Press Releases

BJC releases statements, commentary and analysis of pressing religious liberty issues to members of the media. Contact Cherilyn Crowe if you are a member of the media who would like to be added to our distribution list.

BJC: Religious freedom is protected by city’s enforcement of nondiscrimination provisions in contracts for foster family certification

In Fulton v. Philadelphia, faith-based providers do not have a First Amendment right to demand exemption from government contracting requirement that serves the public interest.

BJC: People may be entitled to damages if religious freedom has been denied

In Tanzin v. Tanvir, a landmark religious freedom law (RFRA) should allow the same remedies as other important civil rights laws.

BJC: Government foster care programs should serve all qualified parents

"By requiring that government-funded foster care agencies consider all qualified individuals, the city is ensuring that all communities – including religious communities – are treated with equality and dignity," said BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman about the Fulton v. Philadelphia case.

Supreme Court’s Espinoza decision disregards distinctiveness of religion

"The decision’s high concern for equal treatment of religious schools disregards the distinctiveness of religion in our constitutional order and contradicts the special treatment that religion rightfully receives to keep government from influencing and interfering with it," said Holly Hollman.

BJC: States should not have to fund religious schools

BJC's friend-of-the-court brief in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue explains that avoiding government funding of religion is a key protection for religious liberty. "This special treatment of religion stems from our country’s deep and abiding commitment to religious liberty for all," said BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman.

Supreme Court should uphold the law’s distinctive treatment of religion in Espinoza

Avoiding government funding of religion is a key protection for religious liberty that protects against government interference in religion. BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue defending the unique treatment of religion in state constitutions.

Splintered decision in cross case relies on memorial’s history

Holly Hollman provides analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bladensburg cross case, a splintered decision that ultimately allowed the cross to continue on government land.

BJC: Cross display heard by SCOTUS is unconstitutional 

"The cross matters to us as Christians. It has a powerful, specific meaning that is central to our faith. Non-Christians also recognize the specific meaning of the cross, which is why we stand with them in saying no, the cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice."