.

Approving St. Isidore’s application violated Oklahoma Constitution, state law

The lawsuit demonstrates that the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the board’s own regulations when it approved St. Isidore’s application for charter-school sponsorship on June 5, 2023. Reasons that the application was unlawful include:

• St. Isidore plans to discriminate in its policies and practices based on religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected characteristics. Students could be denied admission, disciplined, or even expelled if they or their family members are LGBTQ+, a different religious faith, or do not otherwise conform to certain Catholic religious beliefs.
• St. Isidore reserves the right to discriminate against students on the basis of disability and failed to show that it would provide adequate services to students with disabilities.
• St. Isidore plans to provide a religious education and indoctrinate its students in Catholic religious beliefs. The school’s application states that the school will “participate in the evangelizing mission of the [Catholic] Church” and will fully incorporate the Church’s teachings “into every aspect of the School,” including “all subjects” taught and all activities offered.
• The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City will have control over the school in violation of board regulations that require a charter school to be independent of its educational management organization.

Plaintiffs asking court to block St. Isidore from operating

The plaintiffs are asking the District Court of Oklahoma County to block (1) St. Isidore from operating as a charter school, (2) the charter school board from entering into or implementing any contracts with St. Isidore, and (3) the state from funding St. Isidore.

The plaintiffs in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board include OKPLAC Inc. (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright. (Detailed descriptions of the plaintiffs are available here.)

A religious public charter school is ‘a sea change for American democracy’

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United: “A school that claims to be simultaneously public and religious would be a sea change for American democracy. It’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing a public school that is run as a religious school. We’re witnessing a full-on assault on church-state separation and public education – and religious public charter schools are the next frontier. America needs a national recommitment to church-state separation.”

Additional quotes from the organizations sponsoring the lawsuit and the plaintiffs are available here.

Defendants in the lawsuit are the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board; its five members; the Oklahoma State Department of Education; State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters; and St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School, Inc.

The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser and Kenneth D. Upton, Jr. of Americans United and includes Kalli A. Joslin of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of the Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Resources:

• A copy of the lawsuit petition.
• Media kit that includes photos and descriptions of the plaintiffs.

Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is part of Shelly Fitzgerald’s legal team, issued the following statement:

“Religious extremists are waging a crusade to undermine basic civil rights and won a disturbing victory before the Supreme Court in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case just two weeks ago. Shelly Fitzgerald’s case was another line of attack. These religious extremists are trying to expand a narrow, commonsense rule – meant to allow houses of worship to select their own clergy according to their own faith – into a broad license to circumvent civil rights laws and to discriminate.

“Shelly Fitzgerald wasn’t hired to minister to students”

“Shelly Fitzgerald, like most employees at religious organizations, wasn’t hired to minister to students or to preach the Catholic religion. She was hired to provide secular guidance to students seeking to get into college. She should not have lost her civil rights simply because the secular work she performed was done at a religious school.

“I also want to commend our plaintiff, Shelly Fitzgerald, for courageously speaking up on behalf of all people vulnerable to discrimination in the name of religion. Shelly and brave people like her are on the front lines warning the American people about the very real threats we face from a shadowy network of religious extremists working to turn religious freedom from a shield into a sword to harm others and violate their rights.”

Americans United Litigation Fellow Gabriela Hybel argued Shelly’s case before the Seventh Circuit. Shelly is represented by AU Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard; Hybel; Mark Sniderman of Findling, Park, Conyers, Woody & Sniderman, P.C.; and David Page of Henn Haworth Cummings & Page.

More information about the case is available here.

The court allowed the clergy to move forward with their challenges to the total abortion ban and medication abortion regulations, though it dismissed challenges to other restrictions that collectively decimated abortion access in the state even before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. The court also concluded that several local prosecutors should not be defendants in the case, but this does not prevent the case from proceeding. The court rejected all of Missouri’s other arguments against the lawsuit, including the arguments based on the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions.

Ruling a “great first step” toward restoring religious & reproductive freedom

“We largely prevailed and can now litigate our case, which will strike this abortion ban down as a violation of the separation of church and state,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state – that will protect both religious freedom and reproductive freedom. This ruling is a great first step.”

“We applaud the court’s decision allowing our challenges to Missouri’s harmful and unconstitutional total abortion ban and restrictions on medication abortion to proceed,” said Michelle Banker, Director of Reproductive Rights and Health Litigation at the National Women’s Law Center. “But we are disappointed that the court stopped short of hearing our challenge to the many other medically unnecessary restrictions which made abortion inaccessible to so many long before Roe was overturned. So while this decision is certainly a victory that we celebrate, it is a reminder that it will take all of us, and every tool we have, to meaningfully restore abortion access in Missouri.”

Faith leaders: Missouri abortion bans violate state constitution’s promise of church-state separation

The lawsuit, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, was filed in January during a week that began with National Religious Freedom Day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day and ended with what would have been the 50th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. These faith leaders felt it critical to challenge the Missouri abortion bans, which violate religious freedom and the state constitution’s promise of church-state separation.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and the law firm Arnold & Porter represent the fourteen members of the clergy, whose various faiths call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. Religious traditions represented by the plaintiffs include Baptist, Episcopalian, Orthodox Judaism, United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator.

Missouri lawmakers enshrined their personal religious beliefs about abortion into law

The lawsuit demonstrates that Gov. Michael Parson and the Missouri Legislature violated the state constitution by enshrining their personal religious beliefs about abortion into law when they enacted several abortion bans as part of House Bill No. 126, as well as earlier laws that destroyed abortion access in the state. One of the bans in H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. Lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in the bill itself that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.” Legislators said they passed the ban because:

• “to me God doesn’t give us a choice in this area. He is the Creator of life.”
• “being from the Biblical side of it, I’ve always believed that life does occur at the point of conception.”
• “Life begins at conception. Psalms 119 says …”
• “as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception. That is built into our legislative findings currently in law…”

(Examples of legislators’ remarks about their religious motivations to ban abortion are available here.)

Faith leader plaintiffs

• Rev. Traci Blackmon, Associate General Minister of Justice and Local Church Ministries for the United Church of Christ
• Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, Executive Director, Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis
• Rabbi Doug Alpert, Congregation Kol Ami, Kansas City
• Rev. Jan Barnes, United Church of Christ, Webster Groves (retired)
• Rabbi Jim Bennett, Congregation Shaare Emeth, Creve Coeur
• Rev. Cindy Bumb, United Church of Christ, St. Louis (retired)
• Rabbi Andrea Goldstein, Congregation Shaare Emeth, Creve Coeur
• Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbia
• Rev. Darryl Gray, Greater Fairfax Missionary Baptist Church, St. Louis
• The Rt. Rev. Deon K. Johnson, Eleventh Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri
• Rev. Holly McKissick, Peace Church United Church of Christ, Kansas City
• Rev. Barbara Phifer, retired United Methodist minister and State Representative in District 90
• Rabbi Susan Talve, Central Reform Congregation, St. Louis
• Rev. Krista Taves, Eliot Unitarian Chapel, Kirkwood, and First Unitarian Church, Alton, Ill.

(Additional information about the plaintiffs, including photos and remarks, is available here.)

In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit included state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Michael L. Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; a class of all the municipal prosecuting attorneys statewide; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson; and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.

Resources

• A copy of the lawsuit complaint.
• A factsheet on Missouri legislators’ remarks on their religious motivations to ban abortion.
• Information about the faith leader plaintiffs, including photos and remarks.

“In America, everyone should have equal access to goods and services, regardless of who they love, who they are, how they worship, or what they look like. Our longstanding civil rights laws promise these protections.

“But Christian Nationalists and their judicial allies are trying to drag this country back to the days when marginalized communities were forced to go door to door to find a business that didn’t display signs barring their presence like ‘No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish.’ Decades ago we as a society agreed that when a business decides to open its doors to the public, it must be open to all. This court negates these protections. Today, it allows religiously motivated discrimination against our LGBTQ family and friends; tomorrow, the license to discriminate could extend to other vulnerable communities too.

“This court continues to advance the agenda of religious extremists”

“This court continues to advance the agenda of religious extremists who are trying to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. When the court abolished the nationwide right to abortion last year, we warned LGBTQ rights were their next target. And here we are. Religious extremists and their political allies are willing to destroy our democracy to advance Christian Nationalism.

“We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state if we’re to save our democracy and ensure freedom without favor and equality without exception under the law.”

Americans United’s amicus brief supporting anti-discrimination laws

Americans United had joined 29 religious and civil-rights organizations in filing an amicus brief in 303 Creative that explained how anti-discrimination laws like Colorado’s protect religious minorities as well as LGBTQ people and customers with other protected characteristics, such as race, sex, age and ability.

The group behind 303 Creative, the Alliance Defending Freedom, is an aggressive member of the billion-dollar shadow network that seeks to install Christian Nationalism and undermine church-state separation. Homophobia and anti-LGBTQ bigotry are baked into the ethos of ADF, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group. Alan Sears, who ran ADF for its first 25 years, co-authored a book entitled The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The title explains ADF’s goal: use “religious freedom” to oppose LGBTQ+ rights and equality. ADF also litigated the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2018, representing a bakery that refused to serve a gay couple and challenging the same civil rights law involved in 303 Creative.

“We’re facing an aggressive movement working to weaponize religious freedom, but religious freedom must never be a license to harm others, and that remains true in the workplace. Today, in a unanimous opinion, the court ‘clarified’ the standard for granting religious accommodations without overturning precedent.

“Religious accommodations that don’t burden or harm others, like wearing a hijab or having a beard, or praying privately, are exactly what the law was designed to permit. In this case, however, Groff was hired as a part-time, flexible carrier at a 4-person post office, and he refused to show up for 24 Sundays of work. He refused to work the same flexible schedule for which he was hired. This created huge burdens for the remaining (mostly Christian) employees and led them to resign, transfer, file grievances, and cover for him while he, as he admitted, watched NASCAR on Sundays.

“Importantly, Groff has not won this case. We live to fight another day.”

“We argued that whatever standard the court adopted for workers seeking religious accommodations, the only way to ensure equality was to ensure that workers obeying the rules of their own religion do not harm others. If anything else were true, one religion would be superior to others. The court’s ‘clarified’ standard correctly allows employers to continue to consider the burdens an employee’s requested accommodation could impose on co-workers. Importantly, Groff has not won this case. The court refused to decide the specifics of Groff’s case and is leaving that to the lower courts, which got this case right the first time around. We live to fight another day.”

More information about the Groff v. DeJoy case is available here.

SB 763 requires all Texas school boards to vote on school chaplains policy

The letter follows the passage of Senate Bill No. 763, which requires all school boards to vote on whether to adopt a policy to hire, or accept as volunteers, chaplains who will “provide support, services, and programs for students.” The civil-liberties groups warned in their letter that they will closely monitor school boards’ implementation of the legislation and will take any action that is necessary and appropriate to protect the rights of Texas children and their parents to be free from government-imposed religion.

Although SB No. 763 purports to authorize public-school chaplains, today’s letter informs districts that permitting chaplains to assume official positions – whether paid or voluntary – in public schools will lead to religious coercion and indoctrination of students in violation of the First Amendment. And because chaplains are generally affiliated with specific religious denominations and traditions, in deciding which chaplains to hire or accept, schools would inherently give unconstitutional preferences to particular faiths.

The letter further explains that courts have repeatedly ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to invite religious leaders onto campus to engage in religious activities, such as prayer and religious counseling, with students.

Laser: “Americans United is prepared to defend the separation of church and state.”

“Religious freedom requires that parents – not school officials or state legislatures – direct their children’s religious education,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Families should be able to trust that their children will not have a particular religious perspective forced on them while attending public schools. Replacing trained school counselors with religious chaplains violates the religious freedom of every student and family in Texas. Americans United is prepared to defend the separation of church and state and ensure Texas public schools are welcoming and inclusive for all students.”

The civil-liberties groups monitoring school boards’ responses to the new law issued the following statement:

Civil-liberties groups: “Allowing chaplains in public schools is unconstitutional.”

“Allowing chaplains in public schools is unconstitutional. The First Amendment guarantees families and their chosen religious communities – not government-imposed religious leaders – the right to educate their children about matters of faith.

“Texas’s public schools are religiously diverse, and all students should feel safe and welcome in them. Opening the schoolhouse doors to chaplains would undermine this critical goal. We will not hesitate to defend the rights of students and families against school districts that take up the Legislature’s misguided and unlawful invitation to install clergy in official positions.”

A copy of the letter is available here.

“Religious freedom is not a license to harm others or prevent people from seeking justice in courts of law. This case is far from over, but Father Alexander Belya now has a chance to vindicate his rights.

“We are facing an aggressive movement working to recast religious freedom into a weapon that would allow religious institutions to discriminate without limit or consequence. AU believes religious freedom should be a shield, not a sword. Today, the Court let that principle stand.”

Americans United represents Father Alexander Belya, an Orthodox Christian priest who was publicly defamed by his colleagues. Belya is represented by AU Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard, Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel, and Oleg Rivkin.

More information about the Belya case is available here.

“It’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation’s first religious public charter school. This is a sea change for American democracy. Americans United will work with our Oklahoma and national partners to take all possible legal action to fight this decision and defend the separation of church and state that’s promised in both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.

“State and federal law are clear: Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and open to all students. No public-school family should fear that their child will be required by charter schools to take theology classes or be expelled for failing to conform to religious doctrines. And the government should never force anyone to fund religious education. In a country built on the principle of separation of church and state, public schools must never be allowed to become Sunday schools.”

AU provided detailed legal analysis explaining board should reject St. Isidore’s application

In letters, memos and in-person testimony, Americans United provided detailed legal analysis explaining why the board should reject the application from the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa to create the nation’s first religious public charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School.

AU also explained why former Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor’s opinion that the state should allow public charter schools to teach religious curricula was wrong and contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act. AU praised the Feb. 23 decision of current Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to withdraw O’Connor’s incorrect opinion.

Resources

• AU’s June 2 letter regarding St. Isidore’s revised application
• AU’s March 17 letter regarding St. Isidore’s Feb. 14 presentation
• Feb. 14 testimony from AU Senior Litigation Counsel Kenneth Upton, a native of Oklahoma and an Oklahoma City University School of Law alum
• AU’s Feb. 10 letter regarding the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City’s application
• AU’s Jan. 31 letter refuting the former AG’s opinion
• AU’s Jan. 31 legal analysis refuting the former AG’s opinion

“We applaud the Biden administration for updating the guidance, which centers the religious freedom of public school students. As the administration reaffirms, public schools must be open and inclusive for students of every religion and none.

