Court Cases
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
At Issue
Do faith-based groups that voluntarily partner with the government to carry out government-funded services have to adhere to nondiscrimination laws?
BJC
Says yes — following the government’s rules to administer certain government-funded programs does not mean the faith-based organization is giving up its right to speak about core beliefs in other contexts. In government-funded foster care, agencies must work within guidelines to ensure everyone is being served and that children in need aren’t prevented from having a home with a qualified family. On June 27, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Catholic Social Services. “The Court’s decision does not require religious exemptions in all future cases involving government contracts and nondiscrimination policies. That is a good thing because nondiscrimination provisions often protect religious liberty in government services,” BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler said after the ruling.
Tanzin v. Tanvir
At Issue
What legal remedies are available as “appropriate relief against a government” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)?
BJC
Says people may be entitled to monetary damages against individuals and other relief if religious freedom has been denied under RFRA, just like in other important civil rights laws. The Supreme Court agreed in a unanimous decision released December 10, 2020.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
At Issue
Should parents of students in private, religious schools receive financial benefits through a state funding program even though Montana’s state constitution protects against government funding of religion?
BJC
Argued no — the unique treatment of religion keeps government from controlling the beliefs and practices that religious schools teach. BJC supports laws that prohibit government funding of and interference in religion. The Supreme Court released a 5-4 decision on June 30, 2020, that disregarded the distinctiveness of religion.
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
At Issue
Is a free-standing cross maintained by the government in the median of a busy intersection an unconstitutional establishment of religion?
BJC
Argued yes, the cross is the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity. We should never rely on the government to advance our faith, and we should protect the religious liberty of all Americans by insisting that our government shows no favoritism for the majority religion. The Supreme Court issued a splintered decision in June 2019, ruling that this free-standing cross can remain, relying on its history.
Trump v. Hawaii
At Issue
Is the White House’s attempt to limit immigration from certain majority-Muslim countries constitutional?
BJC
Argued no, the government cannot enact laws designed to harm a religious group. Despite BJC’s advocacy and court briefs, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the travel ban as within the president’s immigration powers in June 2018.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
At Issue
Does a commercial baker have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in a state that includes sexual orientation as a protected category in its civil rights laws?
BJC
Argued no, the baker’s religious beliefs do not provide a blanket exemption to state laws that protect against discrimination in a place of business. The Supreme Court sidestepped the central question in its June 4, 2018, ruling against the state of Colorado, saying the commission had not enforced the law properly.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
At Issue
Can states avoid funding religion by excluding churches from grant programs that pay for property improvements?
BJC
Argued yes, defending the state’s policy against government funding of houses of worship. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church with a narrowly crafted decision that said this case was simply about a public benefit to promote safety through playground improvements.
Zubik v. Burwell
At Issue
Must the government give absolute deference to the claims of religious nonprofits seeking to avoid the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate?
BJC
Argued no, explaining how the far-reaching arguments made by the nonprofits can endanger religious liberty. In an unexpected move, the Supreme Court issued a short, unsigned opinion on May 16, 2016, that sent the cases back to the lower courts without ruling on the issue.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
At Issue
Can an employer deny a qualified applicant a job because she wears a religious headscarf?
BJC
Argued no, defending a person’s right to wear a hijab while at work. On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed.
Holt v. Hobbs
At Issue
Can a Muslim inmate grow a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his faith despite prison policies prohibiting beards?
BJC
Argued yes, a federal law called “RLUIPA” protects his right to have a religiously mandated beard while incarcerated, especially considering the prison allows one-quarter-inch beards for inmates with a diagnosed dermatological medical condition. A unanimous Supreme Court agreed on January 20, 2015.
Town of Greece v. Galloway
At Issue
Can local, municipal meetings begin with official prayers?
BJC
Argued no, official prayers at local government meetings violate government neutrality toward religion and demean religious liberty, and they are different than the practice of chaplain-led prayers in Congress. On May 5, 2014, a divided Supreme Court ruled that official prayers opening local municipal meetings may be constitutional.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC
At Issue
Does the “ministerial exception” apply to ordained teachers at a church-run school?
BJC
Argued yes, and filed a brief to defend a First Amendment doctrine called the “ministerial exception,” which bars most lawsuits between ministerial personnel and their religious employers. In a unanimous decision on January 11, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed.
