Latest News

Liam Morrison

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of Liam Morrison, a student who was forbidden by his Massachusetts middle school from wearing a T-shirt to school with the words “There are only two genders” and later with “There are [censored] genders” on the front, even though the school expressed a different view of sex and gender, and encouraged students to join in by wearing “Pride gear to celebrate Pride Month.”

In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the school’s decision against Liam, prompting ADF attorneys to ask the Supreme Court to review the case and rule that Nichols Middle School in Middleborough violated the First Amendment when it stopped Liam from wearing his shirts to school.

Jack Phillips

The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by an attorney against cake artist Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. For more than 12 years, Phillips has been relentlessly pursued and mocked by government officials and activists who disagree with his views.

Since 2012, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have been defending Phillips, when he was first sued for declining to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding because it violated his religious beliefs. On the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ first case—in which he prevailed in 2018—an attorney called Masterpiece Cakeshop, requesting that Phillips create a custom cake that would symbolize and celebrate a “gender transition” from male to female. The attorney then called again to request another custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana to “correct the errors of [Phillips’] thinking.” Phillips politely declined the request because the cakes expressed messages that violated his core beliefs. Like many artists, he decides to create custom cakes based on what they will express, not who requests them.

Becerra v. State of Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government’s request to hear the case Becerra v. State of Texas, upholding a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit’s decision had blocked the Biden-Harris administration from illegally using federal law to create a mandate forcing emergency room hospitals and doctors to perform abortions.

In July 2022, the state of Texas, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations filed a lawsuit seeking to have the illegal abortion mandate struck down. Less than a month later, a federal district court in Texas granted our request to temporarily halt the mandate while the lawsuit proceeds, and the court made that injunction permanent in December 2022. The 5th Circuit upheld this decision in January 2024, allowing emergency rooms to fulfill their primary function—saving lives.

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond.

In June 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved an application from the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to operate the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School as a charter school. But Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit challenging the Board’s approval of St. Isidore, and in July 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the board could not contract with St. Isidore solely because the school is religious.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious groups cannot be excluded from generally available programs solely because of their religious character. That’s why ADF has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear this important case.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bonta

On behalf of a nonprofit pro-life pregnancy center and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed suit against the California attorney general for using his power to censor pro-life pregnancy centers because they tell women about the option of taking supplemental progesterone for abortion pill reversal. Progesterone is a safe and naturally occurring hormone that can be used to counteract the life-ending effects of abortion drugs.

In September 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Heartbeat International, a national network of pregnancy centers, and RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics, a chain of five pregnancy centers in California, for publishing information about abortion pill reversal, including that it is safe and can be an effective treatment. Bonta’s politically motivated lawsuit threatens other pregnancy centers in the state that have made, or would like to make, similar statements. ADF attorneys are challenging the attorney general on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and SCV Pregnancy Center in Santa Clarita.

Turning Point USA at the University of Memphis

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys sent a demand letter on behalf of Turning Point USA at the University of Memphis to college officials after an event sponsored by TPUSA was shut down by a student mob. ADF attorneys are asking University of Memphis administrators to reschedule the event, provide adequate security, and refund TPUSA an unconstitutional security fee it was forced to pay after the event was shut down.

TPUSA scheduled an event on-campus in March featuring conservative speaker Kyle Rittenhouse addressing the importance of individual rights and self-defense. In advance, students and others reserved tickets for the purpose of not showing up or to heckle the speaker and event organizers. At the event, students inside the theater loudly heckled and jeered, forcing Rittenhouse to end the event early. A mob chased TPUSA members to their cars, hurled death threats, and blocked them from exiting. The university then charged TPUSA $1,600 for security that stood idly by and allowed the mob to shut down the event. The University never punished any disruptor.

Peter Vlaming

The West Point School Board has agreed to pay $575,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees to settle a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing former Virginia high school teacher Peter Vlaming. In 2018, Vlaming was fired by the school board after he stated he couldn’t in good conscience comply with the superintendent’s demand that he refer to one of his students using pronouns inconsistent with the student’s sex.

But in December 2023, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that it would reinstate Vlaming’s lawsuit after a lower court dismissed his case. In its opinion, the commonwealth’s high court wrote that the Virginia Constitution contains robust free speech and free exercise protections for public employees.

As part of the settlement agreement, the school board has also agreed to clear Peter Vlaming’s firing from his record. Separate from the settlement, the school board changed its policies to conform to the new Virginia education policies established by Gov. Glenn Youngkin that respect fundamental free speech and parental rights.

The Babylon Bee v. Bonta

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing The Babylon Bee and Kelly Chang Rickert, a California attorney, filed a complaint challenging two California laws that censor some online content, including political satire and parody. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed the laws that censor freedom of speech by using vague standards to punish people for posting certain political content online, including political memes and parodies of politicians.

The two laws apply around election time to censor speech through subjective standards like prohibiting pictures and videos “likely to harm” a candidate’s “electoral prospects.” AB 2839 and AB 2655 apply to any person or entity who distributes what California officials decide is “materially deceptive content” about candidates, elected officials, and other election material. AB 2839 even forces speakers to include a disclaimer when posting satire, defeating the point of satire. AB 2655 applies to large online platforms and requires them to sometimes label, and other times remove, posts with “materially deceptive content.” Penalties for violating the laws include significant attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages. The suit explains that the laws interfere with The Babylon Bee’s and Rickert’s freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment.

Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The Biden-Harris administration agreed to pay $210,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to conclude a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the Christian Employers Alliance.

The agreement follows a federal district court decision earlier this year that stopped the administration from forcing nonprofit and for-profit religious employers and healthcare providers to violate their religious beliefs by paying for and performing harmful “gender transition” surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments.

Christian Healthcare Centers & Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled to allow the cases of a faith-based medical nonprofit and a parish and Catholic school to continue. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Christian Healthcare Centers and Grand Rapids-based Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish and several of its families asked the court to uphold the Michigan ministries’ constitutionally protected freedom to operate as religious organizations consistent with their beliefs.

In July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted Michigan’s non-discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. It did not provide exemptions for religious institutions seeking to operate according to their beliefs. This would require Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. The law also threatens the rights of parents—including the three families who have joined the lawsuit—who specifically chose to send their children to Sacred Heart Academy because the school aligns with their values and religious beliefs.

Josephson v. Ganzel

In a victory for free speech in higher education, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of Dr. Allan Josephson and sent his case back for trial.

After Dr. Josephson spoke in his personal capacity on his own time as part of a Heritage Foundation panel discussion about how best to treat children experiencing gender dysphoria, university officials demoted him to the role of a junior faculty member, stripped him of teaching duties, and subjected him to other forms of hostility. In February 2019, the university announced that it would not renew his contract in June, a highly unusual decision that terminated his employment at the university and ended his 40-year career. After he sued the school, a federal district court ruled in March 2023 that a jury should hear his claims that university officials retaliated against him for his constitutionally protected speech. The 6th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that university officials have to stand trial.

Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools

On behalf of three Colorado families, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) for violating parents’ fundamental right to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children.

A JCPS policy directs that students should be “assigned to share overnight accommodations with other students that share the student’s gender identity” rather than rooming by sex. JCPS tells parents that “girls will be roomed together on one floor, and boys will be roomed together on a different floor,” but what district officials fail to disclose is that they have redefined the words “girl” and “boy” to mean a student’s self-asserted “gender identity” rather than sex. JCPS refuses to give parents truthful, pertinent information about their children’s overnight accommodations, thus hampering parents’ ability to make informed decisions about their children’s education and privacy.

ADF attorneys explain in the lawsuit that, as a result, parents will not have the information they need to protect their child’s privacy until it is too late—when the parents are not there; when the burden falls on the child to ask her roommates about their sex; and when there is a greater risk of causing all students discomfort or embarrassment.

Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against an attempt by activists to prevent students from using their federal aid at colleges and universities that share their religious beliefs. In the case, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent three Christian post-secondary schools: Corban University, William Jessup University, and Phoenix Seminary.

In 2021, an activist group filed a lawsuit to prevent any students from using tuition grants, student loans, and any other federal financial assistance at schools that operate according to their religious beliefs on gender and sexual morality. In January 2023, when it appeared that the Department of Education would not sufficiently defend the schools’ religious protections, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon allowed the three Christian schools to intervene to defend the relevant provisions of Title IX. Among other things, Title IX allows students to use federal financial aid at private religious schools that operate according to their beliefs.

In its opinion, the 9th Circuit noted that legal precedents supporting the position of the schools represented by ADF demonstrate “a continuous, century-long practice of governmental accommodations for religion that the Supreme Court and our court have repeatedly accepted as consistent with the Establishment Clause. The examples provided by the Department demonstrate that religious exemptions have ‘withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change.’”

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James

A federal district court ruled that two nonprofit pro-life pregnancy centers and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers in New York are free to tell women about the life-saving potential of using progesterone for abortion pill reversal while their lawsuit continues.

In the lawsuit, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna’s House, and Options Care Center. The pro-life pregnancy centers sued New York Attorney General Letitia James for abusing her authority by censoring the pregnancy centers because they tell women about the potential of using progesterone for abortion pill reversal. Progesterone is a safe and naturally occurring hormone that can often be successfully used to counteract the life-ending effects of abortion drugs when taken in time. The district court found the pregnancy centers are likely to succeed on the merits of their free speech claim, halting state officials from violating the centers’ freedom of speech while their case proceeds.

Biden-Harris Title IX rule

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Biden-Harris administration’s request to partially reinstate its illegal attempt to change the meaning of the word “sex” to include “gender identity” in Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics. The high court’s denial comes in two different legal challenges to the administration’s Title IX rule changes, Cardona v. State of Tennessee and U.S. Department of Education v. State of Louisiana.

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds two recent federal appeals court rulings that halted the administration’s unlawful rules in the states of Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia; and Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho. In one case, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a West Virginia high-school female athlete and Christian Educators Association International; in the other, they represent a Louisiana school board serving more than 20,000 students.

Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Ferguson

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a lower court’s order dismissing a Washington state homeless ministry’s lawsuit against state officials. In the case, the Union Gospel Mission of Yakima is challenging a state law that limits its freedom to hire like-minded individuals who share and live out its religious beliefs and mission.

The government cannot force religious organizations to hire people who do not share their religious beliefs. The Constitution protects the Mission’s right to hire employees—for any position—who adhere to and live out the mission's religious beliefs.

Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted a request from an Oregon ministry to allow it to receive critical state program funding to help serve at-risk youth as its appeal against state officials continues. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are representing Youth 71Five Ministries in the case, which challenges the denial of previously approved funds simply because the group asks employees and volunteers to sign a statement of faith. ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit in March and filed a notice of appeal with the 9th Circuit in July after a lower court dismissed the case.

Turning Point USA at SUNY Cortland

ADF attorneys representing two students and a Turning Point USA chapter reached a favorable settlement agreement with a State University of New York Cortland official and the student government association after they denied the conservative group recognized status because of its views.

In March, SUNY Cortland officially recognized the TPUSA chapter shortly after ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit, but the student government failed to fully address its unconstitutional policy that allowed the conservative group to be denied recognized status in the first place. The student government has now agreed to revise the policy to respect the constitutionally protected freedoms of all students, including implementing an appeal process if a group is denied recognized status. As part of the settlement agreement, the student government and SUNY Cortland will also pay $42,000.

5 for 5 in halting Biden-Harris admin’s unlawful Title IX rule

A federal district court in Missouri ruled to immediately halt the Biden-Harris administration’s illegal attempted rewrite of Title IX while the lawsuit State of Arkansas v. U.S. Department of Education moves forward. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Amelia Ford, a high school athlete from Arkansas, joined the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in a federal lawsuit filed in May against the administration for its attempt to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity.” This recent ruling stops enforcement of the rule against Ford as well as against the six states that brought the lawsuit.

Out of five lawsuits in which ADF is involved, this is the fifth injunction halting the administration’s unlawful effort to change Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for students in education and athletics.

Emilee Carpenter

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the case of a New York photographer and blogger may proceed and that a lower court should evaluate whether to issue an injunction to prevent New York from forcing her to create messages inconsistent with her faith in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark free speech decision in the Alliance Defending Freedom case 303 Creative v. Elenis.