“Perhaps most importantly, the guidance emphasizes that public school employees, including teachers and coaches, may not coerce students to pray. Nothing about the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District changes the fact that the Constitution prohibits public schools from sponsoring prayer. This line has always been clear: Public school employees and officials cannot take advantage of their power and position to impose their personal religion on a captive audience of schoolchildren.

Christian Nationalist groups distorting Kennedy decision

“The Christian Nationalist groups that pushed the Kennedy case are distorting the decision by arguing that public schools can now sponsor prayer. In Kennedy, the Court’s conservative majority concluded that the coach could say a short, quiet, private prayer during his personal time and while his students were otherwise occupied. Even though this was a ‘deceitful narrative,’ the Court based its ruling squarely on that fact pattern. The Department, lower courts, and school districts must take the Kennedy majority at its word. As the guidance explains, they cannot permit employees to ‘compel, coerce, persuade, or encourage students to join in the employee’s prayer or other religious activity, and a school may take reasonable measures to ensure that students are not pressured or encouraged to join in the private prayer of their teachers or coaches.’

“In order to protect public schools and the religious freedom of students and families, we need a recommitment to the separation of church and state, which ensures we’re all treated equally no matter our religion or belief.”

“Abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. Mifepristone – a medication unequivocally proven to be safe and effective – is key to ensuring equal access to abortion, especially for Black, indigenous and other people of color, people working to make ends meet, LGBTQ+ people and others who face excessive barriers to health care. The court made the right decision to stay Judge Kacsmaryk’s unprecedented order, which ignored long-established science and medical guidance to advance the agenda of religious extremists seeking to ban all abortions and force all of us to live according to their narrow beliefs.

“Abortion bans violate the separation of church and state by enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. Kacsmaryk’s ideologically driven opinion was of a similar character. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

Americans United joined more than 200 reproductive rights, civil rights, religious and other social justice organizations in an amicus brief filed Friday that urged the Supreme Court to protect nationwide access to mifepristone after U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an unprecedented decision to ban the drug, imperiling the health and safety of millions of people.

This case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist groups that are part of a well-funded and politically connected shadow network that is working to undermine church-state separation and so many rights that depend on that separation. First Liberty Institute is where Judge Kacsmaryk worked to advance anti-reproductive freedom ideology prior to his lifetime judicial appointment. Alliance Defending Freedom brought the case. A slew of anti-abortion organizations filed briefs supporting the ban, from Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council to Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice to Mike Pence’s Advancing American Freedom.

“The Do No Harm Act Will Restore Our Country’s Founding Principle Of Religious Freedom”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, issued the following statement:

“The Do No Harm Act will restore our country’s founding principle of religious freedom, which enables everyone to live as themselves and believe as they choose – so long as they don’t harm others.

“Congress must stop religious extremists and their political allies from exploiting the 30-year-old the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to license discrimination against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities, nonreligious people and other vulnerable communities. RFRA was intended to protect religious free exercise, particularly for religious minorities. Originally supported by a broad coalition of unusual bedfellows, RFRA was certainly never meant as a tool to circumvent nondiscrimination protections and deny people access to health care, jobs and government-funded services. The Do No Harm Act will preserve RFRA’s original intent of protecting religious freedom while clarifying that it cannot be misused to deny people’s basic civil rights.

“We thank Reps. Scott, Cohen, Raskin and Scanlon and Senator Booker for sponsoring the Do No Harm Act, and we urge Congress to quickly pass this critical bill to ensure that religious freedom remains a shield that protects all of us, not a sword used to harm others.”

Background On The Do No Harm Act

In 1993, Americans United joined a diverse group – religious and nonreligious, liberal and conservative – to support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was intended to protect the free exercise of religion, particularly for people of minority faiths. But today, the law is being misused to create exemptions from laws that protect people’s basic civil rights. That is why an increasing number of organizations and individuals, including many who supported RFRA in 1993, agree that RFRA needs to be fixed.

The Do No Harm Act will preserve RFRA’s power to protect religious freedom, while also clarifying that it may not be used to harm others. The Do No Harm Act will amend RFRA to ensure that is not misused to:

• Undermine nondiscrimination laws
• Deny access to health care
• Evade child labor laws
• Thwart workplace protections (such as fair wage and equal pay laws)
• Refuse to provide government-funded services
• Refuse to perform duties as a government employee

Broad Support For The Do No Harm Act

More than 100 civil rights, LGBTQ, reproductive rights, health, labor and faith groups have endorsed the Do No Harm Act. That includes more than 30 organizations representing diverse faith traditions, such as the United Methodist Church General Board of Church & Society; T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministry; Uri L’Tzedek: Orthodox Social Justice; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A); American Baptist Home Mission Society; Circle Sanctuary; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community Churches; KARAMAH; and the National Council of Churches.

Resources

• More information on the Do No Harm Act is available here.

“Our civil rights laws rightly require religious accommodations for workers, which is especially important for religious minorities whose rights and customs might not be respected in the workplace. But religious freedom does not mean we can shift the burden of practicing our faith onto other people. Groff was hired as a part-time, flexible carrier at a 4-person post office and then refused to show up for work on 24 Sundays. This wreaked havoc at the small post office, harmed his co-workers – who were also churchgoing Christians – and led them to resign, transfer, file grievances, and cover his shifts. Religious freedom has never been a license to harm others, in employment or any other facet of life.

“This Case Is A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing.”

“This case is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Christian Nationalist legal groups are litigating cases like this as part of their crusade to privilege those who share their narrow religious beliefs – at the cost of everyone else’s religious freedom. They seek to use religious freedom to justify opening the floodgates of discrimination against LGBTQ people, women, people seeking reproductive health care, religious minorities and other vulnerable communities.

“Once upon a time the Supreme Court prioritized religious freedom cases aimed at protecting the rights of religious minorities who are marginalized in a predominantly Christian society. But the Christian Nationalist groups litigating this case are hoping to use it to extend the recent pattern of the current court granting special favor to the majority religion at the expense of all others. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state in order to uphold this country’s promise of freedom and equality for all of us.”

Groff’s legal team includes First Liberty Institute and the Independence Law Center, Christian Nationalist organizations that are part of a billion-dollar shadow network behind nationwide litigation that seeks to undermine church-state separation.

Americans United & Lambda Legal Filed Amicus Brief In Case

Americans United was joined by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in filing an amicus brief in the case, arguing that Title VII permits employers to consider whether proposed religious accommodations would impose scheduling, health and safety, dignitary, or other burdens on coworkers or customers.

More information about the case is available here.

In an amicus brief filed late Friday in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. USDA, Americans United and allied groups stressed that more than 20 years of evidence supports the FDA’s conclusion that medication abortion with mifepristone is safe and effective. The groups assert that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s unprecedented decision to ban mifepristone imperils the health and safety of millions of people.

Other organizations joining the brief include the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Reproductive Rights, Lambda Legal, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, People For the American Way and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. A full list of organizations is available here.

Judge Kacsmaryk Advanced Agenda Of Religious Extremists Seeking To Ban All Abortions

“Abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. Mifepristone – a medication unequivocally proven to be safe and effective – is a key component to ensuring equal access to abortion, especially for Black, indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people working to make ends meet and others who face excessive barriers to health care,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Judge Kacsmaryk’s unconscionable decision to ban mifepristone ignores long-established science and sound medical guidance to advance the agenda of religious extremists seeking to ban all abortions and force all of us to live according to their narrow beliefs.

“Abortion bans violate the separation of church and state by enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. Kacsmaryk’s ideologically driven opinion is of a similar character. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why we need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

Case Features Who’s Who Of Christian Nationalist, Shadow Network Groups

This case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist groups that are part of a well-funded and politically connected shadow network that is working to undermine church-state separation and so many rights that depend on that separation. Judge Kacsmaryk’s anti-reproductive freedom views reflect the ideology of First Liberty Institute, where he worked prior to his lifetime judicial appointment. Alliance Defending Freedom brought the case. A slew of religious extremist organizations filed briefs supporting the mifepristone ban, from Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council to Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice to Mike Pence’s Advancing American Freedom.

More information about the case is available here.

“It’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation’s first religious public charter school. This would be a sea change for American democracy. We will say it again: We urge the board to reject any application for a virtual charter school that includes a religious curriculum or engages in religion-based discrimination.

“State and federal law are clear: Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and open to all students. No public-school family should fear that their child will be required by charter schools to take theology classes or be expelled for failing to conform to religious doctrines. And the government should never force anyone to fund religious education. In a country built on the principle of separation of church and state, public schools must never be allowed to become Sunday schools. Americans United will work with our Oklahoma and national partners to defend the separation of church and state that’s promised in both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.”

AU’s Detailed Legal Analysis Explained Why Application Should Be Rejected

In letters, memos and in-person testimony, Americans United provided detailed legal analysis explaining why the board should reject the application from the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa to create the nation’s first religious public charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School.

AU also explained why former Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor’s opinion that the state should allow public charter schools to teach religious curricula was wrong and contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act. AU praised the Feb. 23 decision of current Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to withdraw O’Connor’s incorrect opinion.

Resources:

• AU’s March 17 letter regarding St. Isidore’s Feb. 14 presentation 
• Feb. 14 testimony from AU Senior Litigation Counsel Kenneth Upton, a native of Oklahoma and an Oklahoma City University School of Law alum
• AU’s Feb. 10 letter regarding the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City’s application
• AU’s Jan. 31 letter refuting the former AG’s opinion
• AU’s Jan. 31 legal analysis refuting the former AG’s opinion

“Judge Kacsmaryk’s unconscionable decision advances the agenda of religious extremists seeking to force all of us to live according to their religious beliefs. Kacsmaryk, whose anti-reproductive freedom views have been well-documented, worked for the Christian Nationalist legal group First Liberty Institute prior to his lifetime judicial appointment. This opinion embodies the ideology he fought to impose on the country while at First Liberty. It advances the Christian Nationalist agenda to ban abortion, which would violate the separation of church and state by enshrining one narrow religious viewpoint into our law. If America is to make good on its promise of religious freedom, each of us must be free to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs.

Case Offers Snapshot Of Machinations Of The Shadow Network

“This case offers a snapshot of the machinations of the shadow network of well-funded and politically connected organizations working to undermine church-state separation and so many of the issues Americans care about that rely on it, including abortion rights and LGBTQ equality. The case features a who’s who of Christian Nationalist legal outfits, with the judge an alum of one of the most active. The case was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, another Christian Nationalist legal group. A slew of anti-abortion organizations filed briefs supporting the ban, from Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council to Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice to Mike Pence’s Advancing American Freedom.

“These shadow network organizations have an overfunded war chest and outsized political influence, but they don’t represent the views of the majority of Americans. Their goal is to impose their extremist beliefs on us all, and that’s precisely why we must separate church and state. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. It’s the shield that protects freedom without favor and equality without exception for all of us.”

Appeals Court Properly Considered Burdens & Hardships Imposed On USPS

In an amicus brief filed today in the Groff v. DeJoy case, Americans United urged the court to affirm that the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals properly considered the burdens and hardships that the request imposed on the U.S. Postal Service and its workers. Gerald Groff was not a full-time, career letter carrier, but a part-time carrier hired specifically to work flexible hours and cover weekend and holiday shifts at a 4-person post office in Pennsylvania. Over 14 months, Groff refused to show up for 24 Sunday shifts due to his religious beliefs. This led other employees – nearly all church-going Christians – to resign, transfer, file grievances or cover for him while he watched, as he admitted, NASCAR after church on Sundays.

Groff’s legal team includes First Liberty Institute and the Independence Law Center, Christian Nationalist organizations that are part of a billion-dollar shadow network behind nationwide litigation that seeks to undermine church-state separation.

Religious Freedom Doesn’t Mean We Can Shift Burden Of Practicing Our Faith Onto Others

“Our civil rights laws rightly require religious accommodations for workers, which is especially important for religious minorities whose rights and customs might not be respected in the workplace,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “But religious freedom does not mean we can shift the burden of practicing our faith onto other people. Religious freedom has never been a license to harm others, in employment or any other facet of life.

“This case is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Laser warned. “Christian Nationalist legal groups are litigating cases like this as part of their crusade to secure privilege for those who share their narrow religious beliefs – at the cost of everyone else’s religious freedom. Once upon a time the Supreme Court prioritized religious-freedom cases aimed at protecting the rights of religious minorities who are marginalized in a predominantly Christian society. But the Christian Nationalist groups litigating this case are hoping to use it to extend the recent pattern of the current court granting special favor to the majority religion at the expense of all others.

“We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state if we’re to uphold this country’s promise of freedom and equality for all of us.”

AU’s Amicus Brief Joined By Lambda Legal Defense And Education Fund

The brief was joined by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It was authored by attorneys Joshua A. Matz, Carmen Iguina Gonzalez, James Santel, Selena Kitchens and Disha Verma of the law firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP; AU attorneys Bradley Girard, litigation counsel, and Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director; and Lambda Legal attorneys Karen L. Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice, and Gregory R. Nevins, senior counsel and Employment Fairness Project director.

A copy of the brief is available here.

“Abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. But since the ultra-conservative bloc of the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe last year, religious extremists and their lawmaker allies have banned or heavily restricted abortion in more than two dozen states – forcing all of us to live by their narrow beliefs and curtailing the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans. The harm caused by abortion bans and restrictions falls hardest on Black, indigenous and other people of color working to make ends meet.

“We need the Women’s Health Protection Act: It will protect the right to access abortion, free from restrictions and bans, nationwide. It will safeguard both religious freedom and reproductive freedom by ensuring all of us can make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. Abortion bans are a violation of the separation of church and state because they impose one narrow religious belief on all of us. That’s why Americans United is in court on behalf of 14 clergy fighting abortion bans in Missouri. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state, which shields our shared laws from the influence of any one religion and frees us to come together as equals and build a stronger democracy.”

More information about the lawsuit Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri is available here.

The clergy are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the law firm Arnold & Porter and local civil rights attorney Denise Lieberman in the lawsuit Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri. In addition to adding Rev. Gray as a plaintiff, an amended complaint filed last night in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis adds a 1986 anti-abortion law to the statutes being challenged. The lawsuit demonstrates that Missouri lawmakers violated the state constitution by enshrining in law their personal religious beliefs about abortion and the origins of life when they enacted several abortion bans and other laws restricting abortion access.

The newly added 1986 law was passed as part of an omnibus anti-abortion bill, S.C.H.H.B. 1596, that was co-written by the Missouri Catholic Conference. The law codifies the unscientific, religious belief that the “life of each human being begins at conception” and requires that all subsequent Missouri laws – including others challenged in this lawsuit – rely on this inherently religious theory of when life begins.

