How Religious Freedom Caselaw is Shaping the Legal Landscape for Ministries
As the Free Exercise jurisprudence in the country has been strengthened in recent years through court decisions, Alliance Defending Freedom is aiming to see those protections applied in upcoming court cases involving Christian ministries and their use of public benefits.
A trilogy of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States over the last few years began strengthening the protections recognized under the Free Exercise laws, attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom said during a webinar on Aug. 9.
Before these cases were decided, ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman explained that groups defending religious freedom were often bringing their claims under Free Speech protections, but were looking for deliberate ways to strengthen the Free Exercise clause in a variety of situations.
READ: Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Opens Up In New Memoir
The first breakthrough came in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, a 2017 decision about a preschool in Missouri that was disallowed from receiving a government grant for its playground because of its religious status. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the government’s decision was an impermissible penalty on the free exercise of religion, which was “odious to our Constitution.”
Then in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, that a tax credit scholarship program that excluded religious schools violated the Free Exercise rights of the religious families who wished to attend them.
Third, in the 2022 Carson v. Makin decision, Chief Justice John Roberts — who authored the majority opinions in all three cases — expanded his language protecting Free Exercise from just religious status to religious practices, clarifying that the protections apply to both, Cortman said. In that case, Maine’s tuition assistance program was challenged for its discrimination against sectarian schools.
Following the expanded Free Exercise protections under these decisions, ADF continues to litigate cases on behalf of Christian ministries, arguing for the continued expansion of these protections in different contexts.
In Colorado, the Darren Patterson Christian Academy applied to participate in a state universal preschool program. However, the Colorado Department of Early Childhood mandated that, for the school to participate in the program, it must hire employees who do not share its faith and beliefs about sexuality and gender.
ADF secured a preliminary injunction in the case and the district court ruled in its favor, finding the state could not offer a convincing explanation for offering exemptions to some schools but not to others.
The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where ADF hopes to show that the limit is an infringement on the religious practice of the school and a penalty on the free exercise of religion. In doing so, it is relying on the aforementioned trilogy of Supreme Court decisions about Free Exercise.
Another case, in the Ninth Circuit, involves the Youth 71Five Ministries in Oregon that works with at-risk youth. Previously, the ministry was granted state funds but was denied in 2024 due to a new rule that prohibits the ministry from hiring only those who share its religious beliefs.
So far, this case on the west coast has been less successful than other Free Exercise cases. It was dismissed at the trial court level, but on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, a panel of the appellate court found the rule was “likely permissible as a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulation as to Division-funded initiatives.”
However, to the extent that Rule “restricts 71Five’s selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through initiatives that receive no Division funding, the Rule likely imposes an unconstitutional condition.”
ADF plans to ask for a hearing before the full panel of the Ninth Circuit, Cortman said.
A more successful story for Free Exercise has emerged from Ohio where an anti-trafficking program, Gracehaven, was disqualified from a public program and benefit that it otherwise qualified for solely because the ministry only hires employees who share and adhere to its religious beliefs.
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Gracehaven in April. In this case, ADF hopes to see the Free Exercise jurisprudence extended to protect the religious practice of hiring those who share the program’s Biblical views of gender and sexuality.
In May, ADF challenged a tuition assistance program in Virginia where students were denied benefits because they chose religious majors.
It is hoping the court will recognize the students shouldn’t be penalized from receiving a government benefit because of their religious beliefs and the use of the money for religious purposes.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled three times in the last eight years that otherwise available public benefits cannot be withheld from people because of their religious character, exercise, and use of the benefits,” ADF attorneys argued. “We are urging the court to uphold the First Amendment and allow students in Virginia to pursue their goals without fear that their religion will create financial barriers for their education.”
While seen more as a parental rights case, the ADF believes the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision by the Supreme Court last term has important implications for free exercise. In it, the court found that “government officials can’t force parents to give up that right or violate their religious beliefs in exchange for a public education.”
The ADF sees this decision as another precedent in favor of arguing that a public benefit can’t be conditioned on a religious belief and practice, Cortman said.
This article was originally published at MinistryWatch.
Kim Roberts is a freelance writer who holds a Juris Doctorate with honors from Baylor University and an undergraduate degree in government from Angelo State University. She has three young adult children who were home schooled and is happily married to her husband of 28 years.