SEARCH       GET UPDATES      
In the Courts

The nation’s longest-serving Christian advocacy ministry for religious freedom, the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, defends and advances our inalienable rights to religious freedom and life through the judicial system. The Center fights for First Amendment rights at all levels of the American judicial system, including the Supreme Court. The Center advocates to secure religious freedom for Americans of all faiths whose religious freedom and freedom of speech have been threatened. The Center targets potentially influential cases and taps leading law professors and practitioners to assist Center staff in preparing briefs to protect religious freedom and human life.


Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

Georgia Gwinnett College (“GCC”) twice required Chike Uzuegbunam to stop evangelizing on campus - once while distributing religious pamphlets, because he was not in the “free speech zones” that comprised .0015% of the campus area, and again after he received a permit to speak in the free speech zones, because certain people complained about his evangelistic message. GCC threatened to charge Uzuegbunam with disorderly conduct as a result of the complaints. After Uzuegbunam filed suit, GCC changed its policies, and both the district court and Eleventh Circuit declared that GCC’s change in policy ended the case. Although Uzuegbunam had asked for nominal damages for GCC’s violations of his constitutional rights, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the award of nominal damages would have no practical effect and, therefore, no judicial relief was available. Uzuegbunam appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish

The Supreme Court has twice held that the First Amendment guarantees religious organizations near plenary authority when making employment decisions for those persons responsible for the spiritual health and growth of their constituents. When a Catholic priest criticized the church’s music director for sexual behavior contrary to church doctrine, the music director brought a hostile work environment claim. The Seventh Circuit held that the Church’s authority over its religious leaders only covers hiring and firing decisions, but does not extend to discipline or criticism. Christian Legal Society asked the Seventh Circuit to revisit the case en banc and reverse the decision.

Trustees of New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg

Government officials should never be allowed to overrule a church on the interpretation of its religious doctrine; however, when New Life in Christ Church (“NLICC”), in Fredericksburg, Virginia, applied for a parsonage tax exemption for the home of its directors of college outreach, the City of Fredericksburg denied the exemption. When NLICC challenged the denial, the City argued that the denial was proper because, despite their role in representing the church to the college student community, the directors are not “ministers” pursuant to the Presbyterian Book of Church Order. The court agreed and denied the exemption. Christian Legal Society represents NLICC in its appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes and San Jose Unified School District

High School students in the San Jose Unified School District have met for years as student chapters of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA). After a teacher and several students within the district expressed disapproval of FCA, district officials withdrew recognition of the student FCA groups. Furthermore, the district has allowed, and in some cases facilitated, a campaign of harassment against FCA students by allowing students and faculty to gather immediately outside of FCA meetings to malign students’ religious beliefs. 

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

The Catholic Church has provided fostering services to the City of Philadelphia for over 200 years. After a local newspaper reported that Catholic Social Services (CSS) would not screen same-sex married couples for potential foster placement because of their religious beliefs, the City refused to contract with CSS for foster services, despite the fact that no same-sex couples had ever applied for screening with CSS. The Supreme Court is reviewing the case to determine whether the City of Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with CSS violates CSS’s constitutional rights.

A Community Evangelizing Win for Mary Mason

Mary Mason was doing religious outreach with her daughter in downtown Murphy, North Carolina, when police asked her if she had a permit. After the mayor denied her application for a permit, she reached out to Christian Legal Society (CLS). CLS provided Ms. Mason with a letter, which she presented to the Town Council, explaining that the First Amendment prohibits cities to require a permit for groups of two or three. The Council then indicated agreement Ms. Mason should not be subject to the permitting requirement. Nonetheless, the Murphy Chief of Police has since threatened Ms. Mason with arrest if she continues to do religious outreach without a permit.

Lisa Nelthropp Prevails after Unlawful Firing for her Faith

Lisa Nelthropp came to the Center for Law & Religious Freedom after she was fired from her job assisting the disabled for “bringing her personal religious beliefs into the workplace.” The Center, in conjunction with the Whiting Law Firm, filed an employment discrimination complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Little Sisters of the Poor and Their Third Journey to the Supreme Court

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious order, has returned to the United States Supreme Court for the third time in eight years in order to protect their basic right to live according to their religious beliefs. Since 2012, the Center for Law and Religious Freedom has filed 5 amicus briefs in support of the Little Sisters’ religious freedom, including an amicus brief in their appeal that is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on May 6, 2020. What principle is the Center fighting for? The government cannot force religious individuals or organizations to violate their religious consciences because government officials think their religious beliefs are unreasonable.

Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland and Anne Arundel County

In 2019, Anne Arundel County informed Maryland CEF that its continued access to public school facilities would require payment of exorbitant fees. On January 22, CLS sent a letter to AACPS and Anne Arundel Recreation and Parks informing them that providing access to religious organizations on less favorable terms than similarly situated organizations violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Within days of the letter, Maryland CEF regained access to one school in Anne Arundel County. CLS continues to push for full restoration for Maryland CEF.

Espinoza v. Montana

The Montana Supreme Court struck down a state program awarding a tax credit for donations to organizations that provide scholarships for private school students. The court relied on the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment, which prohibits direct or indirect aid to religious schools, and held that because there was a possibility religious schools would benefit, the entire tax credit must be struck. Families of students who attended private religious schools appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Montana Supreme Court’s termination of the scholarship program unconstitutionally targeted religious families and violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel

Christian Legal Society (CLS) filed an amicus brief supporting the right of two Catholic schools in California to determine the best candidates to pass the schools’ religious values on to the next generation. CLS is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that two teachers who had important religious functions, including creating religiously oriented curricula and leading class prayers, were not ministers because they lacked what the court considered to be appropriate credentials, training, and titles. The Ninth Circuit, breaking from every other circuit to have considered the issue, held that religious function was not sufficient to deem someone a minister and, therefore, government interference with employment decisions was appropriate.

Holiday City Bible Study Returns after HOA Fight

A new HOA Board told residents of the Holiday City retirement community in Toms River, New Jersey, that they could no longer use their community clubhouse for a Bible study. When the Bible study tried to meet the following week, the HOA President called the police to have them arrested. Christian Legal Society intervened on behalf of the residents to protect them from religious discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Shortly after CLS sent a letter to the HOA on behalf of the Bible study, the HOA voted to restore the Bible Study’s clubhouse access.

Sigma Alpha Omega Re-Recognized by University

Sigma Alpha Omega (SAO), a Christian sorority, was derecognized by a public university after not including a nondiscrimination clause in their organization charter. In correspondence regarding the derecognition, a university employee told the sorority that she did not understand why an organization would limit itself to Christian women. With less than a week before the student organization fair, SAO reached out to Christian Legal Society, who helped them overcome the obstacles that led to the derecognition. With the help of CLS, SAO’s recognition was reinstated immediately, allowing the chapter to participate in the student organization fair.

Xue v. Sessions

Ting Xue, a native and citizen of China, arrived in the United States after fleeing from government persecution for practicing his Christian faith in China. He applied for asylum but was denied. He has petitioned the Supreme Court to remain in the United States. The Center filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that the court below was wrong to rule that, although he had previously been jailed for worshipping at a house church not approved by the Chinese government, Xue did not have a reasonable fear of religious persecution if he were forced to return to China.

Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

The City of Baltimore mandates a disclaimer within the waiting room of a “limited-service pregnancy center,” stating that the center “does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services.” The Center filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns’ freedom of speech not to be compelled to speak about abortion and birth control, in terms dictated by the government, in the waiting area where it provides religiously motivated counseling and other assistance to pregnant women.

Judge Neely v. Wyoming Judicial Conduct & Ethics Commission

In August 2017, the Center filed an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to hear the appeal of Judge Ruth Neely, who was censured by the Wyoming Supreme Court because her religious beliefs do not allow her to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. With its ruling, the Wyoming Supreme Court effectively creates a religious test for persons seeking to hold the office of magistrate. Its ruling sends a chilling message to attorneys and law students that they should not aspire to hold judicial office if their religious conscience prohibits them from performing a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Human Rights Commission

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Jack Phillips is a Christian cake artist who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop outside Denver, Colorado. In 2012, a same-sex couple asked Jack to bake a cake for their wedding celebration. Phillips regularly serves LGBT customers but could not help celebrate a wedding that violated his religious beliefs. In the past, Jack had refused to create cakes for other events that violated his religious conscience, including celebrations of divorce.

June Medical Services v. Russo

With bipartisan support, the State of Louisiana passed HB 60, a law requiring doctors performing abortions to meet the requirements of other surgical centers, including that doctors have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of where the procedure is performed. Abortion clinics sued the state, arguing that requiring doctors to have admitting privileges creates an undue burden to women seeking abortions. In a friend of the court brief, CLS argued that the proper question is whether a sufficient number of doctors in Louisiana qualify to perform abortions, not whether the specific doctors who were previously performing abortions qualify. CLS showed that hundreds of doctors meet the law’s requirements, far more than the six needed to meet the state’s demand. CLS pointed out that the private choice of those doctors to perform or not perform abortions is not a proper consideration on whether the law limits a woman’s access to abortion.