ADF attorneys filed a supplemental brief with the 2nd Circuit in July 2023 explaining how 303 Creative protected photographer and blogger Emilee Carpenter. The brief argued that the appeals court should affirm Carpenter’s First Amendment rights, reverse a lower court’s ruling dismissing her case, and prevent officials from forcing Carpenter to create photographs and blogs inconsistent with her beliefs.

Female athletes ask SCOTUS to protect fairness, safety in women’s sports

The states of West Virginia and Idaho, together with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the cases of female athletes who are seeking to protect women’s sports.

In B.P.J. v West Virginia State Board of Education, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and ADF are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit hindered West Virginia from protecting fairness in women’s sports. The petition seeks review on behalf of West Virginia officials and former collegiate athlete Lainey Armistead.

In Hecox v. Little, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and ADF are asking the Supreme Court to uphold their state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld an injunction against enforcement of the law. The petition seeks review on behalf of Idaho officials and athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall.

Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field, and West Virginia’s and Idaho’s laws do just that, protecting women’s sports and equal opportunities.

State of Missouri v. Becerra

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the American College of Pediatricians, together with seven states—including Missouri and Utah as co-leads—are suing the Biden administration for adopting a rule that forces medical professionals and insurance providers to perform and pay for harmful “gender-transition” procedures or face severe financial consequences. This is the third lawsuit ADF attorneys have filed against the administration’s attempt to rewrite federal healthcare law.

In May, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a new rule under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that requires doctors to act against their sound medical judgment and perform harmful, often sterilizing procedures to make people, including children, appear to be the opposite sex, even if state law restricts these procedures. Additionally, the new rule requires insurance coverage for these procedures; coerces specific gender-related medical speech and the use of inaccurate pronouns; and forces medical facilities to provide access to sex-specific spaces based on gender identity.

State of Idaho v. United States of America

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of this case but instead sent it back to the lower courts for further consideration. While the justices issued four separate opinions, none of the opinions commanded a majority. Five justices voted to return the case to the 9th Circuit, which had scheduled the case for en banc consideration by an 11-member panel. However, Justice Barrett issued a separate opinion that said Idaho’s law will continue to save lives “in the vast majority of circumstances” as the case continues.

ADF will continue to assist the state of Idaho and bring a rightful end to the administration’s unlawful overreach and protect the people’s freedom to preserve life.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina

ADF attorneys representing Jack Phillips and his cake shop asked the state high court to protect Phillips from being forced to express messages that violate his beliefs. Oral arguments were held today.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis that upheld free speech for all, ADF attorneys filed a supplemental notice with the Colorado Supreme Court, asking it to apply that ruling and similarly affirm Phillips’ free-speech rights in this case. Activists and Colorado officials have misused the same state law that was at issue in 303 Creative to punish Phillips for more than a decade.

State of Tennessee v. United States Department of Education

In a victory for female athletes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled to uphold a lower court order that blocks, in 20 states, Biden administration guidance documents that illegitimately reinterpret federal law to allow, among other things, males to compete in women’s sports. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Arkansas female athlete Amelia Ford and the Association of Christian Schools International.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in ADF’s case against the FDA. While we’re disappointed the Court did not address the merits of the FDA’s unlawful removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs, nothing in today’s decision changes this fact: women and girls are being harmed by the FDA’s recklessness. The FDA’s own label says that roughly one in 25 women who take chemical abortion drugs will end up in the emergency room.

ADF will continue to expose the reckless actions of the FDA and the harms of abortion drugs. And we are grateful three states stand ready to hold the FDA accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of women and girls across this country.

Wuoti v. Winters

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two Vermont families after the state revoked their foster-care licenses because of their religious beliefs.

Inspired by their faith, two couples wanted to help meet Vermont’s “desperate” need for foster families. Pastor Brian Wuoti and his wife, Katy, became foster parents in 2014 and successfully adopted two brothers from foster care. Pastor Bryan Gantt and his wife, Becca, became foster parents in 2016 and focused on caring for children born with drug dependencies or with fetal alcohol syndrome. The Gantts have since adopted three children.

Despite a track record of success and high praise from social workers who knew them, Vermont’s Department for Children and Families revoked their foster-care licenses after the couples expressed their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa. They also expressed concern about the department’s policy requiring them to use inaccurate pronouns, take children to pride parades, and encourage children to reject their bodies.

Such policies violate the rights of foster and adoptive parents and deny children the opportunity to be placed in a loving home.

Obria Group v. Ferguson

Following a lawsuit brought by ADF attorneys, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson officially closed his unconstitutional investigation of a faith-based, pro-life network of pregnancy centers and one of its affiliated centers and stated he would not file litigation. ADF attorneys, representing Obria Group and Obria Medical Clinics PNW, challenged Ferguson for singling them out because of their life-affirming views through an unlawful investigation into their sensitive records and materials.

Ferguson issued civil investigative demands that dictate, for a time period exceeding 13 years, that the pregnancy centers provide answers to questions and production of documents under the pretense of conducting a civil investigation into “possible” violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. Ferguson’s investigation did not appear to be based on a complaint or other substantive evidence of wrongdoing but was rather an exploratory probe into the lawful activities of two organizations that hold a view on a matter of public policy that Ferguson doesn’t favor.

Ferguson had previously denied that his investigation caused the clinics any harm and had said this precluded the federal court from hearing the clinics’ claims. But after one of the clinics showed that Ferguson’s investigation caused it to lose insurance coverage and to pay seven times more for replacement coverage, Ferguson issued an official letter closing his investigation.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James

On behalf of two nonprofit pro-life pregnancy centers and one nonprofit network of affiliated centers, ADF attorneys are suing the New York attorney general for using her power to censor pro-life pregnancy centers’ ability to tell women about the option of using progesterone for abortion pill reversal. Progesterone is a safe and naturally occurring hormone that may be used to counteract the life-ending effects of abortion drugs. Some statistical estimates suggest that over 5,000 babies’ lives have been saved through this treatment.

Yet, New York Attorney General Letitia James recently sued 11 faith-based pro-life pregnancy centers and a network of affiliated centers in the state seeking to silence their ability to tell women about their medical care options. Even though the centers offer these options for free, and progesterone supplements have been used safely for decades, New York is attempting to use laws that prohibit business fraud to suppress women's access to this life-saving information. In doing so, the Attorney General is unlawfully targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, threatening punishment for promoting and offering a service that gives women the option of changing their minds and attempting to save their baby’s life. Such actions from a government official violate the pregnancy centers’ First Amendment rights to speak freely and practice their religious beliefs—and they deny women access to vital medical information.

