Becket

Becket Owns A Website Detailing The Firm’s SCOTUS Victory In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), A Case That Eroded Access To Birth Control By Allowing Corporations To Exempt Themselves From The ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate. “The Supreme Court granted a landmark victory for religious liberty on June 30, 2014 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. ruling that individuals do not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business.” [HobbyLobbyCase.com, Accessed 10/16/24]

Becket Owns Another Website For Its SCOTUS Victory In Little Sisters Of The Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020), Another Decision That Eroded Contraception Access. “The Court should put an end to this seven-year-long legal battle once and for all, grant the Little Sisters permanent relief from the contraceptive mandate so that they can serve the elderly poor without violating their beliefs, and affirm the importance of religious exemptions for the millions of Americans who rely on protection from burdensome laws in order to live out their faith.” [TheLittleSistersOfThePoor.com, Accessed 10/16/24]

Becket Operated A Transphobic Website For Its Lawsuits Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra (2022) (Where It Represented Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine-Member Christian Medical & Dental Associations) And Sisters Of Mercy v. Becerra (2022). “The Transgender Mandate, issued in 2016, requires doctors and hospitals to perform controversial gender transition procedures on any patient referred by a mental health professional, including a child, even if the doctor believes the procedure would be harmful.” [TransgenderMandate.org, Archived 1/21/23]

• The Website Is Riddled With Disinformation About Health Care For Transgender Minors And Implied That Providing This Essential Care Violates The Hippocratic Oath. “This is not a question of access to care but of forcing a political ideology on doctors and forcing them to violate their Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm.’ […] It is unconscionable to force doctors to administer hormone therapy and even gender-transition surgery when the best medical science and the doctor’s judgment conclude that such procedures would be irreversibly harmful.” [TransgenderMandate.org, Archived 1/21/23]

When Becket Threatened To Sue The Department Of Health And Human Services Under The Obama Administration For Enforcing The Emergency Medical Treatment And Active Labor Act (EMTALA), Which Requires Emergency Abortion Care, Becket Founder Kevin Hasson Insinuated That Abortion Care Is “Tantamount To Murder.” “‘The ACLU has no business radically re-defining the meaning of “emergency health care,”’ writes Becket Fund President Kevin ‘Seamus’ Hasson.  ‘Just as it has no business demanding that religious doctors and nurses violate their faith by performing a procedure they believe is tantamount to murder. Forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions not only undermines this nation’s integral commitment to conscience rights, it violates the numerous federal laws that recognize and protect those rights.’” [Becket, Press Release, 8/20/10]

While Representing Pharmacy Owners That Refused To Dispense Emergency Contraception, Becket Falsely Claimed Plan B And Ella Induce An Abortion. “As outlined by Becket’s news release, ‘The plaintiffs have religious objections to dispensing Plan B and ella,’ another morning-after medication. ‘Their religious beliefs forbid them from dispensing these drugs because they can operate by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, thus destroying a human embryo.’” [Seattle Times, 11/26/11]

Becket President Mark Rienzi Celebrated The SCOTUS Ruling In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), A Ruling That Emboldened AACs. “The Supreme Court Tuesday morning handed faith-based crisis pregnancy centers a victory by ruling a California law that requires the clinics to advise women about free and low-cost abortions probably violates the First Amendment. […] Supporters of the centers said the ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra amounted to a victory for free speech. […] ‘This ruling proves that when it comes to important issues, the government doesn’t get to tell people what to believe, and it also doesn’t get to tell people what to say about it,’ said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket, a nonprofit that supported the centers.” [POLITICO, 6/26/18]

Becket Told Conservative Media That A Colorado Law Regulating AAC’s Advertisement Of “Abortion Pill Reversal” Is “Bad For Women.” “‘This is perfectly legal treatment, whether it’s California or Alabama or, however pro-choice or pro-life state you want to think of, and all of them, it’s legal for a woman who doesn’t want to continue with an abortion to stop taking the pills and to try their best to keep a pregnancy,’ Becket Fund President Mark Rienzi told the Washington Examiner. ‘It’s a terrible law that’s bad for women and bad for doctors and nurses who are trying to help women.’ Counsel Laura Wolk Slavis added, ‘Colorado’s new law is the opposite of choice. It targets women who have changed their minds and forces them to undergo abortions they want to stop.’” [Washington Examiner, 4/17/23]

