religious freedom

California School District Reverses Course – Agrees to Protect Parental Rights

A California school district changed its policies this week to require schools notify parents before teaching — and allow them to opt their children out of — material conflicting with their religious beliefs.

The agreement resolves a lawsuit against the district alleging it violated a California family’s right to free speech, parental rights and the right to freely exercise their religion.

Carlos and Jenny Encinas sued Encinitas Union School District in September 2024 after the district refused to allow the couple to opt their two sons out of lessons teaching gender ideology.

Earlier that year, the Encinas had been dismayed to learn their oldest son’s fifth-grade class had read a book about a little boy who discovers his shadow is pink, not blue. The book, My Shadow is Pink, ended with both the boy and his father dressing as girls.

The 11-year-old, a committed Christian, then had to listen to My Shadow is Pink with his kindergarten buddy. He was instructed to help his buddy identify the color shadow that “best represented them.”

“[My son] could kind of filter out [the book’s message.],” Carlos told the Daily Citizen in an interview last year. “I think what really upset him was the fact that he was forced to [share that message] with a five-year-old.”

Carlos and Jenny tried to opt both their sons out of similar lessons in the future, explaining it interfered with their Christian beliefs. The district denied both requests — despite allowing non-religious opt-outs for everything from gym class to dissecting animals.

By denying their opt-out requests, the Encinases argued, Encinitas Union violated their parental rights and right to freely exercise their religion.

California law requires schools to allow parents to opt out of sex ed lessons. The district argued this law only applied to material taught in sexual education units, rather than sexual material in general.

Kayla Toney, First Liberty counsel and the Encinas’ attorney, explained the district’s backwards logic to the Daily Citizen:

[The district] is claiming that they don’t have to provide [parental] opt-outs when the exact same material about sexuality and gender identity is taught in other classes, in younger grades, outside the sexual education unit.

But Carlos and Jenny maintained parental opt-out requirements apply to all sexual content, regardless of the curricula it’s rolled into.

Long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent also prevents a school from denying religious exemptions while granting other, non-religious exemptions.

The Supreme Court highlighted this principle in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case which could well have influenced Encinitas Union’s decision to settle.

Mahmoud began in 2023 when several Maryland couples from diverse religious backgrounds sued Montgomery County Public Schools after the district eliminated a pathway for parents to opt their children out of reading LGBT books in the classroom.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents last summer, finding that, when a school mandates exposure to material which conflicts with a family’s religious beliefs, the school “substantially burdens” their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

In his ruling, Justice Samuel Alito, explicitly noted schools cannot grant some opt-outs and refuse to grant religious opt-outs.  

The Encinas’ case also argued Encinitas Union school district violated their eldest son’s free speech rights by forcing him to teach gender ideology to his kindergarten buddy. Toney told the Daily Citizen:

Our position is that what happened to Carlos’ son was compelled speech, because the government — the school district — was using the children to teach its own message about gender that directly conflicted with his religious beliefs.

In a press release announcing Encinitas Union’s decision to change its policies — and pay the Encinas family an undisclosed amount of money — Nate Kellum, Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute wrote:

No child should be forced to speak a message that violates his religious convictions. We are grateful that we were able to reach this settlement on behalf of the families involved. This is a tremendous victory not only for our clients but for all parents in the Encinitas Union School District.

Carlos knew his family’s case made an impact in their community, long before he knew the outcome.

“There’s a certain awareness [about parental rights issues] within our community now that I think is really beneficial,” he reflected, continuing:

[The district] really isn’t transparent about how it trains its teachers and the way content is distributed in the classroom. We’ve had a lot of parents reach out to use personally and thank us for being a voice on this.

When the Daily Citizen last spoke to Carlos, he told us: “We know God’s got this battle won for us — we just need to be trusting and faithful.”

Please join us in thanking God for the Encinas family’s victory for parental rights, religious freedom and free speech.

Additional Articles and Resources

Victory: CA School District Agrees to Notify Parents Before Teaching Gender Ideology

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

California Family Harassed After Trying to Opt Out of Activities Teaching Gender Ideology

Doctors Sue Colorado for Forcing Them to ‘Transition’ Patients

Christian doctors and health care professionals filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Colorado law requiring  them to participate in “transitioning” sexually-confused children and adults.

The complaint was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Button Family Practice and several health care professionals who “believe that a person’s biological sex is a gift from God that cannot be changed or chosen.”