Carroll Independent School District

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Carroll Independent School District challenging a Biden administration rule change to unlawfully rewrite Title IX. The district is located in Southlake, Texas, and operates 11 schools for students from pre-K to 12th grade, with a student body of approximately 8,400.

On April 19, the administration announced it would redefine “sex” in Title IX rules to include “gender identity,” requiring schools to ignore the biological distinction between male and female in favor of “an individual’s sense of their gender.” Under this rule, schools will have to allow males who identify as female to enter girls’ private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, and showers and—despite logically inconsistent disclaimers saying otherwise—to play on girls’ sports teams. The new rule also requires the school district to enforce policies restricting students’ and employees’ free-speech rights.

Carroll Independent School District adopted a resolution denouncing the rule change, emphasizing that the rule could “jeopardiz[e] the safety and well-being of students.”

State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, together with attorneys general from three other states, Alliance Defending Freedom, and private groups of parents, students, and female athletes, filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration for its attempt to rewrite Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for students in education and athletics.

ADF attorneys are representing Female Athletes United, an organization made up of female athletes and other supporters of women’s sports, and Katie Rowland, a 13-year-old student who had to stop using the restrooms at her Oklahoma public school for a time because the school allowed males who identify as female to access this private space. In addition, two other groups, Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation, also joined the lawsuit. Together, they formed a broad coalition to challenge the administration’s attempt to redefine “sex” in federal law to include “gender identity,” and to protect privacy, safety, free speech, and fairness for students and teachers.

McComb Children's Clinic v. Becerra

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a Mississippi children’s clinic filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after the agency adopted a rule that forces medical caregivers to provide and promote harmful procedures or face severe financial consequences.

McComb Children’s Clinic is a pediatrics practice that serves the McComb, Mississippi, community. The clinic’s pediatricians work with parents to provide compassionate, comprehensive services to children from birth through adolescence. On May 6, the Biden administration published a rule change that redefines “sex” in federal health care nondiscrimination law to include “gender identity.” Because McComb Children’s Clinic is committed to children’s health based on their actual biology—and because the clinic is following state law which prohibits so-called “gender transition” procedures on minors—the rule change forces it to lose federal funding or risk severe penalties unless it provides, promotes, or refers for harmful procedures, which it will not do.

Doctors should be allowed to fulfill their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and follow sound medical judgment without fear of government overreach.

Moms for Liberty-Yolo County v. Lopez

Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom and the Institute for Free Speech reached a favorable settlement agreement with Yolo County Library officials after they shutdown an event at a local library to discuss the harms of allowing men to participate in women’s sports.

As part of the settlement, library officials agreed to change their policy to mandate that staff “shall not interfere with presentations or other speech by individuals or groups that have reserved meeting rooms based on the content of such speech” and to instruct staff to “curtail any disruptive behavior” during events. The officials also agreed to allow Moms for Liberty – Yolo County, Independent Council on Women’s Sports, California Family Council, and other parental rights and women’s advocates to use the library to hold their event again, which took place on April 13, this time without incident. Finally, the officials agreed to pay $70,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

State of Arkansas v. U.S. Department of Education

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, together with attorneys general from five other states and Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration for its attempt to rewrite Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for students in education and athletics. In the case, ADF attorneys represent Amelia Ford, a female high school athlete from Arkansas.

Following the publication of the administration’s rule, the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota filed suit, challenging the administration’s attempt to redefine “sex” in federal law to include “gender identity.” This effort to rewrite federal law jeopardizes privacy, safety, free speech, and fairness for students and teachers.

State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The State of Florida and Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the Catholic Medical Association filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after the agency adopted a rule that forces medical professionals and insurance providers to perform or pay for harmful so-called “gender transition” procedures or face severe financial consequences. ADF attorneys joined Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody in immediately challenging the Biden administration’s unlawful rule.

State of Tennessee v. Cardona

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a motion asking a Kentucky federal district court to allow A.C., a high school athlete from West Virginia, and Christian Educators Association International, an association of teachers, to join a lawsuit suing the Biden administration over its recent attempt to rewrite Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for students in education and athletics.

A.C. has already lost key opportunities to a male student on her track team and had to endure that student’s vulgar sexual comments while on the team. Christian Educators now face threats to their free speech and right to access sex-specific spaces like bathrooms without encountering someone of the opposite sex.

Following the publication of the administration’s rule, six states, including Tennessee and West Virginia, filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s attempt to redefine “sex” in federal law to include “gender identity.” This attempt to rewrite federal law jeopardizes privacy, safety, free speech, and fairness for students and teachers.

Rapides Parish School Board

On behalf of a Louisiana school board serving more than 20,000 students, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration for unlawfully rewriting Title IX.

The Biden administration announced it was redefining “sex” in Title IX rules to include “gender identity,” requiring schools to ignore the biological distinction between male and female in favor of “an individual’s sense of their gender.” The Department of Education’s fundamental and radical rewriting of federal law forces schools across the country to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children—including the very children it claims to help. Schools will have to allow males who identify as female to enter girls’ private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers; to participate in girls’ physical education classes; and—despite logically inconsistent disclaimers saying otherwise—to play on girls’ sports teams.

Dr. David Phillips

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have favorably settled a lawsuit on behalf of a professor fired by North Carolina education officials after he spoke out about the harms of the racially divisive ideology the school was embracing.

As dictated by the settlement agreement, the North Carolina Governor’s School has paid Dr. David Phillips approximately four years of his annual stipend and adopted a policy to respect faculty free speech in its elective seminars—like the ones Phillips gave shortly before he was fired. The policy affirms the Governor’s School’s desire “to offer elective seminars that present a wide range of viewpoints.” And it states that the school “accords faculty members the freedom and responsibility to craft academic and intellectual experiences that reflect their unique viewpoints and expertise.”

In light of the settlement, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the case.

E.D. v. Noblesville School District

An Indiana high school student, E.D., and her pro-life student group are appealing a court decision against them in a lawsuit they filed after school officials derecognized the group because the student sought permission to post flyers that administrators found objectionable.

In August 2021, the student met with the principal of Noblesville High School to form a chapter of Students for Life of America. After E.D. completed all required steps, the school officially recognized the group. A few weeks later, though, E.D. sought permission to post flyers using a Students for Life of America template that included photographs of students holding signs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court reading, “I Reject Abortion,” “Defund Planned Parenthood,” and “I Am the Pro-Life Generation.” School staff insisted that she post the flyers without the pictures, telling her that the flyer could not be “political.” The same day E.D. met with an administrator about the flyers, the principal derecognized the group.

On behalf of E.D., Alliance Defending Freedom and Charitable Allies attorneys are appealing the lower court’s decision that restricts free speech for students.

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced that his office and Alliance Defending Freedom will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case defending West Virginia’s commonsense law preventing men from competing in women’s sports.

In 2021, West Virginia passed the Save Women’s Sports Act, which ensures equal opportunities for women and girls in sports and protects their safety by making sure they are not forced to compete against males. The law was challenged in court by the ACLU, and ADF intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of Lainey Armistead, a former collegiate athlete who played soccer at West Virginia State University.

Although a federal district court ruled in favor of the West Virginia law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit stripped West Virginia of its ability to protect fairness in women’s sports. ADF is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the 4th Circuit’s decision and make it clear that West Virginia’s law should be enforced and that Title IX’s promise of protecting equal opportunities for women and girls in sports must be upheld.

State of Idaho v. United States of America

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in State of Idaho v. United States of America. The Office of the Idaho Attorney General, with the assistance of experienced Supreme Court litigators from ADF and Cooper & Kirk PLLC, is asking the nation’s High Court to prevent the Biden administration from manipulating federal law to override Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.

In 2020, Idaho passed the Defense of Life Act to protect the lives of women and their unborn children, preventing doctors from performing abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. But in August 2022, the Biden administration sued the State, attempting to use the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to force Idaho emergency room doctors to violate state law and perform abortions. But EMTALA says nothing about abortion and actually requires that emergency rooms provide care for pregnant women and their “unborn child[ren].”

Both laws are consistent and seek to save lives. The Supreme Court should end the Biden administration’s lawlessness and uphold Idaho’s decision to protect life.

Labrador v. Poe

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to narrow a lower court’s order to apply only to the challengers and allow Idaho to otherwise enforce its law that protects children from harmful and experimental drugs and procedures. Although activists challenged only certain parts of Idaho’s commonsense law prohibiting so-called “gender transition” drugs and procedures for minors, the lower court stopped the state from enforcing its entire law statewide. This prevented Idaho from even protecting young children from irreversible drugs and surgeries that disfigure their bodies and stop their natural development. The Supreme Court’s ruling allows Idaho to protect children as the case proceeds.

Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes

In a victory for life, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision and upheld the state’s pro-life law as written.

The lower court’s ruling misinterpreted state law, against its plain meaning, to allow abortion in circumstances where the Arizona legislature prohibited it. It also enjoined officials from fully enforcing the state’s pro-life law to protect unborn children. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed this ruling, allowing the law to be enforced as written.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Dr. Eric Hazelrigg, an obstetrician and medical director of Choices Pregnancy Center in Arizona. In 2022, the Arizona Superior Court of Pima County appointed Dr. Hazelrigg as the substitute guardian ad litem to legally represent the best interests of unborn children in Arizona. In 2023, he filed a petition asking the state Supreme Court to review the Arizona Court of Appeals ruling.

Holding the FDA Accountable at SCOTUS

Today, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life & Regulatory Practice Erin Hawley argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

ADF is representing four national medical associations, their members, and four individual doctors against the FDA for unlawfully removing crucial safety standards for pregnant women who use abortion drugs. Over the past eight years, the agency has removed nearly all of its originally required safety standards that ensured women and girls had ongoing in-person medical care while taking these high-risk drugs, all the while acknowledging that roughly one in 25 women who take these drugs will end up in the emergency room.

Women should have the ongoing in-person care of a doctor when taking high-risk drugs, and the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm the 5th Circuit’s decision to hold the FDA accountable for unlawfully failing to protect the health and safety of women and girls.

Shane and Jennifer DeGross

After taking in vulnerable children for over nine years as foster parents, Shane and Jennifer DeGross sought to renew their foster-care license in 2022, hoping to continue serving as respite-care providers. During that process, they learned that the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) had enacted new regulations requiring all foster parents to express progressive views on human sexuality. Among other things, parents must agree to use inaccurate pronouns for a child based on the child’s professed gender identity and take children to events like pride parades.

Because of their Christian faith, the DeGrosses told their licensing agency, Olive Crest, that they would love and support any child placed in their home but could not lie to a child about who they are or encourage a child to reject their sex. Olive Crest sought an exemption from DCYF on the DeGrosses’ behalf, but DCYF officials rejected their application even after Olive Crest made more than one attempt to appeal the denial. Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the DeGrosses against the state of Washington.

Every child deserves a loving home. Children suffer when the government discriminates and excludes people of faith from adoption and foster care.

Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a motion asking a Colorado federal court to allow Chelsea Mynyk, a licensed nurse practitioner and certified nurse midwife, to intervene in a lawsuit to defend her use of providing patients with abortion pill reversal (APR). The protocol is a safe and effective treatment for women who change their minds about abortion and is used to reverse the effects of chemical abortion drugs, saving the unborn child.

In April 2023, Colorado enacted a law that prohibits doctors and nurses from providing abortion pill reversal, forcing women to undergo abortions they wish to avoid. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sued Colorado on behalf of Bella Health and Wellness, a pro-life pregnancy center, and secured a preliminary injunction that prevents Colorado’s law from being enacted while the lawsuit continues. However, the injunction only applied to Bella Health and Wellness.

Mynyk runs her own clinic, Castle Rock Women’s Health, where she provides reproductive health care services to women. Mynyk, like Bella Health and Wellness, believes that she is compelled by her faith to provide APR to women who request it. She has requested to intervene in the lawsuit to defend her right to make sure she and other medical professionals can continue their life-saving work through APR.

Calvary Road Baptist Church v. Miyares

In settlement of an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit, Virginia officials have acknowledged that commonwealth law protects religious organizations’ ability to operate consistent with their faith.

In 2020, ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Virginia churches, three Christian schools, and a pregnancy center network to challenge a Virginia law that forced nonprofit ministries to abandon their core convictions in hiring and other policies or face fines up to $100,000 for each violation.