Becket VP And Senior Counsel Luke Goodrich Lied About Health Care For Transgender People, Claiming It Goes Against Doctors’ “Best Medical Judgment.” “In the Texas case, a Catholic hospital system, several states, and a Christian medical association argued that the rule went beyond the law as written and would coerce providers to act against their medical judgment and religious beliefs. That rule ‘would have forced doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if that would be against their best medical judgment and they believed it would be harmful to the child,’ said Luke Goodrich, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is involved in the case.” [PBS News, 4/29/18]

• The American Academy Of Pediatrics Refuted Goodrich’s Disinformation About Health Care For Transgender Minors. “The American Academy of Pediatrics says that for children who have yet to reach puberty, gender transition does not involve any medical interventions, but instead focuses on social changes such as clothing and calling the child by another name.” [PBS News, 4/29/18]
• Eliminating Gender Identity Protections Threatens Transgender People’s Safety While Navigating The Health Care System. “[T]hose against the proposal worry that changing the rules might embolden some doctors and insurance companies to think twice about services they offer to transgender people. Opponents include the Chicago-based American Medical Association, the Illinois Department of Insurance and the American Hospital Association, among many others. […] Peeling back the regulation would send a message that, ‘(Transgender) people in particular, can be discriminated against and the federal government won’t step in,’ said Mike Ziri, director of public policy at Equality Illinois. ‘That’s just a terrible message to send to a population that already experiences significant discrimination in the health care system.’” [Chicago Tribune, 10/6/19]

Becket Took Out A Full-Page Ad In The New York Times Claiming LGBTQIA+ People “Engaged In A Pattern Of Mob Violence” Against Mormon Believers After The Passage Of California’s Homophobic Proposition 8 (Prop 8). “A full-page New York Times ad has sparked a war of words between gay groups and their allies and conservative religious leaders. The ad, sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asserts that gays and lesbians have engaged in a pattern of mob violence against Mormons after the passage of Proposition 8 in California; gays meanwhile have pushed back, asserting that the church is not the victim.” [Colorado Independent, 12/11/08]

The Ad Claimed That LGBTQIA+ People Used “Violence And Intimidation” Against Mormons After The Passage Of Prop 8, Which Banned Same-Sex Marriage In The California Constitution. “The ad, headlined ‘No Mob Veto,’ claims that since Prop. 8 passed, angry gays have engaged in mob-like and threatening actions, some disguised as demonstrations, over the vote to ban same-gender marriage in California. ‘The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church, and other religious organizations — and even against individual believers — simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop,’ reads the ad, which was signed by 13 men, representing evangelical Christian, Jewish, Roman Catholic and other groups.” [Colorado Independent, 12/11/08]

LGBTQIA+ Rights Groups Asserted Becket’s Ad Was Factual Inaccurate… “The assertions drew instant response from gay groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, urging supporters to write letters of protest to the New York Times and to the Becket Fund. ‘The factual inaccuracies made by the Becket Fund in this grossly misleading ad have no place in The New York Times or any credible media outlet,’ said Neil G. Giuliano, president of GLAAD, in a statement.” [Colorado Independent, 12/11/08]

…And Insinuated That Becket’s Aim Was To Silence LGBTQIA+ People Fighting Against Discrimination. “‘Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and allies across the country have worked to make our voices heard in the face of laws that strip away vital protections for members of our community. ‘The peaceful marches and rallies that have occurred since the passage of Prop 8 have given us an opportunity to become more visible and make our voices heard, and it is unacceptable for media platforms, particularly ones as respected as The New York Times, to provide space for groups to make misleading and false attacks that would only seek to silence us.’” [Colorado Independent, 12/11/08]

Protests Held By LGBTQIA+ People And Allies Were In Response To The Mormon Church’s Involvement In Passing Prop 8. “Thousands of people gathered in front of the Upper West Side temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Wednesday evening to protest the Mormon church’s support for Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California last week. Those at the front of the march held a banner proclaiming ‘God Loves Gay Marriage.’ There were chants demanding equality and signs with slogans like ‘Would Jesus spend tax-free dollars to support hate and injustice?’” [New York Times, 11/13/08]