Although they’ll offer puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries for genuine necessary medical care, they won’t prescribe or perform these for clients with mental health issues, like those who reject their sex and believe they can somehow be transformed into the opposite sex.

ADF explained in a press release that state court decisions threaten these Christian health care professionals’ conscience rights:

The Colorado Supreme Court and another Colorado state court recently interpreted the state’s anti-discrimination law to force medical providers who prescribe hormones and or perform procedures for other conditions to also provide gender-transition drugs and surgeries for children and adults or risk prosecution. 

The legal aid organization added that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) doesn’t even allow medical providers to explain “their reasons for declining to provide gender-transition procedures on their websites or to the public.”

ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart said of the lawsuit:

Colorado is once again at war with common sense, sound science, and religious freedom.
Forcing doctors to perform dangerous, unproven gender-transition procedures against their medical judgment, their oath to do no harm, and their faith is unconstitutional. The state is not allowed to conscript doctors to harm the very children and adults entrusted to their care. The First Amendment trumps Colorado’s mandate to embrace the lie of gender ideology.”

The Colorado General Assembly amended CADA in 2008 adding “transgender status” to public accommodations protections – including hospitals and healthcare facilities. The legislation was amended again in 2021, through the “Gender Identity Expression Anti-Discrimination Act,” replacing “transgender status” with “gender identity” and “gender expression.”

But in 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, stating:

It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.

To fulfill that mandate, the Department of Health and Human Services blocked Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding for puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and sex-rejecting surgeries for minors.

HHS also began investigating hospitals for harming children through medical “transgender” interventions, and its recent report “Wolves in White Coats” accused Colorado Children’s Hospital (Colorado Children’s) of falsely billing insurance companies for puberty blockers prescribed for children, listing a different condition besides “gender-identity diagnosis.” 

Following the investigation and the loss of federal funding, the TRUE Center for Gender Diversity at Children’s Hospital Colorado stopped offering these ineffective, harmful medical interventions to children.

But the hospital and healthcare workers continued to offer puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries when needed for serious, legitimate physical conditions. For example, doctors use puberty blockers to treat endometriosis or advanced prostate cancer.

Four transgender-identified minors sued Colorado Children’s, arguing it was discriminatory to offer these treatments to “cisgender adolescent patients” (i.e., an ideologically loaded term referring to those who identify with their natal sex) but not to sexually confused minors. They sought to force doctors and the hospital to treat them and other minors, or be charged with violating CADA.

A lower court agreed, blocking the hospital’s decision to shut down its clinic, and a 5-2 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of that injunction, ordering hospitals to renew medical procedures for children who reject their sex.

Colorado Children’s says it is complying with the court’s decision, but its doctors have refused to offer transgender medical interventions, to minors. They are now in the midst of a contempt of court hearing.

Colorado’s anti-discrimination law and its Supreme Court are putting Christian and all biology-based doctors at risk. They must violate their religious beliefs and medical judgement, or risk being charged through Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Let’s pray they prevail in their lawsuit.

The case is Christian Medical & Dental Associations v. Sullivan.

Related articles and resources:

HHS Ceases Medicaid, CHIP Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Kids

HHS Will Block Hospitals From Performing Sex-Rejecting, Mutilating Procedures on Children

18 States Sue HHS for Protecting Children From Sex-Rejecting Procedures

21 States Sue HHS to Continue Harming ‘Transgender’-Identified Minors

HHS Finalizes Report Finding Sex-Rejecting Procedures Harm Minors

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical interventions for Minors

President Trump Signs Order Protecting Children From Transgender Medical Interventions

Liberty University Students Lose State Tuition Grants After Choosing Ministry Degrees

Imagine qualifying for college grants and then losing your tuition assistance because you majored in a ministry degree.

That’s exactly what’s happened to several Liberty University students in Virginia. Now, their cases have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court. 

Virginia offers residents attending a private college or university up to $5,250 a year for undergraduate students, and more for graduate students, through its Virginia Tuition Assistance Grants (VTAG) program.

Students at Liberty University had those funds denied for pursuing majors related to ministry, like pastoral leadership, music and worship, and youth ministry, and a Master of Divinity.

Alliance Defending Freedom, First Liberty and National Legal Foundation, among other law firms, are challenging state policy on behalf of these students.

The question before the U.S. Supreme Court is: Can a state offer tuition assistance to students generally, and then take it back when a student chooses to prepare for a career in ministry?

Virginia says a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision allows it to deny funding to some students.