As part of the settlement agreement, Virginia officials conceded that all of the ministries, as religious organizations, are free to only hire “individuals who profess and live according to religious beliefs held by [the ministries], including beliefs on abortion, marriage, sexuality, sex, and gender.” Further, Virginia officials agreed that commonwealth law protects the ministries from having to pay for or facilitate any gender dysphoria treatment that violates their religious teachings. Examples include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, so-called “sex reassignment” surgeries, or any other “gender transition” procedures.

ADF Testifies to Congress on the Dangers of De-banking

ADF Senior Counsel and SVP of Corporate Engagement Jeremy Tedesco was invited to testify before the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on the growing threat of de-banking, a practice of denying financial services based on a customer’s religious or political views. Tedesco explained that underlying these cancelations are vague and subjective policies that banks and government banking regulators can use to withdraw financial services based on a customer’s exercise of his or her First Amendment rights.

The Subcommittee also obtained documents that reveal that, as part of its efforts to urge financial institutions to monitor their customers to identify domestic threats, the U.S. Department of the Treasury shared a list of “hate groups” published by the hyper-partisan Institute for Strategic Dialogue. The list includes ADF and numerous other mainstream religious and conservative organizations that the federal government has associated with “domestic terrorists” and targeted for surveillance by major banks.

Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against Oregon state officials on behalf of a youth ministry that was stripped of state grant funding because it asks employees and volunteers to sign a statement of faith.

71Five Ministries serves young people in Oregon of all faiths and backgrounds, including at-risk youth, young people in detention centers and correctional facilities, and expectant and parenting teens. The ministry’s mission statement says it “exists to share God’s Story of Hope with young people through trusting relationships in any relevant way.” While the ministry serves all people, it achieves its goal through employees and volunteers who share its mission and beliefs, as outlined by its statement of faith. 71Five Ministries has previously applied for—and been granted—funds from Oregon’s biennial Youth Community Investment Grants program. But when it applied for 2023-2025 funding, the ministry was first approved and then denied funding due to a new rule that requires that applicants “do not discriminate” based on religion “in [their] employment practices.”

71Five Ministries is asking the court to protect its freedom to work with like-minded individuals who share and live out its religious beliefs and mission to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through its various youth mentorship programs.

David Bloch

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys reached a favorable settlement agreement with the Vermont Agency of Education, the Vermont Principals’ Association, and a Vermont school district on behalf of David Bloch, a high-school snowboarding coach.

In 2023, the district fired Bloch for respectfully expressing his view that males are biologically different than females and that those differences generally give males an advantage in sports. The district claimed that expressing his views violated the state-mandated Harassment, Hazing, and Bullying policy.

As part of the settlement, state and school officials agreed to pay $75,000 for terminating Coach Bloch’s job after he expressed his views. Both the Agency of Education and school district admitted that Coach Bloch’s conversation did not violate the policy.

Christian Employers Alliance

In a victory for religious employers, a federal district court ruled that the Biden administration cannot force non-profit and for-profit religious employers and healthcare providers to violate their religious beliefs by paying for and performing harmful “gender transition” surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments.

In 2021, ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Both agencies misinterpreted and improperly threatened enforcement of prohibitions against “sex discrimination” as if they included “gender identity discrimination.” These mandates would have forced religious employers to provide health insurance coverage for “gender transition” surgeries and procedures, and they would have coerced religious healthcare providers who receive federal funding to physically perform or facilitate surgeries and procedures that conflict with their deeply held beliefs.

The federal court ruled in CEA’s favor, saying, “CEA’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened by the monetary penalties it faces for refusing to violate its beliefs.” The ruling blocks EEOC or HHS from punishing any CEA member under these mandates.

National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress

Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom and Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to hear the case of religious broadcasters challenging government officials’ discrimination against their speech by charging them exponentially higher rates to stream music online than secular National Public Radio broadcasters.

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board that set rates that are 18 times higher for religious noncommercial webcasters with an audience above a modest 218-listener threshold than the average rate for secular NPR stations. The lawsuit argues that this favoritism unfairly suppresses religious speakers and their religious speech online and violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.

Turning Point USA at SUNY Cortland v. Cortland College Student Association

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing two students and their Turning Point USA chapter against State University of New York Cortland officials and the student government association for withholding recognized student organization status because of TPUSA’s views.

During the fall semester, SUNY Cortland students Gabriella Delorenzo and Megan Rothmund assembled with other students to form a TPUSA chapter at the university to bring together students who value freedom, free markets, and limited government. But the Student Government’s Student Senate withheld recognized group status to the chapter because some students and a professor disagreed with the national TPUSA organization’s views. When the students raised the issue with SUNY Cortland President Erik Bitterbaum, he warned that they would likely be denied if they applied again, telling them, “We silence voices all the time in this country. That’s the tragedy and also the greatness of democracy.”

Labrador v. Poe

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, with the assistance of attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom and Cooper & Kirk, filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to narrow a lower court’s order and allow Idaho to otherwise enforce its Vulnerable Child Protection Act. The law protects children from dangerous and often irreversible drugs and procedures that block their natural development and remove healthy body parts.

Although the activists have only challenged certain parts of Idaho’s commonsense law, the lower court stopped Idaho from enforcing its entire law state-wide, prohibiting the state from even protecting children under age five from surgeries that disfigure their bodies. Idaho is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

Celebrating 30 Years

“For 30 years, ADF has been privileged to contend for truth and freedom in law, policy, and the public square and to help equip an alliance to do the same. By God’s grace, we stand today as the world’s largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and marriage and family. Since 2011, ADF has served as counsel in 15 U.S. Supreme Court victories and dozens of victories in international tribunals. We remain relentlessly committed to advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth.”

Kristen Waggoner—CEO, president, and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom

Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed suit against a New York school district after officials there began treating a middle-school girl as a boy without her mother’s knowledge or consent.

Jennifer Vitsaxaki withdrew her daughter from Skaneateles Central School District when the 2020-2021 school year concluded once she learned that school employees had begun to treat her daughter as a boy. Without notifying Mrs. Vitsaxaki or seeking her consent, employees began to refer to her daughter with a masculine name and third-person plural pronouns inconsistent with her daughter’s sex. When Mrs. Vitsaxaki confronted school officials, they defended their actions, citing district policy.