• Mormon Church Members Gave An Estimated More Than $20 Million To Pass The Homophobic Measure. “After the measure for a constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriages in California was placed on the ballot, the church played an important part in the Proposition 8 coalition and urged its members to donate time and money — by some estimates, more than $20 million — to helping get the amendment passed. (The church itself did not give money to the backers of Proposition 8.)” [New York Times, 11/13/08]

Since 2019, Becket Has Conducted Public Opinion Research On Topics It Deems “Religious Freedom”-Related. “Launched in November 2019, Becket’s Religious Freedom Index: American Perspectives on the First Amendment was the first annual index to track public opinion across a complete spectrum of issues related to religious freedom and provide a holistic view of the public’s opinion on these issues.” [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]

Becket Contracts With Several Organizations To Build Out Its Survey Research. “The Association of Religion Data Archives hosts the data files and codebook for the Religious Freedom Index. The Index surveys a nationally representative sample of 1000 adults each October. Research firm Heart and Mind Strategies conducts the survey and scale construction, using an online sample panel assembled by Dynata. Becket contributes its broad expertise representing people of all faiths in religious liberty cases to ensure that the polling instrument and analysis broadly reflect America’s many religions and religious liberty issues.” [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]

While Becket Uses Representative Samples, Its Research Seeks To Elicit Anti-Abortion And Anti-LGBTQIA+ Responses To Circularly Support Its Litigation… “Across a variety of questions, this year’s Index shows that Americans are deeply committed to the rights of parents to educate and raise their children in accordance with their faith and values. Most dramatically, this year American perspectives about ‘pronoun policies’ reversed since 2021. Today, a strong majority of 58% of respondents oppose school policies mandating preferred pronoun usage. […] This year’s Index contained a question inspired by Becket’s case in Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, asking whether a local government could ban individuals from approaching women outside of an abortion clinic. 62% of Americans sided against the government and in favor of allowing women to receive information and offers of assistance – which might involve the sharing of (and is often motivated by) religious beliefs.” [Becket, Religious Freedom Index Fifth Edition, 1/2024]

• Conservative Media Amplifies Becket’s Results To Paint A Picture That A Majority Of Americans Support Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Harassment And Intimidation… “Nearly two-thirds of Americans say local governments should not be able to bar pro-life pregnancy counselors from offering assistance on sidewalks near abortion clinics, according to a survey from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.” [Washington Times, 1/16/24]
• …As Well As Refusing To Use People’s Correct Pronouns. “A majority of Americans oppose the use of preferred pronouns in schools, according to a report released Tuesday by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund’s Religious Freedom Index findings revealed a reversal in attitudes toward leftist school pronoun policies requiring that children and school employees address each other by their preferred pronouns.” [Daily Signal, 1/16/24]

Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson is Becket’s founder and former president. He founded the firm in 1994 to counter the Religious Right’s legal “non sequitur[s]” by creating a litigation powerhouse that would place religious freedom above all other rights. After law school, Hasson worked at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan years under future Justice Samuel Alito. Later, he worked on religious liberty litigation as an attorney for the DC law firm Williams & Connolly, where he represented the Catholic Church in the SCOTUS case United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc. (1988). While Hasson claimed that Becket takes on “religious liberty issues that don’t have anything to do with the platform of the Republican Party,” the firm took up an anti-abortion lawsuit within its first years of existence with the federal case Rigdon v. Perry (1997), where Hasson successfully represented military chaplains asking their congregants to campaign Congress to overturn President Bill Clinton’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. Hasson is credited with legitimizing the debate over religious liberty. Hasson has alluded that abortion is “tantamount to murder” and called LGBTQIA+ rights protestors “thugs.” He received the Salvatori Prize from the right-wing Heritage Foundation. Hasson now serves as the firm’s president emeritus, having retired due to Parkinson’s in 2011, and sits on Becket’s board of directors.

Mark Rienzi is the current president and CEO of Becket, joining the firm in 2011 and becoming president in 2018. Rienzi has served as counsel for high-profile Becket cases challenging reproductive health care access and LGBTQIA+ protections, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell (2016), McCullen v. Coakley (2014), Wheaton College v. Azar (2018); Zubik v. Burwell (2016); and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021). He has participated in multiple Federalist Society events, including an event for Becket’s lawsuit representing Colorado AAC Bella Health and Wellness (where he also served as counsel). He advised American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) members on how to prepare for depositions. Rienzi has categorized people seeking abortion care as helpless and dismissed the risks of the lack of contraception coverage by employers posed by Becket’s litigation. Rienzi influences the next generation of lawyers by teaching religious liberty issues at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and Harvard Law School. He is on the board of directors of the Napa Legal Institute.

William Mumma is Becket’s board chairman. After working on Wall Street for 30 years, Mumma was handpicked by Hasson to serve as the firm’s “full-time volunteer CEO” from 2011 to 2021, temporarily taking over as president when Hasson retired. Mumma is credited with expanding Becket’s staff and donorship and transforming the firm’s work to be “more political, more conservative and more Christian.” Mumma spreads disinformation about emergency contraception and, as noted by Accountable.US, said that religious believers are being attacked with “transgenderism, the sexualization of children, and the total reduction to absurdity of the family.” Mumma believes that the “Supreme Court victories that Becket and the Alliance Defending Freedom have won in recent years” will “provide a foundation for further litigation that will clarify and amplify the power” of decisions servicing the white Christian Nationalist agenda. Mumma gave thousands of dollars to previous campaigns for Vice President-elect JD Vance. He is a board member emeritus of the conservative Napa Legal Institute.

Eric Baxter is VP and senior counsel at Becket, having joined the firm in 2011. Baxter worked on the litigating teams for federal cases threatening contraception access including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and Colorado Christian University v. Azar (2018). Baxter is currently representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany in Diocese of Albany v. Harris to challenge New York’s insurance coverage of abortion care.

Daniel Blomberg is VP and senior counsel at Becket, joining the firm in 2013. He served as counsel on cases threatening contraception access, including Wheaton College v. Azar (2018), Zubik v. Burwell (2016), and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell (2016). He previously worked for the right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, where he represented anti-abortion sidewalk harassers. Blomberg appeared on the “Washington Watch” radio show, hosted by anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. He also appeared on a radio show for the North Carolina division of the Family Policy Council, where he claimed that emergency contraception medications are “abortion-inducing drugs.”

Luke Goodrich is VP and senior counsel at Becket, joining the firm in 2008. He served as counsel on federal cases threatening contraception access, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell (2016), and Stormans v. Wiesman (2015). Goodrich has also threatened transgender people’s access to health care as counsel on the cases Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell (2022) and Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra (2022). Goodrich appeared on the “Washington Watch” radio show, hosted by anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. Goodrich authored a transphobic op-ed where he lied about health care for transgender minors by insinuating that “gender clinics profit by shuffling children through an expensive series of drugs and surgeries.” He also misgendered a child and defended her abusive parents, whom Becket is representing.

Eric Rassbach is VP and senior counsel at Becket, joining the firm in 2003. Rassbach served on the litigation teams for Becket’s anti-contraception cases in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and Zubik v. Burwell (2016), as well as defended Philadelphia’s Catholic Social Services’s anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021). He filed an amicus brief in support of anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Rassbach praised the SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) (which overturned the Chevron deference, thereby limiting federal agencies’ regulatory authority), saying the ruling “would likely be the death knell” for federal rules protecting abortion care.

Lori Windham is VP and senior counsel at Becket, joining the firm in 2005. She worked on the litigation teams for federal cases threatening contraception access, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell (2016). Windham participated in a Heritage Foundation event in her capacity as counsel in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), where she defended a taxpayer-funded foster agency’s discrimination against LGBTQIA+ parents. She wrote that she was “unspeakably grateful” to see SCOTUS’ decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), saying that Roe and Casey “led to needless proxy battles that pit religious freedom against ‘reproductive rights.’” Windham is representing a pair of abusive transphobic parents who lost custody of their daughter, saying they are “living every parent’s nightmare.”

Federalist Society co-chairman and former executive vice president Leonard Leo is a member of Becket’s board of directors, which he has sat on since 2014. He is also the recipient of its 2017 Canterbury Medal. Leo’s former media relations director, Tom Carter, shared that Leo heavily influenced the firm, saying, “Becket was saved at least two times by Leonard Leo before Hobby Lobby” and added that the firm benefited from “either Federalist Society money or fundraising. Only Leo could raise that kind of money.” An attorney and the architect behind the organization’s takeover of the U.S. Supreme Court, he is personally responsible for Trump’s three SCOTUS appointees – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – and aided in the confirmations of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Leo started at the Federalist Society in 1991 and became the head of its lawyers’ division by 2001. Realizing that the Federalist Society did not have the public opinion on its side, Leo surmised the group needed to stack the courts. Leo left his full-time work in 2020 to focus on building a monied conservative network. Leo advocates for originalist interpretation of the law to cloak his anti-human rights agenda in a cloak of neutrality; he once said people should not be worried about the overturning of Roe but instead should be “worried about having judges who are really going to interpret the law as written.” Through questionable lobbying within the Federalist Society, Leo obtained a $1.6 billion windfall and became the sole trustee of Marble Freedom Trust. Leo is a trustee for several organizations, both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofits and for-profits. He was previously listed as the co-chair of the board for Students for Life of America. Tax filings show contributions from Marble Freedom Trust made their way to the anti-abortion group American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), a plaintiff in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) and member organization of fellow plaintiff Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

Trump-nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals worked as Becket’s general counsel from 2012 to 2014. Duncan was instrumental to Becket’s Hobby Lobby SCOTUS win, serving as the lead lawyer on the case, before being nominated to the federal bench in 2017. While leading Becket’s bad-faith arguments for Hobby Lobby, Duncan referred to the hormonal contraception opposed by the corporation’s Green family as “abortion-inducing drugs,” spreading medical disinformation about birth control and furthering abortion stigma; he later admitted that “women would be deprived” of birth control access as a result of his arguments. Before joining the “most extreme” U.S. Circuit Court, he defended Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban, a transphobic North Carolina bathroom ban, and another bathroom ban from a Virginia school board. Since assuming his federal judgeship in 2018, he repeatedly upheld Texas’ COVID-19-related abortion ban and parental consent law, as well as purposefully misgendered a transgender litigant. A staunchly anti-LGBTQIA+ judge, Duncan wrote that legalizing same-sex marriage “would do incalculable damage to our civic life in this country,” filing an amicus brief in support of respondents for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Roger Severino previously worked for Becket as its COO and legal counsel. After working at the firm, Severino ran the Heritage Foundation’s religious liberty program before serving in the first Trump Administration as director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) from 2017 to 2021. Severino’s time at Becket preceded Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters; however, as OCR director, he rolled back the same reproductive and LGBTQIA+ healthcare protections Becket challenged throughout its cases. When praising Becket’s SCOTUS victory in Fulton, Severino wrote that when he “headed the Civil Rights Office of HHS under Trump, we granted religious exemptions to adoption agencies just like the Court did today to Catholic Social Services.” Severino has publicly opposed marriage equality, supported conversion therapy, and spewed every transphobic argument imaginable. After the first Trump Administration, Severino returned to the Heritage Foundation as its VP of Domestic Policy and is the architect behind Project 2025’s HHS plans, pledging the HHS would “protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology” in order to decimate reproductive and LGBTQIA+ health care. He also promised to reverse the Biden Administration’s HHS actions on “‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage.”

Alex Azar served as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services between 2018 and 2021, during the first Trump Administration. Alongside former Office for Civil Rights Director Roger Severino, he sought to destroy reproductive and transgender health care protections. He said there is “no international right to an abortion” before the United Nations General Assembly and proposed a federal rule eliminating anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination protections in HHS grant programs (a move which Becket praised). During his confirmation hearing, Azar praised anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQIA+ “conscience protections” and said the HHS’ mission “is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, and this includes the unborn.” An attorney and former pharmaceutical company executive, Azar has been well-connected in conservative circles for decades, serving as HHS Deputy Secretary during the George W. Bush Administration and clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia. At HHS, Azar has been most infamous for how his department handled the thousands of immigrant children separated from their parents by the first Trump Administration. Before serving in the HHS, Azar was the chairman of Becket’s Lawyers’ Council from February 1998 to June 2001.

William “Bill” Barr is the former U.S. Attorney General, serving during the George H.W. Bush Administration and again during Trump’s first presidential term. Barr was on Becket’s board of directors for 21 years, leaving in 2015.

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) previously worked as an attorney for Becket from 2011-2015. During this time, he was part of the litigation team for Hobby Lobby, fighting for corporations’ right to deny employees contraception coverage; Becket described him as an “invaluable asset” to its SCOTUS win. In 2012, while staffed at Becket, Hawley wrote that we should “reconsider the wisdom of no-fault divorce.” Sen. Hawley is married to ADF senior counsel Erin Hawley, who represented the anti-abortion claimants in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024).

Robert George is a board member of Becket and is an anti-LGBTQIA+, anti-abortion Princeton professor. He was awarded Becket’s 2010 Canterbury Medal. He has authored multiple discriminatory amendments in attempts to ban same-sex marriage, including the “Manhattan Declaration.” George is a founder of the homophobic group National Organization for Marriage and the conservative American Principles Project, as well as a trustee for the Heritage Foundation. George condemned abortion as an act of “gross and manifest evil.” George played a large role in designing the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights during the first Trump Administration.

Mary Ann Glendon is a board member of Becket and a Harvard law professor whose work centers on a narrow interpretation of human rights. She has decades of experience crafting legal arguments to justify denying reproductive health care and challenging LGBTQIA+ rights. Glendon has held influence in various international bodies, including as a representative for the Vatican (where she opposed enshrining abortion as an international human right at the Beijing UN Women’s Conference in 1995) and as the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See under the George W. Bush Administration. During the first Trump Administration, Glendon was appointed by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as the Department’s inaugural chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, which she held from 2019 to 2020. Glendon was previously an advisory board member of Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship.

Dr. Jacqueline Rivers is a board member of Becket and a sociologist at King’s College who frequently speaks out against abortion and LGBTQIA+ rights. Rivers often presents these rights as direct threats to religious freedom and the Black community, particularly Black women. Rivers was a member of the Commission on Unalienable Rights under the first Trump Administration.

Meir Soloveichik is a board member of Becket and an orthodox rabbi and professor of Judaic studies at Yeshiva University. Soloveichik has repeatedly argued against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception benefit and opposes marriage equality. Soloveichik was a member of the Commission on Unalienable Rights under the first Trump Administration.

Since 2012, Becket Has Served As Counsel On Eight Cases Before The U.S. Supreme Court. “Becket has an unparalleled, undefeated record at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the last ten years, Becket has won eight Supreme Court cases. Five of those victories were unanimous. Almost half of all Supreme Court victories for religious freedom over the last decade were Becket cases.” [Becket, accessed 10/10/24]

Becket Has Yet To Lose A SCOTUS Case And Claims A 92 Percent Success Rate In The Lower Courts. “Becket’s unmatched, undefeated Supreme Court record and 92% win rate in the lower courts has made us the premier religious liberty law firm.” [Becket, accessed 11/11/24]

In 2005, Becket Held A Conference Based On The Thesis That Same-Sex Marriage Would Curtail The Right To Religious Expression. “A decade ago, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm in Washington, convened legal scholars from across the ideological divide on gay marriage to examine potential areas where religious freedom and gay rights might clash. First Amendment protections for worship are secure. But complications arise when faith-affiliated organizations, such as charities, hospitals and schools, try to maintain their religious identity even as large employers of people from all faiths and providers of services to the public.” [Indianapolis Star, 4/3/15]

• The 2005 Convening Resulted In Literature That Would Be Used As Evidence Of Expanding LGBTQIA+ Rights Threatening Religious Freedoms. “The 2005 Becket meeting generated a book, ‘Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts,’ and a subsequent policy paper that became influential among church-state experts and religious leaders closely watching the issue.” [Indianapolis Star, 4/3/15]

In 2007, A Becket Staff Member Wrote A Journal Article Presenting A False Dilemma Between Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage And Religious Liberty. “In 2007, a Becket Fund attorney predicted in the  Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that legalizing gay marriage would result in ‘widespread legal confusion resulting in pervasive church-state conflict and a substantial chilling of religious expression.’ In other words, religious believers would lose rights if gay couples gained them.” [POLITICO Magazine, 10/5/14]

Employing The Narrative It Spun, Becket Opposed The Equality Act (Which, If Passed, Would Amend The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 To Include LGBTQIA+ Protections) Because It Would Inconvenience Homophobic And Transphobic Religious Believers. “The Equality Act would have serious negative consequences for religious freedom. The Supreme Court in Bostock expressly relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to balance the interests of religious believers and the LGBTQ community. Congress has never before exempted a bill from RFRA. But the Equality Act would do just that, removing bipartisan-supported protections while at the same time exposing religious people to new legal threats. The Equality Act would subject synagogues and mosques to lawsuits for having single-sex prayer rooms. It would remove the ability of religious groups of all sorts to have single-sex bathrooms. It would allow litigants to bypass the carefully crafted protections in Title IX and sue religious schools, including K-12 girls’ schools, for having women-only spaces.” [Becket, Written Testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/17/21]