The students argue the Supreme Court’s more recent religious liberty decisions make that kind of distinction unconstitutional. 

Bethany Hall’s Case

Bethany Hall enrolled at Liberty University as a Music Education major. She qualified for a $5,000 grant from Virginia.

Later, she felt called to ministry and changed her major to Youth Ministries and Music & Worship. She was told that those degrees made her ineligible for the grant.

Hall sued Virginia, arguing the state violated her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. A federal district court dismissed her case, and in May 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the lower court decision.

Both courts relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case called Locke v. Davey.

In Locke, the Court ruled 7-2 that Washington state could exclude students from scholarship money for pursuing theology degrees.  Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing that to exclude students pursuing a ministry degree amounted to religious discrimination.

In Hall’s case, the Fourth Circuit maintained that Locke is binding law.

Hall has now appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes that the Court will overturn Locke.

Bethany Hall is being represented by a coalition of lawyers including First Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom and National Legal Foundation.

Second Case on Behalf of Three Liberty University Students

A second case involves several Liberty University students: Cameron Johnson, Luke Thomas and graduate student Trace Stevens. They are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and National Legal Foundation.

Johnson wants to major in Pastoral Leadership and minor in business. Thomas plans to major in Music and Worship and start his own business. Stevens is in the National Guard, already has a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, and now wants to pursue a Master of Divinity.

ADF contends all three students have been treated as second-class citizens because their majors were deemed too religious by the state. 

The students sued in May 2025.

In March 2026, a federal judge dismissed the students’ claims and ruled that Locke was binding law.

In April, ADF appealed the lower court’s decision and filed an emergency motion to the Fourth Circuit. The emergency motion was denied.

Last month, the students asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up their case.

What’s at Stake?

Religious freedom is a foundational American right. It protects not only the right to believe, but also the right to live out those beliefs in the public square without discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider adding both cases to the docket for the term beginning this October.

The Daily Citizen will continue to follow these developing cases.

DOJ Releases Guidance Strengthening Religious Liberty Protections

The U.S. Department of Justice released updated guidance strengthening federal protections for religious liberty.

The DOJ’s updated memorandum, released on July 23, revises and expands the department’s 2017 Religious Liberty Guidelines in light of significant developments over the last nine years.

“Religious liberty is one of our Nation’s founding principles and a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press release.

“It is essential that federal agencies fully respect and protect the ability of all Americans to live out their faith in daily life, including in their interactions with the federal government.”

The DOJ’s updates in the guidance include:

  • Integration of recent Supreme Court precedent. Recent court decisions clarify the scope of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA’s) broad protection of religious liberty, and the requirement of equal treatment towards religious organizations in government programs.
  • Protection of parental rights. The Supreme Court’s recent precedents confirm the Constitution protects parents’ right to direct the upbringing of their children.
  • Reaffirmation of church autonomy. Constitutional protections bar government interference in internal religious governance, including employment.
  • Expanded direction for federal agencies. Agencies must consider religious-liberty impacts when developing rules and policies.
  • Clarified protections in federal employment. Agencies must follow recent Office of Legal Counsel opinions when accommodating religious expression and practice in the workplace.
  • Safeguards for religious organizations in federal contracting and grant programs. Agencies may not condition an individual’s participation in federal programs on relinquishing their religious character or hiring rights. Religious organizations must be permitted to compete on equal footing with secular organizations.

“The new religious liberty guidance instructs agencies on how to protect one of our most fundamental constitutional guarantees: religious liberty,” said Assistant Attorney General Dan Burrows for the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy.

“It helps ensure that federal actions do not discriminate on the basis of religion and furthers the protection of both individual practitioners and religious organizations.”

This isn’t the first action the Trump administration has taken to protect religious liberty. On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump established the Religious Liberty Commission which was tasked with “safeguarding and promoting America’s founding principle of religious freedom.”

Members of the commission included Reverend Franklin Graham, Dr. Ben Carson, New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Bishop Robert Barron, Kristen Waggoner, Kelly Shackelford, Ryan Anderson, Alveda King and others.

Days before our nation’s 250th anniversary, the commission released its final 224-page report including specific policy recommendations to safeguard our nation’s first freedom.

It was one of our nation’s foremost founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who said, “Remember civil and religious liberty always go together, if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course.”

The Trump administration deserves great credit for prioritizing religious freedom and taking concrete steps to secure one of our most important liberties.