By socially transitioning Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter without her consent and by concealing vital information about her daughter’s health and well-being, the district violated Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s fundamental parental rights and her deeply held religious beliefs protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Church of Compassion v. Johnson

In a victory for religious liberty, attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom, the National Center for Law and Policy, and Advocates for Faith and Freedom have reached a favorable settlement with California state officials on behalf of Church of Compassion and Dayspring Christian Learning Center.

In 2022, California officials—relying in part on the Biden administration’s reinterpretation of federal law—unlawfully suspended the church and preschool from participating in the Child and Adult Food Care Program simply because of their religious beliefs about human sexuality. Church of Compassion and Dayspring help feed needy children in its daycare and preschool during the school year and summer. El Cajon, where the church and preschool are located, has a large immigrant population, and many of the families served by the church and preschool qualify for free meals under the food program.

As part of the settlement, the officials acknowledged that Church of Compassion and Dayspring Christian Learning Center, as faith-based organizations, are free to continue participating in the federal food program while following their religious beliefs. The officials also agreed to reimburse the church over $30,000 for the money it paid out of pocket to continue providing meals for families while it was unlawfully kicked out of the program, and agreed to pay $160,000 to cover the church’s attorneys’ fees.

State of Idaho v. United States of America

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a case in which the Biden administration is attempting to require Idaho’s emergency room doctors to violate state law.

Idaho’s Defense of Life Act protects the lives of women and their unborn children, preventing doctors from performing abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. But in 2022, the Biden Administration sued Idaho, claiming that it could use the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to force emergency room doctors to perform abortions. But EMTALA says nothing about abortion and actually requires that emergency rooms provide life-saving care to everyone regardless of ability to pay, including pregnant women and their “unborn child[ren].”

After a lower court prevented Idaho from enforcing its law, the Idaho Attorney General’s Office, together with ADF and Cooper & Kirk, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the Biden administration from continuing to misuse EMTALA to force doctors to take vulnerable lives. The Court agreed to hear the case and allowed Idaho to continue to protect women and their unborn children as the litigation continues. The Supreme Court will hear argument in this case in April.

State of Texas v. Becerra

In a pivotal victory for women, children, and healthcare professionals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Biden administration cannot misuse federal law to force emergency room doctors to take vulnerable lives.

ADF attorneys representing the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, alongside the state of Texas, asked the court to keep in place a lower court ruling halting the Biden administration from distorting the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to force doctors to perform abortions and refuse life-saving care to unborn children. The appeals court unanimously agreed the administration acted unlawfully. Doctors should be free to save people’s lives, not end them, including pregnant women and their unborn children.

Roe v. Critchfield

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, together with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, urging it to uphold a district court decision that allowed Idaho to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of all K-12 students in public school’s locker rooms, showers, restrooms, and overnight stays.

In March 2023, Idaho enacted a law protecting children’s privacy by ensuring that sex-specific facilities in K-12 public schools like showers, locker rooms, restrooms, and overnight accommodations remained sex-specific, while allowing single-user facilities for those who prefer otherwise. But activists sued Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield and the state board of education in July demanding that K-12 public schools force girls to share private spaces with men and vice-versa. After a lower court ruled to uphold Idaho’s common-sense law, the activists appealed, and the 9th Circuit granted them an injunction pending appeal, halting enforcement of the law.

ADF is urging the 9th Circuit to uphold Idaho’s law and protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of girls and boys.

Mead v. Rockford Public School District

Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit against a Michigan school district on behalf of a mother and father after district employees began treating the couple’s middle-school daughter as a boy without their knowledge or consent and taking steps to conceal these actions from the parents.

Dan and Jennifer Mead withdrew their daughter from the eighth grade at East Rockford Middle School in October 2022 after district employees, acting in compliance with Rockford Public School District policy, treated their daughter as a boy by referring to her by a masculine name and male pronouns without notifying the Meads or seeking their consent. Employees had altered some of the girl’s official records to remove references to the district’s new name and pronouns for her before sending the records home. The Meads only discovered the district’s actions when an employee unintentionally failed to completely alter a report about their daughter before sharing it with them.

The U.S. Constitution protects the Meads’ right as parents to make decisions about the upbringing, education, and health care of their children. By concealing this important information, the district violated their fundamental parental rights.

First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin

Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit against New Jersey’s attorney general on behalf of a Christian, pro-life, medical nonprofit that serves pregnant mothers, mothers of newborns, and fathers.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin selectively targeted First Choice Women’s Resource Centers based on its religious speech and pro-life views with a wide-ranging, unfounded, and burdensome subpoena that requires the organization to expend its limited resources to produce extensive documentation or face judicial sanctions. The attorney general does not refer to any substantive evidence of wrongdoing to justify his onerous demands.

Platkin also sought help from Planned Parenthood to draft his office’s consumer alert warning New Jerseyans about pregnancy centers. The attorney general’s demands violate the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and are designed to leverage the threat of sanctions under New Jersey law to frustrate First Choice’s pro-life ministry.

Country Mill Farms

To settle a lawsuit brought by a Catholic farmer, the city of East Lansing has agreed to protect Country Mill Farms’ constitutional right to operate according to its religious beliefs and also agreed to pay $825,000 ($41,199 in damages and $783,801 in attorneys’ fees).

In 2017, after Steve Tennes posted on Facebook that he follows the Catholic Church’s teachings about marriage, including when he participates in weddings at his family’s farm, city officials enacted a new market policy to prohibit Tennes and Country Mill Farms from participating in the city’s farmer’s market. In August 2023, a federal district court ruled that the city had violated the Tennes’s Free Exercise rights.

As part of the settlement agreement, the city of East Lansing agreed that Tennes is free to continue running his business in accordance with his religious beliefs about marriage without jeopardizing his ability to participate in the city’s farmer’s market.

Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reinstated the case of four female athletes—Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti—challenging a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference policy that allows males who identify as female to compete in girls’ athletic events. All four athletes have been deprived of placements, honors, or opportunities to compete at elite track-and-field levels by male athletes permitted to compete against them.

The 2nd Circuit ruling revives the lawsuit and allows the case to proceed in federal district court. There, the female athletes will seek a merits ruling in favor of fairness and equal opportunities for female athletes under Title IX.