The Rev. Darryl Gray, Pastor At Greater Fairfax Missionary Baptist Church, St. Louis:

“As a Progressive Baptist, the freedom to determine one’s own life path is central to my faith. Missouri’s abortion bans restrict this freedom by preventing pregnant people from making their own decisions about their bodies and lives in accordance with their faith. The abortion bans also codify a theological belief about conception that does not align with my religious beliefs. This an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. No interpretation of the Bible or any other religious text should be enshrined into law or used to restrict the rights of all Missourians.”

Rachel Laser, President And CEO Of Americans United:

“Missouri’s abortion bans are a direct attack on the separation of church and state. Religious extremists and their lawmaker allies are forcing all Missourians to live by their narrow beliefs. Religious freedom promises each of us the freedom to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why so many faith leaders are speaking out in support of church-state separation as the shield that protects both religious freedom and abortion access for everyone.”

Fatima Goss Graves, President And CEO Of NWLC:

“These abortion bans in Missouri and across the country are attempts by politicians to control and dehumanize us. Rather than letting each person follow their own beliefs when making important decisions about their own bodies, lives, and futures, these politicians want to force us to live according to their beliefs. But for many, including the clergy plaintiffs in our case, their faith calls them to support abortion access because it is critical to the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. People deserve to live in a world where they are able to make their own personal decisions about their bodies, lives, and futures. Today’s lawsuit is an important step in getting us closer to that reality.”

Case Background:

The lawsuit Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri was filed on Jan. 19, 2023. It now represents 14 Missouri clergy members from diverse faith traditions, including Baptist, Episcopalian, Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator. (A full list of clergy plaintiffs, along with quotes and photos, is available here.)

The lawsuit demonstrates that Gov. Michael Parson and the Missouri Legislature violated the state constitution by enshrining into law their personal religious beliefs about abortion and the origins of life when they enacted several abortion bans as part of House Bill No. 126, as well as earlier laws that destroyed abortion access in the state. One of the bans in H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. Lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in the bill itself that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.” Legislators said they passed the ban because:

• “to me God doesn’t give us a choice in this area. He is the Creator of life.”
• “being from the Biblical side of it, I’ve always believed that life does occur at the point of conception.”
• “Life begins at conception. Psalms 119 says …”
• “as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception. That is built into our legislative findings currently in law…”

(Examples and video of legislators’ remarks about their religious motivations to ban abortion are available here.)

The faith leaders are asking the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis to issue a permanent injunction striking down the abortion bans. The lawsuit demonstrates how HB 126 and earlier statutes and regulations restricting abortion violate three sections of the Missouri Constitution that prohibit state officials from compelling people to support or participate in any religious activities or beliefs, favoring any particular religion, or using public money to support religion.

In addition to the State of Missouri, defendants include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Michael L. Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; a class of all the municipal prosecuting attorneys statewide; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson; and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.

Resources:

• A copy of the lawsuit’s amended complaint.
• A factsheet and videos of Missouri legislators’ remarks on their religious motivations to ban abortion.
• Information about the faith leader plaintiffs, including photos and remarks.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser issued the following statement in response to the West Virginia Legislature adjourning without passing Senate Bill 619, a bill that would have authorized public school teachers to teach intelligent design creationism:

“We at Americans United are thankful that West Virginia public school students won’t be forced to sit through lessons on intelligent design creationism – an inherently religious doctrine that has no place in public schools. Public schools are not Sunday schools; their purpose is to teach students sound science, not preach religious beliefs.

“While the intelligent design bill failed this session, it’s alarming that the bill got as much traction as it did. The bill’s supporters blatantly ignored the Constitution’s promise to separate church and state – the protector of religious freedom – and would have flouted decades of court precedent that bars the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools, including an Americans United case that successfully proved intelligent design was simply creationism rebranded.

“If legislators insist on resurrecting this bill, Americans United is ready to defend the Constitution and protect public education and the religious freedom of West Virginia families. Using our public schools to impose religious doctrines like intelligent design on a captive audience of schoolchildren is part of the Christian Nationalist agenda to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. Our public schools and our democracy depend on it.”

AU Court Case Ended Public School’s Attempt To Teach Intelligent Design

In a 2005 decision, a federal district court so resoundingly struck down a Pennsylvania school district’s attempts to insert intelligent design creationism in public school science classes that there have been no successful attempts to teach it in public schools since. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, brought by Americans United and the ACLU, now retired U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that “ID is not science,” that “ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” and that “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.” Jones’ decision followed a string of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts that also barred the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Americans United sent a letter to West Virginia legislators in late February explaining this legal history and urging them to vote against SB 619.

“This country was founded on the separation of church and state. That principle is a bedrock of our democracy and essential for equality. The City of Ocala blatantly violated this principle and its residents’ religious freedom by promoting certain religious beliefs. The state must never use its power to impose religion on its citizens.

“Justices Gorsuch and Thomas’ statements suggest a willingness to silence voices who speak out against these clear constitutional violations – violations that trample the religious freedom of us all. We must not be silenced. We need a national recommitment to the separation of church and state. Our democracy depends on it.”

“Abortion Bans A Direct Attack On Separation Of Church And State”

“This abortion ban violates the promise of religious freedom in Indiana’s Constitution,” said Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United. “Religious freedom prohibits legislators from enshrining their religious beliefs into law. Abortion bans undermine religious freedom by imposing one religious viewpoint on all of us. Abortion bans are a direct attack on the separation of church and state.”

In an amicus brief filed today in Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, AU and its allies explain: “Indiana legislators sought to impose their religious beliefs about when life begins on all Hoosiers by enacting S.E.A. 1. The abortion ban thus threatens the state’s healthy religious pluralism, compounds the threat of religiously based strife, and increases the already substantial mistrust of our political institutions by miring them in theological matters that they are not empowered to resolve.”

Fourteen Religious & Civil-Rights Organizations Join AU’s Amicus Brief

Joining Americans United on the brief are ADL (Anti-Defamation League); Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community Churches; Hindu American Foundation; Interfaith Alliance Foundation; Men of Reform Judaism; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Sikh Coalition; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association; and Women of Reform Judaism.

“Mayor Adams’ comments dismissing our country’s foundational principle of separation of church and state are shocking and dangerous. Our democracy, equality and rights all rely on America’s commitment to separate church and state. That separation is not anti-religion, as Mayor Adams seems to imply. Rather, it is what protects religious freedom for everyone.

“It’s especially disheartening to hear the mayor of New York City promoting right-wing, Christian Nationalist talking points about prayer solving gun violence. Not only is it simply untrue that prayer alone will end school shootings, but his words ignore the fact that students are free to voluntarily pray in public schools because of the separation of church and state.

“The separation of church and state guarantees Mayor Adams the right to have his personal religious beliefs. But as an elected official, when acting in his official capacity as mayor, he must be a mayor to all New Yorkers. In New York City – the largest and most religiously diverse city in the United States, where a quarter of the population identifies as nonreligious – the separation of church and state is a necessary shield to protect everyone’s right to live as themselves and believe as they choose.

“We as a country must recommit immediately to separate church and state, before America is no longer America. Americans United is reaching out to the mayor’s office to offer our expertise and advice on how Mayor Adams as an elected official can be true to his personal faith while respecting the religious freedom of New Yorkers and his oath of office to uphold the Constitution – including the separation of church and state.”

“Our country’s fundamental principle of church-state separation promises everyone the freedom to believe as they want, so long as they don’t use their religious beliefs to harm others. No one should be turned away from a government-funded job because they can’t meet a religious test. No one should be forced to live by their employer’s religious beliefs.

“The harmful Trump policy encouraged and allowed for-profit federal contractors to use religion to discriminate against workers, especially LGBTQ people and women. We applaud the Biden administration for taking critical steps toward ending taxpayer-funded discrimination.

“Americans United has worked tirelessly to bring an end to Trump-administration policies that sought to transform religious freedom from a shield that protects people into a sword to harm others. We’re pleased that the Biden administration has proposed to roll back many harmful Trump-era regulations that deal with birth control access, denial of medical care, and religious freedom protections for people who rely on government-funded services. While there is more work to be done, these are important steps on the path toward a country that promises the freedom and equality that come with church-state separation.”

Trump Department Of Labor Rule Expanded George W. Bush-Era Policy

The Trump Department of Labor rule expanded a George W. Bush-era policy that permits faith-based federal contractors to give hiring preference to people of the same religion. The Bush policy, though problematic, was narrow. The Trump regulation, on the other hand, called for a broad interpretation of the exemption, extending it to contractors that are only nominally religious and even to for-profit corporations.

The Trump rule’s preamble also asserted that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) would allow employers to discriminate not just on the basis of an employee’s religion, but also based on other protected characteristics such as sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Biden administration has restored the pre-Trump era rule.­­­

“It’s hard to think of a clearer example of violating the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than if Oklahoma established the nation’s first religious public charter school. The government should not force anyone to fund religion. And no public-school family should fear their child will be required by charter schools to take religious classes, pray or attend chapel guided by a religion that isn’t their own. In a country built on the principle of separation of church and state, public schools must never be allowed to become Sunday schools.

“We appreciate that Attorney General Drummond upheld the law, which clearly defines charter schools as public schools that must provide secular education and be open to all students. This action not only protects the religious freedom of taxpayers, parents, and students; it also protects religious institutions from government interference that accompanies public funding. We urge the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to follow these legal principles as well.”

Rev. Dr. Lori Allen Walke: “Our Attorney General just advanced true religious freedom for every Oklahoman.”

The Rev. Dr. Lori Allen Walke, senior minister at Mayflower Congregational United Church of Christ in Oklahoma City and a member of AU’s Faith Advisory Council, said: “Our Attorney General just advanced true religious freedom for every Oklahoman. If religion and religious liberty are to flourish, we must have a strong separation between church and state. As a faith leader, I understand that when the state taxes my fellow Oklahomans of any faith or none to fund houses of worship and religious schools, it has violated the conscience and religious freedom of all of us. Thank you, Attorney General Drummond.”

Americans United Provided Detailed Legal Analysis To Oklahoma Officials

In letters, memos and in-person testimony, Americans United provided detailed legal analysis to the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board explaining why former attorney general John O’Connor’s opinion that the state should allow public charter schools to teach religious curricula was wrong and was contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act.

AU has urged the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to reject the pending application from the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa to create the nation’s first religious public charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School.

Resources:

• Feb. 14 testimony from AU Senior Litigation Counsel Kenneth Upton, a native of Oklahoma and an Oklahoma City University School of Law alum
• AU’s Feb. 10 letter regarding the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City’s application
• AU’s Jan. 31 letter refuting the former AG’s opinion
• AU’s Jan. 31 legal analysis refuting the former AG’s opinion

“We applaud the Biden administration for affirming that discrimination has no place in our public colleges and universities. Rescinding the harmful Trump rule means students won’t be forced to subsidize clubs that discriminate against them. It also means colleges won’t be forced to choose between protecting students and losing federal funding, or allowing discrimination against students in order to keep federal financial assistance.

“Americans United has worked tirelessly to end this and other Trump-administration policies that sought to undermine church-state separation and transform religious freedom from a shield that protects people into a sword to harm others. We’re pleased that the Biden administration has proposed to roll back many harmful Trump regulations that deal with birth control access, denial of medical care, and religious freedom protections for people who rely on government-funded services. While there is more work to be done, these are important steps on the path toward a country that promises the freedom and equality that come with church-state separation.”

Americans United-American Atheists Lawsuit Challenging Trump Rule

Secular Student Alliance v. U.S. Department of Education, a lawsuit filed by Americans United and American Atheists to challenge the Trump-era rule on behalf of the Secular Student Alliance and a California university student, has been on hold while the Biden administration reconsiders the rule. More information about the lawsuit is available here.

AU Senior Litigation Counsel Kenneth Upton Testifies In Oklahoma

Americans United Senior Litigation Counsel Kenneth Upton, a native of Oklahoma and an Oklahoma City University School of Law alum, testified at the board’s meeting today to summarize AU’s detailed legal analysis that former AG John O’Connor’s opinion misinterprets the nature of charter schools and is a radical departure from well-established law that defines them as public schools that must provide secular education and be open to all students.

Not only do the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act prohibit the board from creating a religious public charter school, but AU further explained additional ways in which the archdiocese’s request to form the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School fails to comply with state and federal law.

“Oklahoma charter schools are prohibited from teaching religion, sponsoring prayer, discriminating based on religion, or otherwise promoting religion or coercing students to take part in religious activities,” Upton testified to the board. “Yet St. Isidore makes clear in its application that it intends to do all of these things – running the school ‘as a Catholic School,’ which they make clear is a ‘place of evangelization.’ … We urge that you deny the application. This would both fulfill your duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the religious freedom of students, families, and all Oklahomans.” 

(Upton’s testimony can be viewed at this link, at about the 35-minute mark.)

“Establishing The Nation’s First Religious Public Charter School Would Be A Sea Change”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, said: “Establishing the nation’s first religious public charter school would be a sea change for American democracy and violate the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school students.  No one should be forced to fund a religion not their own. And no public-school student should be required by charter schools to take religious classes, pray, or attend chapel. Public schools aren’t and shouldn’t be Sunday schools. Americans United is proud to offer our long-held expertise to Oklahoma and stands ready to defend the Constitution if the charter school board wrongly approves applications from any school that would impose religion on students, including St. Isidore.”

Resources:

• Upton’s Feb. 14 Testimony – video and written remarks
• AU’s Feb. 10 letter regarding the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City’s application
• AU’s Jan. 31 letter refuting the former AG’s opinion
• AU’s Jan. 31 legal analysis refuting the former AG’s opinion

Americans United has been on the forefront of this area of law for 75 years, and the letter and memo showcase that expertise and experience. This church-state watchdog group urges the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to disregard O’Connor’s opinion “and deny any applications [it] may receive to operate a charter school that provides religious education.”

State Law & U.S. Constitution Require That Oklahoma Charter Schools Provide Nonsectarian Education

O’Connor’s opinion, issued on Dec. 1, 2022, a month before he left office, wrongly claims that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution requires Oklahoma to allow charter schools that teach a religious curriculum or even indoctrinate children into a religion. Americans United refutes this mistaken conclusion, explaining, “Far from violating the U.S. Constitution, the requirement in state law that Oklahoma charter schools provide nonsectarian education is mandated by the Constitution.”