Related articles and resources:

The Truth About Religious Freedom and Free Speech

Faith, Freedom, and the Future of America

Optimism, Faith and Freedom in America

Religious Freedom is Not a Problem to Be Managed

Photo from Getty Images.

Finland’s Päivi Räsänen Convicted For ‘Insulting’ Homosexuals

In a 3-2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court convicted Dr. Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola of “insulting” homosexual-identified individuals in a church pamphlet written and published in 2004. 

According to ADF International, which coordinated their defense along with criminal defense lawyer Matti Sankamo, “She was charged under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ for sharing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics.” 

“The conviction is for ‘making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group,’” the legal aid group added. 

Following the ruling, Dr. Räsänen stated: 

I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognize my basic human right to freedom of expression. I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square.

Separately, the court unanimously acquitted Dr. Räsänen for posting Romans 1:24-27 on X in 2019 when the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland announced its partnership with LGBT Pride 2019. 

In her post, she asked the question: 

How does the church’s doctrine, the #raamattu [Holy Bible], align with elevating shame and sin to a source of pride?

In addition to being a medical doctor, Räsänen is a grandmother who was first elected to the Finnish Parliament in 1995 and has served continuously since then. In 2004, she wrote a 21-page pamphlet for the Lutheran Heritage Foundation, “Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity.” 

As dean of the foundation, Bishop Pohjola published the pamphlet, which the court said “was intended as teaching material … [and] had been distributed to researchers and to the parishes operating within the foundation.” 

The law prohibiting “ethnic agitation” was passed in Finland in 1970, with a provision adding sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in 2011. The Finnish Parliament redefined marriage to include same-sex unions in 2014. 

In 2019, the pamphlet was republished and shared on social media. Only then was a police report filed and a preliminary investigation initiated, the court explained. 

The pamphlet begins by describing the social and political debate in Finland surrounding same-sex partnerships, which were approved by an Act of Parliament in 2001. Dr. Räsänen wrote: 

During the processing of this Act, it was affirmed to the Church, and to Christians concerned about the consequences, that the Church could retain its own values and views on homosexuality.

Promises made, promises broken. 

The pamphlet then went on to discuss the importance of male-female marriage and the breakdown of sexual ethics in the culture. She wrote, 

The family (mother and father) is the most important unit in our society, and marriage is per se the most secure model for family life. The well-being of families determines the well-being of society. … 

Marriage is a family support network whose primary purpose is to provide children with a stable mental home and lasting human relationships.

Dr. Räsänen then discussed homosexuality in individuals, saying: 

Medical studies have obtained no proof for the claims that homosexuality is genetic, hereditary or inborn. Without any exception, talks of the discovery of homosexual genes have proved false. On the other hand, it is true that people seldom consciously decide to become homosexual. … 

Instead, the scientific material unequivocally proves that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development.

Finland’s highest court pointed to sections like this, saying, 

The article does not consider homosexuals to be of equal value to heterosexuals, because the article does not consider homosexuality to be a natural variation of sexuality andclaims that it is sexually deviant, while heterosexuality is presented as a standard of normality towards which a homosexual can potentially become whole.

The Supreme Court found that these “statements have insulted homosexuals as a group on the basis of sexual orientation.” 

Since this medical section of the article did not make “religious statements,” the court found itwas not protected speech: 

Since tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all persons are the foundations of a democratic and pluralistic society, there may be sufficient grounds for restricting freedom of expression where the aim is to prevent all forms of expression which spread, encourage, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance (including religious intolerance).

Executive Director of ADF International Paul Coleman decried the conviction, saying: 

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. It is right that the Court has acquitted Päivi Räsänen for her 2019 Bible verse tweet. However, the conviction for a simple church pamphlet published decades ago – before the law under which she has been convicted was even passed – is an outrageous example of state censorship. This decision will create a severe chilling effect for everyone’s right to speak freely. 

ADF International explained the penalties for Dr. Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola, “The Supreme Court has imposed criminal fines of several thousands of Euros and ruled that the impugned statements must be “removed from public access and destroyed” (their emphasis). 

The case has been working its way through the court system since 2021, and an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is being considered. 

Related articles and resources: 

Finnish Member of Parliament Found Not Guilty of Hate Speech for Quoting the Bible

Finnish Member of Parliament Is Acquitted of ‘Hate Speech’ for Quoting the Bible; Prosecutors May Appeal

Finland Prosecutes Christian Member of Parliament for Hate Speech After Quoting Bible