Peter Vlaming

In a sweeping victory for free speech and religious freedom, the Virginia Supreme Court reinstated Peter Vlaming’s lawsuit against the West Point School Board, overturning a circuit court’s decision to dismiss it.

Peter Vlaming had taught French at West Point High School for nearly six years and always received glowing reviews. But the school board fired Vlaming after he stated he couldn’t in good conscience comply with the superintendent’s demand that he refer to one of his students using pronouns inconsistent with the student’s sex. Vlaming tried to accommodate the student by consistently using the student’s new preferred name and by avoiding the use of pronouns. But school officials ordered him to stop avoiding the use of pronouns to refer to the student, even when the student wasn’t present, and to start using pronouns inconsistent with the student’s sex. Because Vlaming couldn’t comply with that demand in good conscience, the school fired him.

Thankfully, in its ruling, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed Vlaming’s constitutional right not to be forced to pledge “verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate [his] sincerely held religious beliefs.” The case will be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Following petitions from the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear ADF’s case challenging the FDA’s removal of critical safeguards for the chemical abortion drug regimen. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and a federal court in Texas already ruled in ADF’s favor, agreeing that the FDA’s actions in eliminating safeguards for women and authorizing dangerous mail-order chemical abortion drugs were unlawful.

Brian Tingley

Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Brian Tingley, who was challenging Washington state’s counseling censorship law. The Ninth Circuit upheld this law which censors and prohibits certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors.

Such a law violates Brian’s freedom of speech and infringes on his religious freedom and that of his clients, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has held such laws unconstitutional. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented in the denial of certiorari, noting that 20 other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws. The issue isn’t going away, and the Court will likely have to rule whether such laws violate the First Amendment in the future.

Moms for Liberty - Yolo County v. Lopez

ADF and the Institute for Free Speech filed a lawsuit against Yolo County Library officials for violating the First Amendment rights of several women and their groups who met in a local library to discuss the harms of allowing men to participate in women’s sports.

Moms for Liberty–Yolo County, Independent Council on Women’s Sports, California Family Council, and several parental rights and women’s advocates are challenging library officials for removing them from a public building during an event hosted by the Moms for Liberty chapter. A library official shut down the forum after only a few minutes, claiming that referring to male athletes in women’s sports as “men” violates library policy.

Free speech is for everyone. Women have the right to speak out about their concerns about men participating in their sports, and library officials can’t silence their speech simply because they disagree with it.

Obria Group v. Ferguson

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing two faith-based, pro-life nonprofits against the attorney general of Washington state for conducting an unconstitutional and unlawful investigation into the organizations’ privileged records and materials, singling out the nonprofits because of their life-affirming views.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued civil investigative demands that dictate that Obria Group and Obria Medical Groups PNW provide answers to questions and production of documents spanning 13 years under the pretense of conducting a civil investigation into “possible” violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. The information and documentation demanded by the civil investigative demands is so expansive that they would sweep up massive amounts of information and confidential internal communications and documents that are unrelated to the attorney general’s stated purpose for the investigation, or beyond the statute of limitations.

Such unreasonably overbroad, invasive, selective, and burdensome investigative demands violate the pro-life organizations’ constitutional rights.

Mid Vermont Christian School

ADF filed a federal lawsuit against Vermont officials for denying Mid Vermont Christian School and its students from participating in the state’s tuition program and sports league because of their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality.

Vermont, through its Agency of Education and the Vermont Principals’ Association, is requiring private, religious schools like Mid Vermont Christian to adopt the state’s view on human sexuality and gender as a condition to participate in the state’s tuition program and athletic association. Doing so violates the First Amendment rights of Mid Vermont Christian, its students and families, and other faith-based schools by preventing them from practicing their religious beliefs.

Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

ADF filed a brief with the Oklahoma Supreme Court opposing a petition filed by the state attorney general. In the case, Attorney General Gentner Drummond is asking the court to cancel the contract that the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board entered with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School solely because St. Isidore is Catholic.

On June 5, the board approved a revised application to establish St. Isidore as a statewide virtual charter school. Attorney General Drummond filed a lawsuit last month against the board, claiming it violated state law. But, as ADF attorneys explain in their brief, the board members took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious groups cannot be excluded from generally available programs solely because of their religious character.

State of Idaho v. United States of America

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, together with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom and Cooper & Kirk, filed an emergency application for stay pending appeal last Monday with the Supreme Court.

In the case, the Biden administration is putting pregnant women and unborn children at risk by unlawfully attempting to force doctors to perform dangerous abortions that are illegal under Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. The emergency application asks the nation’s high court to respect Idaho’s decision to protect the lives of women and their unborn children and immediately halt a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that held that the administration could misuse the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act to force emergency room doctors to facilitate abortion.

Päivi Räsänen

In a victory for free speech, the Helsinki Court of Appeal has dismissed all charges against Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who were both tried for “hate speech” in August after publicly expressing their Christian beliefs. The unanimous appeals court ruling upheld the district court’s March 2022 unanimous acquittal.

Räsänen, Finland’s former Interior Minister and a grandmother of 11, was formally charged with “agitation against a minority group” in 2021 for sharing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, in addition to a 2019 live radio debate and 2004 church pamphlet. Pohjola was charged for publishing Räsänen’s 2004 pamphlet. The case has garnered global media attention as human rights experts voiced concern over the threat posed to free speech.

Bob Updegrove

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, ADF has successfully settled a lawsuit on behalf of Virginia photographer Bob Updegrove.

Back in 2020, Updegrove filed suit challenging the so-called Virginia Values Act that would have required him to offer and create photography celebrating same-sex weddings because he offered to create photography celebrating opposite-sex weddings. The prior Attorney General of Virginia defended the law’s reach to expressive artists like Updegrove, which went so far as to prohibit Updegrove from publicly explaining on his studio’s own website his religious reasons for only celebrating wedding ceremonies between a man and a woman. The law also threatened initial fines of up to $50,000 and then $100,000 per additional violation, along with court orders that could have forced Updegrove to create photography for events that went against his conscience if he wanted to stay in business.

Thankfully, as part of the settlement, Virginia officials acknowledged that—as the Supreme Court affirmed in 303 Creative—the Constitution protects Updegrove’s right to create wedding photography consistent with his beliefs and that he is free to communicate his business policy regarding his religious beliefs on marriage.