At heart, the AG opinion misunderstands the nature of charter schools. “Reclassifying charter schools as private actors would be a sea change in the law that would upend the entire educational landscape in Oklahoma. It has always been the understanding of lawmakers, the government, and charter schools themselves that they are public schools and subject to the U.S. Constitution,” AU’s letter explains. AU also notes that a 2007 Oklahoma Attorney General opinion affirmed that charter schools are “part of the public school system.”

Reports: Catholic Archdiocese Of Oklahoma City Seeks To Run Virtual Charter School

Reports indicate that the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City will apply to operate a virtual charter school. Today is the deadline for potential schools to apply for charters to the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. The board is expected to consider presentations on the applications at its meeting on Feb. 14.

If the board approves the archdiocese’s charter, it would be defying centuries of precedent and establishing the first public religious charter school in the country.

Rachel Laser: “This Would Be A Sea Change For American Democracy”

Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser said: “Americans United is proud to offer our long expertise to Oklahoma and stands ready to defend the Constitution if the charter school board wrongly approves applications from any school that would impose religion on students, including the archdiocese’s charter. This would be a sea change for American democracy and violate the religious freedom of both Oklahoma taxpayers, who would be forced to fund a religion not their own, and Oklahoma public-school students, who could be required by charter schools to take religious classes, pray, and attend chapel. Public schools aren’t and shouldn’t be Sunday schools.

“Our public schools have suffered devastating blows at the Supreme Court in recent years. The government shouldn’t be chartering or funding any schools that teach religious doctrine as truth, sponsor prayers, discriminate based on religion, or otherwise promote religion or coerce students to participate in religious activities. We live in a religiously diverse nation, and the separation of church and state guarantees that our public schools are open and welcoming to all students. What we need right now is a national recommitment to the separation of church and state.”

“We applaud the Biden administration for proposing critical changes to the Trump-era birth control rules. Religious freedom is a core American value. So is the right to make our own decisions about reproductive health care. Today’s proposed rule is a positive step toward protecting both.

“The Trump-era rules undermined church-state separation and weaponized religious freedom to justify hurting people who depend on contraception for their health and equality. Today’s proposed rule seeks to improve people’s access to contraceptive services no matter where they work or study.

“Americans United has worked tirelessly to bring an end to Trump administration policies that sought to transform religious freedom from a shield that protects people into a sword to harm others. We’re pleased that the Biden administration has proposed to roll back many harmful Trump-era regulations that deal with birth control access, denial of medical care, and religious freedom protections for people who rely on government-funded services. While there is more work to be done, these are important steps on the path toward a country that promises freedom and equality for everyone.”

AU Lawsuit Challenging Trump Birth Control Rules

The Trump-era birth control rules are the subject of pending litigation filed by Americans United along with the National Women’s Law Center, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the law firm Macey Swanson LLP. The lawsuit, Irish 4 Reproductive Health v. HHS, was filed in 2018 on behalf of University of Notre Dame students, employees and their dependents who lost contraceptive access due to both the Trump rules and an unlawful, backdoor settlement agreement between the Trump administration, the university and more than 70 other religiously affiliated organizations to settle previous lawsuits over birth control insurance coverage benefits.

The Irish 4 Reproductive Health v. HHS case is the only litigation that’s been brought on behalf of people who lost birth control access, and is the only lawsuit challenging the secret settlement agreement.

More information about Irish 4 Reproductive Health v. HHS is available here.

Shelly Fitzgerald – A Beloved And Trusted Guidance Counselor

Shelly Fitzgerald was a beloved and trusted guidance counselor at her alma mater, Roncalli High School, for fourteen years. Fitzgerald and her wife, Victoria, have been together for 25 years, marrying in 2014 as soon as Indiana recognized marriage equality. After four years of marriage, school administrators summoned Fitzgerald to a 2018 meeting and gave her four heartbreaking “options”: resign; be fired immediately; be fired at the end of her one-year contract if she would “keep quiet” about why she was being fired; or dissolve her marriage.

Fitzgerald refused to divorce her wife or resign, and within days was placed on administrative leave and banned from campus. Her contract was not renewed in spring 2019. Fitzgerald sued for this violation of her civil rights.

School Exploiting Doctrine Known As The ‘Ministerial Exception’

The school and its lawyers are trying to prevent the courts from considering Fitzgerald’s case by exploiting a court-created doctrine known as the “ministerial exception,” which is meant to protect the ability of houses of worship to choose their clergy. But the ministerial exception applies only to important preachers and teachers of the faith; it was never intended to be a free pass for any religious employer to discriminate against its entire workforce. Shelly Fitzgerald was not a minister and never performed religious duties; as a guidance counselor, she assisted and advised students on their academic, professional and vocational options.

An appeal brief filed last night with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School explains that a federal district court judge in Indiana was wrong to dismiss Fitzgerald’s case on Sept. 30, 2022. “The First Amendment rightly gives religious employers special solicitude to choose important religious figures to teach and preach the faith. It does not give them the power to choose what laws apply to them and when,” the brief notes.

Rachel Laser: ‘The Courts Should Not Give The School A Free Pass To Ignore Civil-Rights Laws’

“Shelly Fitzgerald was a loved and trusted guidance counselor providing academic and career advice to students at her alma mater. She was not a minister when she was fired for being married to the woman she’s loved for more than 25 years. The courts should not give the school a free pass to ignore civil-rights laws and discriminate against her and other non-ministerial employees. We urge the court to affirm that Catholic schools and other religious employers are not above civil-rights laws.

“This case is part of a dangerous trend: The school’s attorneys and religious employers are urging courts to adopt an ever-broader interpretation of the ministerial exception, which was meant to ensure that houses of worship could freely choose their clergy. Judges created the ministerial exception for ministers. It’s right there in the name. The rule was never meant to put religious employers above the law and permit them to discriminate against all workers and sidestep civil-rights laws.

“According to these religious employers, they can strip every worker – from janitor, to cook, to P.E. teacher, to nurse, to guidance counselor – of the protection of basic civil-rights laws by requiring every employee to sign a ministerial contract, regardless of the duties they are actually expected to perform each day. If the courts allow this to continue, the expanded doctrine could be exploited to fire, refuse to hire, or mistreat for any reason the more-than-a-million employees who work at religious schools, hospitals and nonprofits. That is not what our Constitution intended.”

Resources:

• Today’s opening appeal brief.
• More information about Fitzgerald’s case.
• A photo of Fitzgerald and her family.

“Americans United is heartbroken and outraged at the mass shooting that marred the Lunar New Year celebrations in Monterey Park, Calif. While a motive has not yet been announced, this weekend’s shooting comes at a time when extremist violence and hate are increasingly directed at Asian people, as well as other people of color and minority communities. There can be no freedom for any of us in America until we are all free to come together and celebrate our holidays without fear that we will be harmed because of who we are, what we look like or what religion we practice.

“Every day, Americans United works toward a world in which we all can live as ourselves and believe as we choose. Violence has no place in that world. Americans United pledges solidarity with the Asian community of Monterey Park.”

Ahead of the 50^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on Sunday, thirteen prominent actors united to voice their support for church-state separation and abortion rights in a compelling new video released today by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Abortion bans violate the separation of church and state,” proclaim the star-studded cast that includes Amy Brenneman, Hunter Doohan, Tommy Dorfman, Dulé Hill, Allison Janney, Sarah Jones, Amy Landecker, Mary McCormack, Arian Moayed, Sarah Paulson, Kate Walsh, Michaela Watkins and Bradley Whitford.

“These extremists are abusing religion to hurt us,” the stars explain to a new and wider audience. “To deny us our basic human rights. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is fighting back.”

New Lawsuit Challenging Missouri Abortion Bans

The support was spurred by a lawsuit filed yesterday by Americans United, the National Women’s Law Center, and the law firm Arnold & Porter to challenge Missouri’s abortion bans and several related abortion restrictions as unconstitutionally imposing one narrow religious doctrine on all Missouri residents in violation of the separation of church and state.

The lawsuit, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, was filed on behalf of thirteen Missouri clergy members from six faith traditions whose various religions call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant.

“Everyone needs to understand that abortion bans violate the separation of church and state.”

“We’re honored to have such prominent voices joining us to support the separation of church and state and abortion rights,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United.

“It’s crucial that we shed light on how religious extremists and their lawmaker allies are using the force of law to impose their narrow religious doctrine on all of us. Everyone needs to understand that abortion bans violate the separation of church and state.”

More information about the lawsuit is available here.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and the law firm Arnold & Porter represent the thirteen members of the clergy, whose various faiths call them to support abortion access because of the critical importance it holds for the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. Religious traditions represented by the plaintiffs include Episcopalian, Orthodox Judaism, United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and United Methodist. One plaintiff is also a state legislator.

The lawsuit, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, demonstrates that Gov. Michael Parson and the Missouri Legislature violated the state constitution by enshrining their personal religious beliefs about abortion into law when they enacted several abortion bans as part of House Bill No. 126, as well as earlier laws that destroyed abortion access in the state. One of the bans in H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. Lawmakers openly and repeatedly emphasized they were writing their religious beliefs into the abortion bans, even declaring in the bill itself that “Almighty God is the author of life” – a phrase that an opposing lawmaker noted was “in violation of the separation of church and state.” Legislators said they passed the ban because:

• “to me God doesn’t give us a choice in this area. He is the Creator of life.”
• “being from the Biblical side of it, I’ve always believed that life does occur at the point of conception.”
• “Life begins at conception. Psalms 119 says …”
• “as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception. That is built into our legislative findings currently in law…”

(Examples of legislators’ remarks about their religious motivations to ban abortion are available here.)

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United:

“Missouri’s abortion bans are a direct attack on the separation of church and state. Religious extremists and their lawmaker allies are forcing all Missourians to live by their narrow beliefs. Religious freedom promises each of us the freedom to make our own decisions about our own bodies based on our own beliefs. That’s why so many faith leaders are speaking out in support of church-state separation as the shield that protects both religious freedom and abortion access for everyone.”

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of NWLC:

“These abortion bans in Missouri and across the country are attempts by politicians to control and dehumanize us. Rather than letting each person follow their own beliefs when making important decisions about their own bodies, lives and futures, these politicians want to force us to live according to their beliefs. But for many, including the clergy plaintiffs in our case, their faith calls them to support abortion access because it is critical to the health, autonomy, economic security, and equality of women and all who can become pregnant. People deserve to live in a world where they are able to make their own personal decisions about their bodies, lives, and futures. Today’s lawsuit is an important step in getting us closer to that reality.”

Rev. Traci Blackmon, Associate General Minister of Justice and Local Church Ministries for the United Church of Christ:

“My God is a God of choice. In the United Church of Christ, we believe that God intended people to have autonomy over their lives and bodies, and to have authority to make complex decisions, including whether to have an abortion. Missouri’s abortion bans are an unconscionable abuse of religion to oppress all Missourians. Legislators do not have the right to impose their faith on me or anyone else. They’re betraying the separation of church and state that has enabled the religious plurality we enjoy in our state and in our country.”

Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, Executive Director, Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis:

“Missouri’s abortion bans contradict, devalue and disrespect my religious beliefs that the life and health of a pregnant person take precedence over a fetus. Jewish law mandates the termination of a pregnancy if the life of the person carrying the fetus is in jeopardy. The claim that life begins at conception is a statement of theological belief, and that belief is explicitly not a Jewish one. Our Jewish community has not only survived but flourished in America because of the civil liberties we have been afforded in this country unlike most other countries in which we have lived, and the cornerstone of those liberties is the separation of church and state, including the right to abortion and access to comprehensive reproductive health care.”

Other faith leader plaintiffs include:

• Rabbi Doug Alpert, Congregation Kol Ami, Kansas City
• Jan Barnes, United Church of Christ, Webster Groves (retired)
• Rabbi Jim Bennett, Congregation Shaare Emeth, Creve Coeur
• Cindy Bumb, United Church of Christ, St. Louis (retired)
• Rabbi Andrea Goldstein, Congregation Shaare Emeth, Creve Coeur
• Molly Housh Gordon, Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbia
• The Rt. Rev. Deon K. Johnson, Eleventh Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri
• Holly McKissick, Peace Church United Church of Christ, Kansas City
• Barbara Phifer, retired United Methodist minister and State Representative in District 90
• Rabbi Susan Talve, Central Reform Congregation, St. Louis
• Krista Taves, Eliot Unitarian Chapel, Kirkwood, and First Unitarian Church, Alton, Ill.

(Additional information about the plaintiffs, including photos and remarks, is available here.)

The faith leaders are asking the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis to issue a permanent injunction striking down the abortion bans. The lawsuit demonstrates how HB 126 and earlier statutes and regulations restricting abortion violate three sections of the Missouri Constitution that prohibit state officials from compelling people to support or participate in any religious activities or beliefs, favoring any particular religion, or using public money to support religion.

In addition to the State of Missouri, defendants include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Michael L. Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; a class of all the municipal prosecuting attorneys statewide; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson; and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.

Resources:

• A copy of the lawsuit complaint.
• A factsheet and videos of Missouri legislators’ remarks on their religious motivations to ban abortion.
• Information about the faith leader plaintiffs, including photos and remarks.

“We applaud the Biden administration for restoring religious freedom protections for the millions of often vulnerable and marginalized people who use government-funded social services.

“Religious freedom is a foundational American principle. No one should have to give up their religious freedom in order to get critical services. No one should ever be pressured to participate in religious activities or be required to meet a religious litmus test in exchange for the help they need.

“These proposed regulations are an important step toward protecting religious freedom for all. When the government funds vital services, it must ensure these programs are open to people of all faiths and the nonreligious and that religion is not being misused to deny people services or their civil rights.”

The proposed regulations affect nine federal departments and agencies: The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Today’s proposed rules, once finalized, will replace Trump administration policies that stripped away religious freedom protections from people who use government-funded social services. The new regulations would:

• Reinstate the requirement that people seeking services be informed of their religious freedom rights, which include that:
  • They can’t be discriminated against because of their religion or because they are nonreligious.
  • They can’t be required to pray or participate in religious activities.
  • They can file a complaint if their rights are violated.
• Reinstate safeguards that ensure that people who obtain social services through vouchers are not forced to attend or participate in religious activities.
• Eliminate Trump-era provisions that were designed to allow social service providers to refuse to provide key services and that were intended to open the door to discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs.

On January 19, 2021, together with our co-counsel Democracy Forward and Lambda Legal, Americans United filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump regulations: MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger v. HHS. The lawsuit alleges that in putting forth the harmful regulations, the Trump administration provided no reasonable explanation for the rule change, failed to account for its harms, and failed to consider obvious alternatives to the changes they finalized – all in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

“We applaud the Biden administration for taking positive steps toward protecting both religious freedom and patients’ health by rescinding the Trump-era Denial of Care Rule. No one should be denied medical treatment because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

“The Denial of Care Rule was a dangerous policy that weaponized religious freedom and put the health and lives of women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities and so many others in jeopardy. Today’s proposed rule recognizes the potential harm to patients and upholds the fundamental principle of church-state separation.”

The Denial of Care Rule which was issued in May 2019 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under former President Donald Trump. It invited any health care worker to deny medical care to patients because of the health care worker’s personal religious or moral beliefs. Health care facilities risked losing essential federal funding unless they granted employees carte blanche to deny services. That risk could have forced many health care facilities to eliminate services such as reproductive and LGBTQ care. Federal courts had blocked the rule from going into effect.

Americans United and allies filed two federal lawsuits challenging the Denial of Care Rule, arguing that HHS during the Trump administration exceeded its authority and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to consider the rule’s potential harm to patients and the health care system, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. We also argued that the rule was unconstitutional because it favored specific religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment; violated patients’ rights to privacy, liberty and equal dignity as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment; and chilled patients’ speech and expression in violation of the First Amendment, all to the detriment of patients’ health and well-being.

• In the County of Santa Clara v. HHS, Americans United joined the Center for Reproductive Rights, Lambda Legal, the law firm Mayer Brown LLP and Santa Clara County, Calif., which runs an extensive public health and hospital system that serves as a safety-net provider for the county’s 1.9 million Bay Area residents. Other plaintiffs in the case include providers across the country that focus on reproductive and LGBTQ care, plus five doctors and three medical associations. In Nov. 2019, the district court granted summary judgment in our favor on our Administrative Procedure Act claims, vacating the rule in its entirety.
• In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Azar, Americans United joined the Baltimore City Solicitor and the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP to represent the Baltimore City Health Department, which has strived to ensure that vulnerable and historically marginalized people can seek medical care without fear of stigmatization or discrimination. After other federal district courts blocked the Denial of Care Rule, the district court held this case in abeyance pending the government’s appeals.

More information about those lawsuits is available here.

“Religious freedom is a shield that protects us – never a sword to harm others. It ensures we all have the freedom to live as ourselves and believe as we choose. The court here did the right thing, reminding Yeshiva University that religious freedom is not a license to discriminate and that it must provide all student clubs – including those of LGBTQ students – with equal treatment and safe spaces under New York’s public accommodations law. Today’s decision is a win for true religious freedom.”

Yeshiva University Must Abide By New York City Human Rights Law

When YU refused to recognize Pride Alliance, the LGBTQ student club sued the university for violating New York City’s Human Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. One of the central questions in the case has been whether Yeshiva University is a public accommodation under that law. Back in 1995, YU admitted that it was chartered as a secular educational institution and therefore, as its own attorneys said at the time, it would be bound by human rights laws requiring equal treatment for student groups.

Americans United & Allies Filed Amicus Brief In Case

Americans United joined the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union to file an amicus brief in the case, YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University.

The Becket Fund, an active and well-funded member of the billion-dollar shadow network of religious extremists AU has been warning about, argued that YU should be exempt from the human rights law because of its Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs, even though YU receives public funding and is not chartered as a religious organization.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene on behalf of Becket, and the case was kicked back down to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, which decided in favor of the student group today. That court correctly held that YU does not meet the definition of “religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporation law” and that giving the Pride Alliance full and equal access does not intrude on YU’s asserted right “to decide matters ‘of faith and doctrine.’” The court also noted there was no violation of YU’s free exercise of religion.

Antisemitism is a blight on our country – and it’s on the rise. Religious extremists are not only responsible for this dangerous surge; they are intent on tearing down the wall separating church and state in order to cement their privilege.

Antisemitism is one of several threats we face when the wall crumbles. It’s the canary in the coal mine that portends more hatred and violence to come. If we want to preserve the rights of racial and religious minorities including the nonreligious, reproductive freedom, LGBTQ equality, public schools, public libraries…our democracy, we must keep religion and government separate.

That’s why Americans United is calling for a national recommitment to separation of church and state.

Supreme Court “Shockingly Cavalier” About Discrimination in 303 Creative

On Monday’s oral arguments in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, the conservative Supreme Court justices were shockingly cavalier about the discrimination they seem poised to allow despite anti-discrimination laws. They are about to take our country backward to a time when businesses could openly declare “No Jews allowed.” While Justice Alito disturbingly joked about Black children dressed in Ku Klux Klan garb and Jewish dating sites, he and others on the court ignored the multitude of examples provided by Americans United and our allies of how these exemptions will harm LGBTQ people and religious and racial minorities.

As we pointed out in our amicus brief, in 2020 there was “a 34% rise in anti-Semitic incidents nationwide from the year before, hitting a record high over a 40-year span, with more than seven anti-Semitic incidents per day on average.” We concluded that this case “threatens the civil rights of religious minorities” and will fuel that rise in antisemitism if the court decides it the wrong way.

Domestic Terrorism Advisory For Jews, Other Religious And Racial Minorities, LGBTQ+ People

The Supreme Court’s deliberations in 303 Creative came just days after the Department of Homeland Security took the extraordinary step of warning Jews, other religious and racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people and immigrants to be on heightened alert for domestic terrorism from “lone offenders and small groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances.” As we saw in last month’s shooting at an LGBTQ+ club in Colorado Springs, violence is the tragically predictable result when religious and political extremists engage in terrorism.

As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security noted, the current threat of terrorism is exacerbated by public officials and celebrities who promote antisemitic tropes and dangerous conspiracy theories. The former president of the United States, who fueled an insurrection by Christian nationalists and other militant supporters, publicly dined Thanksgiving week with a world-famous rapper under fire for repeated antisemitic remarks and another prominent antisemitic white supremacist.

AU Condemns Antisemitism, Other Extremist Ideologies That Stoke Violence And Fear

We condemn antisemitism and all other hate-filled, extremist ideologies that stoke violence, fear and oppression in our society. There can be no freedom for any of us in America until we are all free to live our lives without fear that we will be harmed because of who we are, what we look like or what religion we practice. Americans United is committed to defending the separation of church and state as the shield that ensures we may all live as ourselves and believe as we choose. There can be no religious freedom, racial justice, LGBTQ+ equality or reproductive freedom without church-state separation.

Represented by the Christian nationalist outfit Alliance Defending Freedom, a Colorado website design business is challenging the state’s anti-discrimination law and arguing that it has a free speech and religious freedom right to deny service to hypothetical future customers who are same-sex couples. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the free speech argument in 303 Creative v. Elenis, even though the company does not offer design services for weddings and no same-sex couple has sought such a design or been denied service.

AU’s Amicus Brief: Anti-Discrimination Laws Protect Religious Minorities

Americans United for Separation of Church and State joined 29 religious freedom organizations in filing an amicus brief that explained how anti-discrimination laws like Colorado’s protect religious minorities as well as LGBTQ people and customers with other protected characteristics, such as race, sex, age and ability.

“Such a speech-based exemption from compliance with anti-discrimination laws would open the floodgates to the very discrimination that these laws are intended to guard against,” the brief explains. This kind of exemption would have “devastating consequences for all historically marginalized groups,” but Americans United and the other organizations focus “on the impact for members of minority religions.”

The brief documents the recent rise in anti-Muslim and antisemitic sentiment; offers real-life examples of businesses discriminating against people of minority faiths; and notes that Colorado in 2019 was the state the with largest number of religious discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

AU’s Rachel Laser: Businesses Must Be Open To All

“Decades ago we as a society agreed that businesses, which enjoy significant legal protections, must in return be open to all. Equality, dignity and humanity demand that everyone has the equal ability to access the goods and services they need, regardless of who they love, how they worship or what they look like,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United.

“This case could drag us back to a time when religious and other minority groups were forced to go door to door, seeking a business that would serve them and seeing only signs barring their presence: No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish. At a time when a former president is dining with anti-semites and Nazi sympathizers, the Court must reject this abuse of the First Amendment’s guarantees and protect the right of all of us to be treated equally under the law.”

Alliance Defending Freedom: Member Of Christian Nationalist Shadow Network

The group behind this case, the Alliance Defending Freedom, is an aggressive member of the billion-dollar shadow network AU has been fighting. In 1993, several televangelists and radio preachers – many of them Christian nationalists such as D. James Kennedy and James Dobson – founded ADF to destroy the wall separating church and state. Homophobia and bigotry are also baked into the ethos of ADF. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies ADF as a hate group. Alan Sears, who ran ADF for its first 25 years, coauthored a book entitled The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The title explains ADF’s goal: use “religious freedom” to oppose LGBTQ+ rights and equality. ADF also litigated the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2018, defending a bakery that refused to serve a gay couple and challenging the same civil rights law the court will hear argument on today and on the same grounds: religious freedom and free speech.

The amicus brief AU joined was authored by the Columbia Law School’s Law, Rights & Religion Project; Muslim Advocates; and Hogan Lovells US, LLP. A full list of amici can be found in the brief linked below.

Resources

• Oral argument can be heard here.
• The amicus brief is available here.
• More information about 303 Creative v. Elenis is available here.

“On Transgender Day of Remembrance, we woke up to news of another tragic mass shooting, this time targeting an LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs. Every day, Americans United works toward a world in which we all can live as ourselves and believe as we choose. Violence has no place in that world. Americans United is with the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado Springs and everywhere.

“Though we don’t yet know the motivations of this attack, the club was preparing for a drag brunch to celebrate Transgender Day of Remembrance, according to reports. Religious extremists and other militants have increasingly directed stochastic terrorism at the LGBTQ+ community. Violence like this is the predictable end result. There can be no freedom for any of us in America until we are all free to live our lives without fear that we will be harmed because of who we are, what we look like or what religion we practice.”

“The Respect for Marriage Act is a vital step in our nation’s march toward freedom without favor and equality without exception. Today the Senate re-affirmed that marriages between two consenting adults, regardless of race or sex, must be treated as equal under the law. America’s constitutional promise of church-state separation requires this equal treatment and ensures that we all can live as ourselves and marry the person we love.

“The Respect for Marriage Act is crucial to secure LGBTQ equality, racial justice and religious freedom for all. When the ultra-conservative members of the Supreme Court abolished the right to abortion, they signaled that marriage equality could be next on their chopping block. Congress had to act to protect the rights established by Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia. We look forward to President Biden signing this popular, bipartisan act into law.”

On Sept. 30, a federal district court judge in Indiana held that courts could not even examine Fitzgerald’s claims, because of a court-created doctrine known as the “ministerial exception,” which circumvents civil rights laws. On Friday, Americans United appealed that decision to the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, issued the following statement:

“The court wrongly held that Catholic schools are above the law. According to the proffered rationale, a Catholic school can strip every employee – from janitor, to cook, to P.E. teacher, to guidance counselor – of the protection of basic civil rights laws by shoehorning a few religious duties into their job descriptions.

“Religious extremists are waging a crusade to expand a commonsense rule that allows houses of worship to select their own clergy according to their own faith, into a means to avoid liability for bigotry and discrimination. If allowed to continue, the expanded doctrine will allow any nominally religious organization to hire and fire any employee for any reason or none, so long as the organization can include a religious duty in a contract.

“When the Supreme Court first extended this ‘ministerial exception’ to employees other than clergy in 2012, some religious employers around the country began rewriting handbooks and employment contracts to label every employee as some kind of minister – even when that’s not what the job actually requires. But Shelly Fitzgerald, like most employees at religious organizations, wasn’t hired to minister to students or to preach the Catholic religion. She was hired to provide secular guidance to students seeking to get into college. She should not have lost her civil rights simply because the secular work she performed was done at a religious school. The district court’s decision failed to uphold religious freedom and instead vindicated religious privilege. That is not what our Constitution intended.”

More information about Fitzgerald’s case, Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, is available here. A photo of Fitzgerald is available here.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged a Tennessee appellate court to allow a Knox County couple to proceed with a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s funding of a foster care agency that denied them services because they are Jewish.

Americans United filed the lawsuit, Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, in January on behalf of Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, who sought to adopt a child. Because Liz and Gabe aren’t Christian, they were turned away by Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a state-funded agency that provides foster care placement, training and other services on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

A state trial-court panel ruled 2-1 in June that the couple doesn’t have standing – the right to sue – and thus dismissed the case. In an opening appellate brief filed today in the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Nashville, Americans United explains that the Rutan-Rams have legal standing to sue because they continue to face religious discrimination by Holston and other taxpayer-funded, religiously affiliated foster care agencies. They therefore lack access to superior service options that Christians have, and they continue to suffer the stigma that discrimination inflicts on its victims.

“Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram were subjected to outrageous and unacceptable religious discrimination because of their Jewish faith,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “This loving couple wanted to help a child in need, only to be told that they couldn’t get services from a taxpayer-funded agency because they’re the wrong religion. Everyone should be appalled by the treatment they received. Liz and Gabe deserve their day in court, and Americans United intends to see that they get it.”

The Rutan-Rams began the process of fostering to adopt a child from Florida in 2021. They were told they needed to complete Tennessee-mandated foster-parent training and a home-study certification. The couple contacted the only agency in their area that was willing to provide those services for out-of-state placements – Holston.

Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would work with them. But the day that the Rutan-Rams were scheduled to start their training, the agency informed the couple it wouldn’t serve them because they are Jewish. Holston said it “only provide[s] adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” Because there was no other agency in the Knox County area that would provide the foster-parent training and certification for the adoption of an out-of-state child, the Rutan-Rams were unable to adopt the boy from Florida.

The lawsuit also names the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services as a defendant. The suit explains that the department and its commissioner are violating the religious-freedom and equal-protection guarantees in Articles I and XI of the Tennessee Constitution by funding religious discrimination in foster care services.

The trial-court panel also concluded that six Tennessee taxpayers, four of them faith leaders, who joined the Rutan-Rams as plaintiffs did not have the right to sue either, even though they object to their tax dollars being used to fund religious discrimination in foster care. Americans United has appealed on their behalf as well. The six other plaintiffs are Rev. Jeannie Alexander, Rev. Elaine Blanchard, Rev. Alaina Cobb, Rev. Denise Gyauch, Dr. Larry Blanz and Mirabelle Stoedter. 

Attorneys working on the case include Americans United Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser; AU Vice President and Legal Director Richard B. Katskee; AU Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel; and Scott Kramer at The Kramer Law Center.

More information about the case is available here. A photo of Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram is available here.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today was joined by sixteen religious and religious freedom organizations in urging the Kentucky Supreme Court to protect religious freedom by blocking two state abortion bans that impose legislators’ religious views on all Kentuckians, in violation of the religious freedom protections in the Kentucky Constitution.

