With offices across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court and more than seven decades of advocating there, BJC’s eyes are always on the courts. We vigilantly monitor religious liberty cases, and our attorneys file amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court and in other venues, often in collaboration with other religious and secular groups. For state and federal cases, we provide public comment and expert analysis.

These cases are often tricky to navigate. The position that best protects religious liberty for everyone may not be the obvious position at first glance. Drawing on our deep knowledge and grounded in historic Baptist tradition and experience, our litigation efforts defend our First Amendment rights of “no establishment” of religion and “free exercise” of religion. As lawyers, Baptists and Americans, we will stand for our principles even if our positions aren’t popular. Religious liberty is our client.

In the Courts

BJC’s position: 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, private foster care agencies must work within guidelines to ensure everyone is being served and that obstacles are not being added to limit the number of qualified individuals to serve as foster parents. The Supreme Court took up this issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and BJC says that requiring all government contractors to adhere to nondiscrimination policies when performing a government function protects religious freedom. BJC filed a brief in the case because nondiscrimination policies in government contracts protect religious freedom for everyone.

On June 27, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Catholic Social Services in this dispute with the city of Philadelphia. 

“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.

BJC’s position: Yes, victims of religious liberty violations should have the same legal remedies available as in other laws protecting important civil rights

If your lawsuit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is successful, what do you win? Most often, you will get an order requiring the government to change the policy that substantially burdened your religious exercise. But, can you receive a monetary judgment? 

On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court said yes, monetary judgments are allowed against individuals under RFRA when they handed down their 8-0 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir. BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler called it a “rare (and welcome) unanimous opinion upholding religious freedom rights.”

BJC joined a brief in the case with 14 religious liberty scholars and the Christian Legal Society that advocated for such an outcome. The brief detailed the legislative history of the law as it relates to the question of relief. 

BJC supports laws that prohibit government funding of and interference in religion.

The unique treatment of religion keeps government from controlling the beliefs and practices that religious schools teach. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court is being asked to require that the government provide financial benefits to religious institutions whenever it does for private secular ones. But, BJC says doing so would harm religious liberty because religious education is fundamentally different. BJC is defending the distinctive treatment of religion in law and countering the false and damaging narrative that misrepresents the prohibition on government-funded religion. The Supreme Court released its 5-4 decision in the case on June 30, 2020, which disregarded the distinctiveness of religion. As BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman said on the decision day, religious schools may eventually see it as a pyrrhic victory.

BJC’s position: Blatantly unconstitutional.

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court addressed the White House’s third attempt to limit immigration from certain majority-Muslim countries. BJC argued that the government cannot enact laws designed to harm a specific religious group. But in June 2018, the Court upheld the validity of the travel ban as within the president’s immigration powers. BJC continues its opposition and celebrated the passage of the NO BAN Act in 2020.

BJC says granting an exemption in this case would be dangerous for religious liberty.

The case was Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It centered around a bakery owner’s refusal to make a cake for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple based on his religious beliefs, despite a state law requiring that businesses open to the public not refuse service due to LGBT status. BJC filed a brief on behalf of the state of Colorado, explaining that laws like this one — which covers discrimination against “disability, race, [religion], color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry”— protect religious liberty. Granting a broad exemption for this baker would open the door for other business owners to refuse service to customers in other protected categories on the basis of the business owner’s religious beliefs. For example, another commercial baker could use these same arguments to refuse to create a cake for an interfaith couple, an interracial couple or a couple where one had been previously divorced. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, but it sidestepped the central question of whether the baker was entitled to an exemption. Instead it found that the Colorado commission had not been fair in its consideration of the matter.


Working in Coalitions in the Courts