“The Kentucky Constitution promises ‘no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination.’ As the circuit court already noted in this case, these abortion bans violate that promise by ‘impermissibly establishing a distinctly Christian doctrine of the beginning of life, and by unduly interfering with the free exercise of other religions that do not share that same belief,’” said Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United. “Religious freedom demands access to abortion so people can make their own reproductive decisions according to their own principles and beliefs. Abortion bans undermine religious freedom by imposing one religious viewpoint on all of us. Abortion bans are a direct attack on the separation of church and state.”

In an amicus brief filed today in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, the organizations explain: “In enacting the trigger ban and six-week ban, Kentucky legislators sought to impose their religious beliefs about life and abortion on all Kentuckians. Doing so threatens a healthy religious pluralism and compounds the threat of religiously based strife by creating stronger incentives for religious groups to seek to impose their own beliefs through legislation so as to prevent others’ beliefs from being forced on them.”

Joining Americans United on the brief are the American Humanist Association; Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Central Conference of American Rabbis; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community Churches; HEART Women and Girls; Hindu American Foundation; Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Men of Reform Judaism; Muslim Advocates; People For the American Way; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Sikh Coalition; Union for Reform Judaism; and Unitarian Universalist Association.

Disclosure: Michele Henry, a member of the Americans United Board of Trustees, is one of the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs. She had no role in drafting any part of the brief.

Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is part of Shelly Fitzgerald’s legal team, issued the following statement:

“The court wrongly held that Catholic schools are above the law. According to the proffered rationale, a Catholic school can strip every employee—from janitor, to cook, to P.E. teacher, to guidance counselor—of the protection of basic civil rights laws by shoehorning a few religious duties into their job descriptions.

“Religious extremists are waging a crusade to expand a commonsense rule that allows houses of worship to select their own clergy according to their own faith into a means to avoid liability for bigotry and discrimination. If allowed to continue, the expanded doctrine will allow any nominally religious organization to hire and fire any employee for any reason or none, so long as the organization can include a religious duty in a contract.

“When the Supreme Court first extended this ‘ministerial exception’ to employees other than clergy in 2012, some religious employers around the country began rewriting handbooks and employment contracts to label every employee as some kind of minister—even when that’s not what the job actually requires. But Shelly Fitzgerald, like most employees at religious organizations, wasn’t hired to minister to students or to preach the Catholic religion. She was hired to provide secular guidance to students seeking to get into college. She should not have lost her civil rights simply because the secular work she performed was done at a religious school. This decision failed to uphold religious freedom and instead vindicated religious privilege. That is not what our Constitution intended.

“We are still discussing a possible appeal but no decision has been made.

“I also want to commend our plaintiff, Shelly Fitzgerald, for courageously speaking up on behalf of all people vulnerable to discrimination in the name of religion. Shelly and brave people like her are on the front lines warning the American people about the very real threats we face from a shadowy network of religious extremists working to turn religious freedom from a shield into a license to harm others and violate their rights.”

Students and families reported students were divided by gender, resulting in harassment and discomfort for transgender and nonbinary students. Female students reported they were proselytized by speakers promoting purity culture and traumatized by graphic discussions of suicide. Parents said they were not informed the program was at a church or would include religious content.

In a letter sent to the district today, Americans United explained how the district’s involvement in the program violated the Constitution and the religious freedom of students and families.

“Public schools are responsible for the secular education of our children, not indoctrinating them in specific religious beliefs. No parent should be tricked into signing a permission slip that results in their child attending a religious event where students are forced to sit through proselytizing sermons and speeches, under the guise of getting career and college advice,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “The constitutional promise of separation of church and state requires East Baton Rouge Parish Schools to provide a welcoming, inclusive learning environment that serves all children and families, regardless of their religious beliefs. The school district failed with this program. It owes its families an apology and a promise never again to breach their trust and violate their freedom.”

More than 2,100 high school students were bused to the church for the program sponsored by the faith-based nonprofit 29:11 Mentoring Families, according to The Advocate. The district said it partners with the nonprofit, which is named for a Bible verse and whose work includes “redirect[ing] our students to Jesus Christ.”

East Baton Rouge Superintendent Sito Narcisse promoted the “Day of Hope” event beforehand and spoke briefly to the students who attended. In the face of complaints from parents and students, the district doubled down on its support for what it called an “an elevation of a traditional college and career fair.” In a statement earlier this week, the district said, “We look forward to seeing what our over 2,100 student participants will continue to achieve with the resources and knowledge gained from this event.”

“Religious freedom demands the right to an abortion so people can make their own reproductive decisions according to their own beliefs and principles. Abortion bans like the one Sen. Graham is proposing undermine religious freedom by attempting to impose one religious viewpoint on all of us.

“The foundational promise of separation of church and state is meant to safeguard our right to live as ourselves and believe as we choose. Abortion bans breach this promise and impose one religious belief on all of us. That’s the opposite of religious freedom; it’s religious privilege for one narrow religious viewpoint. I’ll say it again: Reproductive freedom is religious freedom.”

In an amicus brief filed in 303 Creative v. Elenis, Americans United and the other organizations explained how anti-discrimination laws like Colorado’s protect religious minorities as well as LGBTQ people and customers with other protected characteristics, such as race, sex, age and ability. 

“Such a speech-based exemption from compliance with anti-discrimination laws would open the floodgates to the very discrimination that these laws are intended to guard against,” the brief states. This kind of exemption would have “devastating consequences for all historically marginalized groups,” but Americans United and the other organizations focus “on the impact for members of minority religions.”

The brief points to the recent rise in anti-Muslim and antisemitic sentiment; offers real-life examples of businesses discriminating against people of minority faiths; and notes that Colorado in 2019 was the state the with largest number of religious discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“Decades ago we as a society agreed that businesses, which enjoy significant legal protections, must in return be open to all. Equality, dignity and humanity demand that everyone have the equal ability to access the goods and services they need, regardless of who they love, how they worship or what they look like,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “This case could drag us back to a time when religious and other minority groups were forced to go door to door, seeking a business that would serve them and seeing only signs barring their presence: No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish. The Court must reject this abuse of the First Amendment’s guarantees and protect the right of all of us to be treated equally under the law.”

Also joining the amicus brief were Muslim Advocates; Columbia Law School’s Law, Rights & Religion Project; Auburn Seminary; Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative; Bend the Arc; Central Conference of American Rabbis; DignityUSA; Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America Inc.; Interfaith Alliance Foundation; Jewish Women International; Men of Reform Judaism; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community Church, Global Justice Institute; Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity; Muslim Girl; Muslim Public Affairs Council; National Council of Jewish Women Inc.; National LGBTQ+ Bar Association; New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association; New Ways Ministry; Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus; Sakhi for South Asian Women; Secular Student Alliance; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund; The Sikh Coalition; Soulforce Inc.; T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; Union for Reform Judaism; and Women of Reform Judaism.

Resources

• The amicus brief is available here.
• More information about 303 Creative v. Elenis is available here.

Father Alexander Belya was falsely accused of forging documents to gain a position as Bishop of Miami in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. He was libeled by church officials who dragged his reputation through the mud in letters and social media posts. The defamation severely hampered his prospects for future employment.

After he filed his federal defamation case, Belya v. Kapral, in August 2020, the defendants argued that two esoteric legal concepts – the church-autonomy doctrine and ministerial exception – shield them from litigation or any requirement to answer for their unlawful behavior in a court of law. Those doctrines were originally intended to protect religious organizations’ religious decisions. It would be a remarkable expansion of those doctrines to apply them to Father Belya’s defamation claims and dismiss his lawsuit, which is what the defendants sought.

On Wednesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant the defendants’ untimely appeal or their request to dismiss the case, allowing Father Belya’s case to proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As the 2nd Circuit’s opinion notes, “[S]imply having a religious association on one side of the ‘v’ does not automatically mean a district court must dismiss the case or limit discovery.”

“Religious organizations are not above the law,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Churches don’t get to rewrite the rules of legal procedure by claiming a religious defense. The courts should not allow religious freedom to be distorted as a license to deny people basic civil rights.

“The court’s decision today is a win for the rule of law and a critical step in our fight to halt the weaponization of religious freedom,” said Laser. “Neither Father Belya nor anyone else should be forced to tolerate public defamation and the destruction of their reputation by a religious organization with no legal recourse. There must be equal justice under law.”

Father Belya’s legal team includes Americans United Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard, who argued the case before the 2nd Circuit in March 2022; AU Vice President and Legal Director Richard B. Katskee; former AU Steven Gey Legal Fellow Alex Bodaken; and Oleg Rivkin from the New York law firm Rivkin Law Group PLLC.

Resources

• The opinion from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
• The complaint in Belya v. Kapral
• Belya’s brief filed in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
• More information about the case

“We should never allow taxpayer-funded agencies to discriminate against prospective foster parents and mentors because they don’t live according to one narrow set of conservative religious beliefs. Our laws cannot allow anyone to use their religious beliefs to harm others, and especially not vulnerable children and admirable people like Aimee, Gabe and Liz, who want to help those children. Nor should taxpayers be forced to fund such discrimination,” said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser. “AU is fighting multiple cases to ensure that the good and qualified people who want to help children in need of loving homes are never turned away because they fail to pass a taxpayer-funded agency’s religion test. We are fighting a well-funded crusade seeking to redefine religious freedom as a sword, not the shield it is meant to be.”

AU consulted with our allies, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, among others, before running these ads. The discrimination that the ads shine a light on was universally condemned.

AU’s Catholic and Jewish allies lauded the ads and lawsuits. Simone Campbell SSS, former leader of Nuns on the Bus, said “The facts of the Maddonna case are shocking. How can children who need foster placement be denied a good home because the federally funded agency doing the placement does not like the ‘brand’ of Christianity of the proposed foster parent? The Constitution makes it clear that our tax dollars are not to support such religious discrimination.”

“Allowing a taxpayer-funded child placement agency to discriminate is outrageous,” said Allison Padilla-Goodman, vice president of the Anti-Defamation League’s Southern Division, at the time the suit was filed. “No child should be denied a loving foster or adoptive home simply because of a prospective parent’s religion.”

“Just like racists who falsely cried ‘religious discrimination’ when they were denied taxpayer support for segregated private schools, these bigoted agencies are playing the victim,” said Todd Stiefel, whose foundation supported this campaign. “Jews, Catholics, and other Americans have a right to equal treatment and should not suffer discrimination at the hands of their government, including any organization providing government services.”

Learn more about Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram’s case, which AU appealed in the Tennessee Court of Appeals last month.

Learn more about Aimee Maddonna’s case, which is pending in federal court in South Carolina.

AU thanks Todd Stiefel and the Stiefel Freethought Foundation for the generous donation that made these ads possible.

Americans United filed a lawsuit in January on behalf of Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, who sought to adopt a child from Florida. They were turned away from Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a state-funded agency that provides foster care placement, training and other services on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, because they aren’t Christian.

A three-judge state trial-court panel ruled 2-1 June 27 that the couple doesn’t have standing—the right to sue—and thus dismissed the case.

AU’s legal team filed an appeal today in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

“Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram were subjected to outrageous and unacceptable religious discrimination,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “This young couple wanted to help a child in need—only to be told that they couldn’t get services from a taxpayer-funded agency because they’re the wrong religion. Everyone should be appalled by the treatment they received.”

Added Laser, “Liz and Gabe deserve their day in court, and Americans United intends to see that they get it.”

The Rutan-Rams began the process of fostering to adopt a child from Florida in 2021. They were told they needed to complete Tennessee-mandated foster-parent training and a home-study certification. The couple contacted the only agency in their area that was willing to provide those services for out-of-state placements—Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a state-funded agency that provides foster care placement, training, and other services on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would work with them. But the day that the Rutan-Rams were scheduled to start their training, the agency informed the couple it wouldn’t serve them because they are Jewish. Holston said it “only provide[s] adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” Because there was no other agency in the Knox County area that would provide the foster-parent training and certification for the adoption of an out-of-state child, the Rutan-Rams were unable to adopt the boy from Florida.

The lawsuit, Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, also names department Commissioner Jennifer Nichols as a defendant. The suit explains that the department and Nichols are violating the religious-freedom and equal-protection guarantees in Articles I and XI of the Tennessee Constitution by funding religious discrimination in foster-care services.

Joining the Rutan-Rams as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are six Tennessee taxpayers, four of them faith leaders: Rev Jeannie Alexander, Rev. Elaine Blanchard, Rev. Alaina Cobb, Rev. Denise Gyauch, Dr. Larry Blanz, and Mirabelle Stoedter. The trial-court panel held that these plaintiffs did not have the right to sue either, even though their tax dollars are being used, over their objection, to fund religious discrimination in foster care. Americans United is appealing this ruling as well.

Attorneys working on the case include Americans United Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser; Americans United Vice President and Legal Director Richard B. Katskee; AU Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel; and Scott Kramer at The Kramer Law Center.

“We are so pleased to honor this courageous young individual who is fighting for racial justice, religious freedom, and the separation of church and state—three ideals that depend on each other.” said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser. “AU knows it’s crucial for our movement to train, equip, and learn from the next generation of leaders—to play the long game. But it’s also important that we honor their courage. We’re proud to present Ramya with this award.”

The awards ceremony will take place July 21 during a 75th Anniversary celebration of Americans United in Washington, D.C.

Gov. Ron DeSantis launched a Civics Literacy Excellence Initiative (CLEI) and Florida educators recently attended a three-day training session to learn how to teach students the new material. “There was this Christian nationalism philosophy that was just baked into everything,” one teacher told the Miami Herald, which broke the story.

The billion-dollar shadow network Americans United has been fighting in court and around the country seems to be involved in promoting the standards. Americans United’s investigation seeks to uncover the extent to which the training sessions were developed by the conservative Christian groups like Hillsdale College and the Koch-founded Bill of Rights Institute.

During the training, slides shown to teachers describing the new curriculum called facts about our nation’s history “misconceptions,” including that “The Founders desired strict separation of church and state and the Founders only want to protect Freedom of worship” and “The American colonies were characterized by religious intolerance … and there was no religious liberty in America until the First Amendment.” During breakout sessions, the state’s presenters reportedly highlighted the influence of Jesus Christ and the Bible in the country’s foundation. The training also whitewashed the role of slavery in American history.

In a public records request filed today with the Florida Department of Education, Americans United is demanding all documents, materials, contracts and audio or video recordings related to the CLEI trainings, and all department correspondence relating to the trainings, including communications with Hillsdale College.

Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser said: “Americans United is considering all options. We’re not going to sit by while politicians smuggle white Christian Nationalism into public school curriculums under the guise of good citizenship. This is another attack in the long war religious extremists and their lawmaker allies have launched on our public schools, as is the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, which shamefully takes effect in Florida today.

“Our public schools suffered devastating blows at the Supreme Court over the last few weeks. First, the court forced Maine taxpayers to fund private religious education. Then, the court falsely described a coach’s coercive prayer as ‘personal’ and stopped public schools from protecting their students. In both cases, the court redefined the constitutional promise of religious freedom for all as religious privilege for a select few.

“The state shouldn’t be indoctrinating students into Christian nationalism, but educating them about the separation of church and state, which is embedded in our Constitution because the founders recognized it is the only guarantee of religious freedom for all. What we need right now is a national recommitment to the separation of church and state.”

Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represents the school district, issued the following statement:

“Today, the court continued its assault on church-state separation, by falsely describing coercive prayer as ‘personal’ and stopping public schools from protecting their students’ religious freedom. It is no coincidence that the erosion of the line between church and state has come alongside devastating losses on so many of the rights we cherish. As that line has blurred, public education, reproductive rights, civil rights and more have come under attack.

“This decision represents the greatest loss of religious freedom in our country in generations. This court focused only on the demands of far-right Christian extremists, robbing everyone else of their religious freedom. It ignored the religious freedom of students and families.

“As the network of religious extremists and their political allies behind this case celebrate victory, we can expect them to try to expand this dangerous precedent – further undermining everyone’s right to live as ourselves and believe as we choose. Americans who value freedom and equality – especially for public school students – must rededicate themselves to reestablishing the separation of church and state across the United States.”

The Bremerton School District issued the following statement:

“The Bremerton School District’s priorities have always been protecting the rights and safety of students while ensuring that they receive an exemplary education. That’s why, when we learned that a district employee was leading students in prayer, we followed the law and acted to protect the religious freedom of all students and their families. In light of the court’s decision, we will work with our attorneys to make certain that the Bremerton School District remains a welcoming, inclusive environment for all students, their families and our staff. We look forward to moving past the distraction of this 7-year legal battle so that our school community can focus on what matters most: providing our children the best education possible.”

Laser said this devastating decision is only one among a series of recent Supreme Court cases that have resulted in setbacks for individual rights, such as reproductive freedom, LGBTQ equality and voting rights. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court abolished the constitutional right to abortion. And in Carson v. Makin, the court forced taxpayers to fund religious education.

Laser promised that Americans United will continue to defend and protect religious freedom, which is inextricably tied to our other personal liberties, by fighting in the courts, legislatures and the public square for freedom without favor and equality without exception.

Because Easter is now being allowed to participate in the program through the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), she is voluntarily dismissing her case for the time being against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and several HHS officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United: “This is a win for religious freedom, Kelly Easter and the vulnerable refugee children she’ll now be able to help. But it’s a victory that should not have taken two years to achieve. The federal government should never allow a taxpayer-funded agency to discriminate against prospective foster parents because they don’t live according to its religious beliefs. Our laws cannot allow anyone to use their religious beliefs to harm others, and especially not vulnerable children and the commendable people like Kelly who want to help them.”

Camilla Taylor, deputy legal director for litigation at Lambda Legal: “The federally funded child welfare agency finally has allowed Kelly to apply to foster a refugee child, and she is in the process of becoming licensed. While we are glad that Kelly is now permitted to participate in a federal program and a refugee child may find a loving home with her, it is a shame that USCCB and ORR fenced her out for almost two years, and required her to file a lawsuit before determining that USCCB’s religious objections to her identity were flexible. Two years is a long time for a refugee child without a loving home. Congratulations to Kelly for overcoming discriminatory obstacles, and for her tenacity in pursuing her dream of providing a safe and loving home for a child in need.”

Plaintiff Kelly Easter: “Providing a loving, nurturing home for a refugee child is my desire. All qualified individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be encouraged to adopt, so these children may receive the best possible chance at finding a stable home. This is what I’ve wanted all along.”

While this is a victory for Easter, it’s only a partial win in the fight to ensure the federal government does not continue to sanction or enable discrimination against prospective LGBTQ foster parents by organizations that receive taxpayer funds to care for unaccompanied refugee children. USCCB’s policy may now permit single LGBTQ parents to foster children, but the agency still discriminates against married same-sex couples like Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin. The couple was rejected by a USCCB sub-grantee in Texas because, as a married same-sex couple, they didn’t “mirror the Holy Family” as the agency requires. Lambda Legal and Americans United also represent Marouf and Esplin in the federal lawsuit Marouf v. HHS.

Case Background:

The Easter v. HHS lawsuit was filed in October 2021 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with several HHS officials and programs.

Kelly Easter wishes to become a foster parent for a child in a federal foster care program for immigrant children. Her 2020 inquiry to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) was directed to the only entity participating in the program in her area: Bethany Christian Services, a sub-grantee of the USCCB, which receives federal funds to provide foster care services. Bethany refused to permit Easter to apply to be a foster parent solely because she is a lesbian.

Easter reported this discrimination to ORR. When Bethany’s national leadership announced in 2021 that it had changed its policy and would now accept LGBTQ families, Easter again attempted to apply. However, a representative from Bethany informed her that she still would not be permitted to apply to the program near her home because Bethany operates that program as a sub-grantee of USCCB, which continued to exclude LGBTQ foster parent applicants from participation. In late February  2022, USCCB informed the federal government that Easter’s exclusion had all been a misunderstanding and it will now work with single LGBTQ foster parents.

For years the federal government had known that USCCB discriminates and requires its sub-grantees to discriminate against LGBTQ foster parent applicants, reducing the number of available homes for children in need, and sending a damaging message to LGBTQ adults and children alike that there is something wrong with their families. Yet HHS officials continue to enable and sanction this discrimination against married, same-sex couples.

In addition to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, also named as defendants in Easter v. HHS were ORR and the Administration for Children and Families, as well as HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, ACF Acting Assistant Secretary Jooyeun Chang and ORR Director Cindy Huang.

The legal team representing Kelly Easter includes, at Lambda Legal, Camilla B. Taylor, Karen L. Loewy and M. Currey Cook; at Americans United, Richard B. Katskee and Kenneth D. Upton, Jr.; and at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Seth Harrington, Daniel A. Rubens and Andrew D. Silverman.

“This Supreme Court abolished the constitutional right to abortion in an opinion that is a direct attack on the separation of church and state. Religious freedom demands the right to an abortion so people can make their own reproductive decisions according to their own principles. Abortion bans undermine religious freedom by attempting to impose one religious viewpoint on all of us. Americans United is readying religious freedom litigation which will bring this argument to our courts.

“The court’s decision to eliminate the right to an abortion is an assault on our equality and freedom. It’s a major win for religious extremists and a green light to bring other extreme, retrogressive cases. The court has opened the door to a nationwide abortion ban. The right to contraception is at risk. So are LGBTQ rights. So is progress on racial justice. Religious extremists and their lawmaker allies are willing to destroy our democracy to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. None of our rights are safe.

“The foundational principle of separation of church and state is meant to protect us against that future and to safeguard our right to live as ourselves and believe as we choose. Our laws must not allow anyone to use their religious beliefs to harm others. Allowing one person’s religious beliefs to dictate another’s personal medical and moral decisions is the very definition of harm. We’ll say it again: Reproductive freedom is religious freedom.”

“The ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court continues to redefine the constitutional promise of religious freedom for all as religious privilege for a select few.

“The court is forcing taxpayers to fund religious education. This nation was built on the promise of religious freedom, which has always prevented the state from using its taxing power to force citizens to fund religious worship or education. Here, the court has violated that founding principle by requiring Maine to tax citizens to fund religious schools. Far from honoring religious freedom, this decision tramples the religious freedom of everyone. Worse, the court has opened the door to government-enforced tithing, an invitation religious extremists will not ignore.

“The court’s ultra-conservative bloc argued that refusing to tax citizens to fund religion is ‘discrimination against religion.’ It’s nothing less than gaslighting to cloak this assault on our Constitution in the language of non-discrimination. If the conservative justices were concerned with discrimination, they would not have issued this opinion because it forces taxpayers to fund two religious schools that discriminate against LGBTQ families, one barring their admission and the other forcing them to undergo ‘counseling’ and renounce their sexual orientation or gender identity, or be expelled. One school’s stated educational objective is to ‘refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s word’ – and now Muslim taxpayers will be forced to fund that school.

“The court appears concerned with discrimination only when conservative Christians make the claim, and often, as here, in ways that further discrimination. Where was the concern for discrimination in the draft opinion that seeks to abolish reproductive freedom, imposing that conservative Christianity on us all, regardless of our personal religion or lack thereof? Or when the court rubber-stamped a conservative Christian’s discrimination against a recently engaged, same-sex couple in Colorado? Or when the Trump administration banned Muslims from entering the country?

“This opinion hangs on Maine’s earlier decision to send public money to private schools. Such programs will force taxpayers to fund religious education and discrimination. It’s time to end all public funding for private schools, especially vouchers. Public funds should go to public schools.

“Now, more than ever before, Americans United is committed to defending true religious freedom and public education from the assault mounted by religious extremists.”

The Buffalo mass shooting that killed 10 and wounded 3 more on Saturday in a predominantly Black neighborhood was undoubtedly motivated by racism and hatred. The motivations for other recent mass shootings are less clear. A gunman killed one parishioner and injured five more on Sunday at Geneva Presbyterian Church – described as a predominantly Taiwanese congregation – in Laguna Woods, Calif., before he was subdued by congregants. Officials have not released a motive or said whether the attack was “hate-related.” In Dallas, police are investigating a “pattern of shootings at Asian businesses,” conceding on Friday after the third such shooting that “there may be a link to hate.” Thankfully, no deaths have been reported in the Texas shootings.

Laser issued the following statement:

“Americans United is heartbroken and outraged at the extremist violence and hate that continues to fester in our country and that especially targets Black, Asian and other communities of color. There can be no freedom for any of us in America until we are all free to attend church, shop for groceries or go to a hair salon without fear that we will be harmed because of who we are, what we look like or what religion we practice.

“The white nationalist, antisemitic ideology that motivated the shooter who targeted Black people in Buffalo, N.Y., may not have been exactly the same creed used to rationalize the fatal shooting at a predominantly Taiwanese Presbyterian church in Laguna Woods, Calif., on Sunday or the latest in a string of shootings at Asian businesses near Dallas, Texas. But hate fuels hate, and dangerous white nationalism and religious extremism are a growing threat to our freedom, to our democracy and to our lives.

“Americans United will never stop fighting for an America that fulfills its promise of freedom without favor and equality without exception for everyone.”

During the tent revival sermon that was live-streamed online, Locke pointed at the camera and, to the cheers of the in-person audience, threatened, “You ain’t seen the insurrection yet. You keep on pushing our buttons, you low-down, sorry compromisers, you God-hating communists, maybe you’ll find out what an insurrection is.” Locke had preached to Donald Trump supporters in Washington, D.C., on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and has prayed for and blessed members of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist hate group that participated in the insurrection.

“Now, when our democracy is threatened by white Christian nationalism like never before, the IRS must investigate blatant Johnson Amendment violations like Locke’s remarks and enforce the federal law that protects the integrity of both our elections and our houses of worship by ensuring nonprofits don’t engage in partisan politics,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “Tax exemption is a privilege, not a constitutional right. The government has attached sensible strings to that privilege. This rule, which is broadly popular among religious and nonreligious Americans alike, ensures charitable donations meant for the common good are not spent on corrosive partisan politics.”

Americans United’s letter to the IRS is available here.

In Sunday’s sermon, Locke also references the lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump; casts doubt that a mass shooting in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y., the day before was racially motivated; disparages LGBTQ people; randomly asserts that “Obama is behind all of” America’s current problems; and repeatedly warns of the threat of demons and witchcraft. Locke has also raged against COVID-19 precautions and held public book burnings, including taking a blowtorch to a book written by Andrew L. Seidel, AU VP of Strategic Communications.

“If you vote Democrat, I don’t even want you around this church. You can get out. You can get out, you demon,” Locke shouted Sunday. “You cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat in this nation. I don’t care how mad that makes you. You can get as pissed off as you want to. You cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat in this nation. … You cannot be a Democrat and a Christian. You cannot. Somebody say, ‘Amen.’ The rest of you get out. Get out! Get out in the name of Jesus!

“I ain’t playin’ your stupid games,” he continued. “I’m going to the Supreme Court this Tuesday at noon and I’m going to raise hell for the life of them babies. … Right in Joe Biden’s backyard. That sleepy old fool is going to bust hell wide open. … I’m sick of it. Everyone wanna talk about the insurrection? Mmmm. Let me tell you something: You ain’t seen the insurrection yet. You keep on pushing our buttons, you low-down, sorry compromisers, you God-hating communists, maybe you’ll find out what an insurrection is.”

Though he clearly told congregants to vote a certain way, Republicans weren’t spared Locke’s wrath either: “You need to be delivered from voting Democrat. I think in that list in mass deliverance I’m going to start putting ‘spirit of Democrat.’ Come out in Jesus’ name. By the way, that doesn’t mean that I’m a full-fledged Republican, either. They’re two heads of the same snake. My loyalty is not to a party, my loyalty is the Kingdom of God.”

“The Senate’s failure to protect nationwide abortion access undermines both reproductive and religious freedom. The right to an abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. You can’t have reproductive freedom without religious freedom and vice versa. Everyone deserves the freedom to make their own decisions according to their own beliefs and principles.

“The hundreds of state-level laws restricting and banning abortion are an attack on religious freedom. Religious extremists and their lawmaker allies are trying to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. These bans also exacerbate inequalities in our communities and in our country, particularly for Black people, indigenous people and other people of color.

“The foundational principle of separation of church and state safeguards our right to live as ourselves and believe as we choose. That includes making personal decisions that also have serious medical implications free from discrimination and political interference. We will continue to fight for nationwide abortion access because reproductive freedom is religious freedom.”

“Justice Alito’s draft opinion makes clear that this ultra-conservative Supreme Court will soon abolish the Constitutional right to an abortion.

“The right to an abortion is a civil and human right that is essential to our health, equality and freedom. Abortion bans are an attack on religious freedom. They attempt to impose one religious viewpoint on all of us. Justice Sotomayor made that clear when she asked Mississippi about the justification for its abortion ban: ‘How is your interest anything but a religious view?’ Religious freedom demands the right to an abortion so people can make their own decisions according to their own principles.

“The end of Roe is just the beginning. Next on the hit list are a broad array of protections for personal liberty. The same line of attack Alito uses on Roe and Casey can also be employed against contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges) and basic LGBTQ rights (Lawrence v. Texas).

“The religious extremists and their lawmaker allies who helped pack the Supreme Court under Trump are willing to destroy our democracy to force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs. They want a nationwide abortion ban. They will come for contraception. They will come for marriage equality and LGBTQ rights. They will come for racial justice. They will not be satisfied until they have codified a white Christian nation.

“The foundational principle of separation of church and state safeguards our right to live and believe as we choose. Our laws do not allow anyone to use their religious beliefs to harm others. Allowing one person’s religious beliefs to dictate another’s personal medical decisions is the very definition of harm. We’ll say it again: Reproductive freedom is religious freedom.”

“Because the court found the flags were private, not government, speech, Boston no longer has a say in which flags can be flown at city hall. This decision doesn’t change the Constitution’s requirements that the government cannot promote, favor, endorse or sponsor religion.

“Nevertheless, this ruling could undermine church-state separation if it is abused in ways that end up favoring the dominant religious majority. But governments might avoid that by closing the forum at any time, as the court noted. Additionally, the flags flying above city hall would have been government speech if Boston had stated so in a policy or exercised more discretion in deciding which flags to display. Other governments might take that path.

“If a government permits this access to the majority religion, others are equally entitled to display their beliefs or non-belief, too. This decision is a reminder that groups representing religious minorities and nontheists must be given equal access to these kinds of public forums to display their own symbols.

“There are some alarming aspects about the organization pushing to fly the Christian flag at Boston City Hall. The group is dedicated to teaching ‘the next generation … with the knowledge of how America was founded as a Christian nation.’ That is Christian nationalism, which is a direct threat to church-state separation and our democracy.”

Americans United, joined by the National Council of Churches and 17 other religious and civil-rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case in December, urging the  Supreme Court to protect religious freedom by affirming that the City of Boston should not be forced to display the Christian flag on a city hall flagpole.

“The Bremerton School District did the right thing to protect students’ religious freedom,” Katskee said. “I hope the Court sees through the false narrative that the coach’s attorneys have presented and recognizes the truth that the lower courts did: Bremerton students felt coerced by their football coach’s orchestrated public prayers on the 50-yard line immediately after football games. No student should feel pressured to pray to play. The law is clear that teachers and coaches cannot lead public-school students in prayer.”

“If the Supreme Court gets this case wrong, we could witness the greatest loss of religious freedom in generations,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “We’re on very dangerous ground if the Court is considering overturning decades of established law that prevents government employees from pressuring students to pray in public schools. The facts of the case, the laws of our country, and religious and nonreligious Americans alike are on the side of protecting students’ religious freedom.”

Katskee was accompanied in the courtroom by AU Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard. The school district’s legal team also includes Steven Gey Constitutional Litigation Fellow Alex Bodaken and Madison Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel, and Michael B. Tierney from the law firm Tierney, Correa & Zeinemann, P.C.

Outside the Supreme Court, Laser hosted a press conference with U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who led an amicus brief by Members of Congress in support of Bremerton; and a broad coalition of faith leaders, including clergy from Bremerton, Wash., all of whom support church-state separation.

Other speakers included:

• Ouida Brown, General Counsel for the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
• The Rev. Douglas Avilesbernal, Executive Minister of the Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches, based in Washington State
• The Rev. Meghan Dowling, Pastor at Bremerton United Methodist Church
• Student Rabbi Emily Katcher at Beth Hatikvah congregation in Bremerton
• The Rev. Gregory Reffner, Pastor at Brownsville United Methodist Church, Bremerton
• The Rev. Kathleen Kingslight, Priest at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Bremerton

A recording of the press conference is available on AU’s social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. Photos of the event also are available by request. Headshots are available of Katskee and Laser.

Laser, Katskee and members of the clergy are available for interviews by contacting Liz Hayes at lhayes@au.org.

More information about Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is available here.

“Mr. Kennedy’s attorneys continue to present a deceitful narrative to the Court because they know the facts of the case, the laws of our country, and religious and nonreligious Americans alike are on the side of protecting students’ religious freedom,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “The law is clear that teachers and coaches cannot lead public school students in prayer. That’s what makes this case so urgent – a loss would dangerously erode church-state separation, a core principle of our democracy.”

CASE BACKGROUND

Kennedy, a former assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington State, violated the religious freedom of his players by pressuring them to join his public prayers at the 50-yard line at their football games. The school district repeatedly offered him time and space for personal prayer while on the job, but he refused, demanding that he be able to pray at the center of the field, out loud, and with students.

Kennedy sued the district. Despite lower courts affirming that Kennedy’s actions undermined the religious freedom of Bremerton’s students, Kennedy’s lawyers have spun a ‘deceitful narrative’ to push this case to the Supreme Court. Americans United – joined by religious and nonreligious communities alike – is fighting to protect the separation of church and state, the religious freedom of these students, and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Americans United joined the school district’s legal team in 2021. When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on April 25, AU Vice President and Legal Director Richard B. Katskee will argue on the school district’s behalf. The district’s legal team also includes AU’s Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard, Steven Gey Constitutional Litigation Fellow Alex Bodaken and Madison Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel; and Michael B. Tierney from the law firm Tierney, Correa & Zeinemann, P.C.

CASE DOCUMENTS

• Background information on Kennedy v. Bremerton is available here
• Bremerton School District’s March 25, 2022, Brief of Respondent
• Bremerton School District’s Feb. 18, 2022, Brief to Suggest Mootness
• Photos depicting Kennedy’s public prayers with students are available here and here

All media inquiries for the Bremerton School District related to this case should be directed to Liz Hayes at Americans United, at media@au.org.

“As the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court in our nation’s history, Justice Jackson will help ensure that the Court better reflects America and includes perspectives that have long been ignored.

“Justice Jackson’s judicial record on church-state separation law is not extensive but her answers during the confirmation hearings were reassuring. She promised not to impose her personal religious beliefs on others through the law, and she recognized the key role both the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses play in protecting religious freedom for all of us. In particular, she explained:

‘Free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause—which prevents the government from preferring religion over another—is foundational. It is the principle that many people originally came to this country, when it was founded, in order to support. It was people who fled from religious persecution and wanted to found a country in which everyone could believe what they wanted, and not have the government encroach on, impinge on, burden that right. It is a core foundational right. It is in the First Amendment.’

“Answers like that give us great hope that Justice Jackson will be the champion of church-state separation that our country so desperately needs.

“We look to Justice Jackson to be a bulwark against the Court’s ultra-conservative majority, who seem set on redefining religious freedom as a sword to harm others instead of a shield to protect all of us. We deserve a Justice who will defend our country’s foundational principle of separation of religion and government like our democracy depends on it – because it does.”

“Today, dozens of organizations and people that represent religious, education, sports, civil rights and religious freedom communities joined us in fighting to protect students’, and everyone’s, First Amendment rights,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. “The diversity of this coalition demonstrates the widespread approval for the bedrock constitutional principle of church-state separation. The facts of the case, the laws of our country, and the majority of Americans are on the side of protecting students’ religious freedom.”

Organizations and individuals filing friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Bremerton School District include:

• National religious organizations and clergy from Bremerton, Wash.
• Education groups representing teachers, school administrators, school boards, and charter schools
• Athletes, including retired National Football League players
• Members of the Bremerton, Wash., community
• Civil rights advocates
• First Amendment experts
• Members of Congress
• Organizations representing local governments and government officials
• Social scientists expert in the susceptibility of high school students to coercion
• Retired military chaplains

“There are many examples in history of what happens when religion is mixed with government – people are harmed and faith is sullied. That’s why Baptists have been such strong supporters of the separation of church and state since the founding of America,” said the Rev. Douglas Avilesbernal, Executive Minister of the Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches, which oversees Washington and several surrounding states and has a church in Bremerton. “As a Baptist preacher, I recognize that people consider me to be an authority figure and look to me for guidance. When I played soccer, I similarly viewed my coach as an authority and would have felt compelled to join him if he and the team gathered at the center of the field right after games.”

“Every football player is conditioned to view his team as a family that sticks together no matter what. And the coach is unquestionably the head of that family,” said Chris Kluwe, a retired NFL punter and current high school football coach. “The coach has the power to decide whether kids get to play and has influence over how they get along with teammates. It’s deeply wrong for any coach to put high school students in the position of turning their backs on the team family if they don’t want to join the coach’s very public prayers on the 50-yard line after games. That’s why the law is so clear that coaches, as authority figures, cannot and should not compel athletes under their care to engage in prayer, either explicitly or implicitly.”

All of the amicus briefs filed in support of Bremerton School District are listed below.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on April 25, AU Vice President and Legal Director Richard B. Katskee will argue on the school district’s behalf. The district’s legal team also includes AU’s Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard, Steven Gey Constitutional Litigation Fellow Alex Bodaken and Madison Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel; and Michael B. Tierney from the law firm Tierney, Correa & Zeinemann, P.C.

AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN SUPPORT OF BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT:

• AASA, The School Superintendents Association, et al.
• American Atheists
• American Civil Liberties Union & ACLU of Washington
• Bremerton Community Members
• Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty et al.
• California School Boards Association & Its Education Legal Alliance
• Church-State Scholars
• City, County & Local Public Employer Organizations
• Former Professional Football Players & Collegiate Athletes & Coaches
• Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, Former Members of the Military & Military Chaplaincies
• FFRF, CFI, AHA & Secular Coalition
• Jo Ann Magistro & Alan Brodman (East Brunswick School District)
• Lambda Legal et al.
• Members of U.S. House of Representatives
• National Education Association & American Federation of Teachers
• Psychology & Neuroscience Scholars
• Religious & Denominational Organizations & Bremerton-Area Clergy
• Robert D. Kamenshine (retired law professor)
• States of NY CA DE HI IL ME MD MA MI MN NJ NM & OR
• Washington State Charter Schools Association & California Charter Schools Association
• Washington State School Directors’ Association

CASE INFORMATION:

• Background information on Kennedy v. Bremerton is available here
• Bremerton School District’s March 25, 2022, Brief of Respondent
• Bremerton School District’s Feb. 18, 2022, Brief to Suggest Mootness
• Photos depicting Kennedy’s public prayers with students are available here and here

All media inquiries for the Bremerton School District related to this case should be directed to Liz Hayes at Americans United at media@au.org.

In its brief filed today in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the district explains that Kennedy’s attorneys, in the words of one 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge, are presenting a “deceitful narrative” when they claim that he just wants to pray quietly by himself. The brief explains that the coach’s prayer practice repeatedly involved public prayers with students; that students felt pressured to join their coach’s prayers; and that the coach and his attorneys spurned the district’s many attempts to accommodate his desire to pray at work, instead demanding that he be able to pray at the center of the field, out loud and with students. The district did the right thing to stop the coach’s public prayer practice because it harmed students’ religious freedom as well as the district’s ability to make sure students and the community were safe at games.

“Church-state separation means that no one should ever have to choose between their religious freedom and being part of the team,” said Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “No student should ever be pressured to pray to play. The facts of the case, the laws of our country, and religious and nonreligious Americans alike are on the side of protecting students’ religious freedom. Our country is on perilous ground if the Supreme Court considers overturning decades of established law that prevents government employees from pressuring students to pray in public schools. That’s what makes this case so critical – a loss would dangerously erode a core principle of our democracy.”

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on April 25, AU Vice President and Legal Director Richard B. Katskee will argue on the school district’s behalf. The district’s legal team also includes AU’s Litigation Counsel Bradley Girard, Steven Gey Constitutional Litigation Fellow Alex Bodaken and Madison Legal Fellow Gabriela Hybel; and Michael B. Tierney from the law firm Tierney, Correa & Zeinemann, P.C.

CASE INFORMATION

• Background information on Kennedy v. Bremerton is available here
• Bremerton School District’s March 25, 2022, Brief of Respondent
• Bremerton School District’s Feb. 18, 2022, Brief to Suggest Mootness
• Photos depicting Kennedy’s public prayers with students are available here and here

All media inquiries for the Bremerton School District related to this case should be directed to Liz Hayes at Americans United at media@au.org.

“At a time when church-state separation is under threat in so many quarters, we are delighted to welcome Andrew to Americans United,” said AU CEO and President Rachel Laser. “It’s more important than ever to unite Americans of all beliefs and none to defend this foundational Constitutional principle. Andrew’s substantive expertise in our cause as well as his experience with communicating across all channels has never been more important.”

Seidel is an attorney and an author who’s defended the First Amendment for a decade. He graduated cum laude from Tulane University (‘04) with a B.S. in neuroscience and environmental science and magna cum laude from Tulane University Law School, where he was awarded the Haber J. McCarthy Award for excellence in environmental law. He studied human rights and international law at the University of Amsterdam and completed his Master of Laws at Denver University Sturm College of Law (‘11).

After a short stint in private practice, Seidel joined FFRF as a constitutional attorney and later Director of Strategic Response. He is the author of The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American (2019) and American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom (forthcoming in September). He is also a Senior Correspondent at Religion Dispatches, has written several scholarly articles and contributed to the groundbreaking report released last month, “Christian Nationalism at the January 6, 2021, Insurrection,” which was published by the Baptist Joint Committee and FFRF.

“I’m thrilled to be joining the talented team at Americans United. I’ve spent a decade fighting for religious liberty for all and to keep state and church separate. I’m excited to bring that experience to AU,” Seidel said.

Americans United is also proud to announce the formation of its Faith Advisory Council. The Faith Advisory Council (FAC) is composed of faith leaders who publicly champion church-state separation and work with AU to deepen our relationships within different religious and spiritual communities. Members of the FAC come from a multitude of faith traditions and reflect the diversity of the communities in which AU works. They include:

• The. Rev. Naomi Washington-Leapheart, Fellowship of Affirming Ministries, Pa.
• Rabbi Robert B. Barr, Jewish, Ohio
• The Rev. David W. Key Jr., Baptist, Georgia
• The Rev. Selena Fox, Nature Spirituality, Wisc.
• Maggie Siddiqi, Muslim, Washington, D.C.
• The Rev. Alex McNeill, Presbyterian, N.C.
• The Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, United Church of Christ, Okla.
• Rabbi Rachel Joseph, Jewish, Oregon

“Religious freedom is for everyone, from the most devout believer to the committed atheist and everybody in between. It’s a fundamental human right that no government should violate and that must not be misused to discriminate or exclude,” Laser said. “Both Andrew and our volunteer members of the Faith Advisory Council will help us strengthen the American belief in church-state separation, which frees us to come together as equals and build a stronger democracy.”