In 2011, Becket Was The First Firm To Challenge The ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate With Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius. “Forcing any organization to subsidize health-care plans that defy its faith is, the fund claims, a breach of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute passed in 1993 that allows believers to demand exemptions from laws that place a ‘substantial burden’ on their religious rights. Late in 2011, Becket filed the first suit against the mandate on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a school founded by Benedictine monks.” [American Prospect, 6/18/14]

• Becket Subsequently Filed Lawsuits Challenging The Mandate For Six Higher Education And Religious Institutions – Colorado Christian University v. Azar, Wheaton College v. Azar, East Texas Baptist University & Houston Baptist University v. Azar, Ave Maria University v. Azar, Little Sisters Of The Poor v. Azar, And Reaching Souls International, Inc. v. Azar. [Becket, accessed 10/4/24]
  
• Becket Admitted That Its Litigation Would Only Abate If The Obama HHS Carved Out A Complete Religious Exemption For Employers. “Catholic groups are saying that nothing short of completely exempting any employer with any religious objection to covering contraception for employees will do. […] ‘The only way out [of this controversy] is to give a full religious exemption to anyone who has an objection to selling these drugs,’ said Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed its third lawsuit against the mandate on Thursday.” [POLITICO, 2/9/12]

In 2012, Becket Filed A Lawsuit On Behalf Of For-Profit Corporation Hobby Lobby – A Case That Would Lead To SCOTUS Extending Religious Rights To Corporations, Allowing Them To Claim Exemptions To Avoid Covering Contraception For Employees. “We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.” [Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), 6/30/14]

• Hobby Lobby’s Complaint Hinged On The Stigma-Ladden Lie That Hormonal Birth Control Methods Induce An Abortion, Giving Cover For The Corporation To Challenge The ACA’s Contraception Mandate. “The Green family’s religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices. The administrative rule at issue in this case (‘the Mandate’) runs roughshod over the Green family’s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling.” [Becket Hobby Lobby Complaint, 9/12/12]
• After The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma Did Not Buy That Corporations Had Religious Rights, The Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled That Hobby Lobby Could Be Treated As A Person Under The RFRA. “We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA, have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.” [Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013), 6/27/13]
  
• SCOTUS Granted Corporate Personhood To Hobby Lobby, With Justice Alito Writing That Its Owners’ Erroneous Belief That Contraception Induces Abortion Is Justification Enough To Deny Their Employees Health Care. “Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.” [Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), 6/30/14]
  
• By The Time Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) Was Decided, Becket Had Ushered In A Deluge Of Litigation Seeking To Gut Contraception Coverage Under The ACA. “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. […] The requirement has also been challenged in 50 other cases, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby.” [New York Times, 6/30/14]

Shortly After, In Wheaton College v. Azar, SCOTUS Ruled That Objecting Groups Need Not File For An Accommodation To Exempt Themselves From Contraception Coverage. “In a short, unsigned opinion, the court said that Wheaton College in Illinois, at least temporarily, does not have to comply even with compromise provisions in the law that the college says still violate its religious beliefs.” [Washington Post, 7/3/14]

• The High Court Was Convinced That Filling Out A Form Was Too Burdensome On The Religious Beliefs Of Becket’s Client – Objectors Only Needed To Notify The HHS. “[T]he Wheaton College case is one of dozens that object to a compromise the Obama administration has offered to religious organizations, hospitals and ­colleges. Under this arrangement, the groups are required to fill out a form, EBSA Form 700, to register their religious objections. This enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The organizations do not have to pay for the coverage, and the cost is borne by the government or in other ways. But some of the colleges and organizations say that signing the form authorizes the third parties to provide the contraceptive coverage, making them complicit in actions that offend their religious beliefs. The ruling Thursday says Wheaton need only file a letter with the federal government stating the college’s religious objections. Presumably, the government then would notify the third party to provide the contraceptives.” [Washington Post, 7/3/14]
  
• Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor Said The Last-Minute Injunction Would Jeopardize Access To Reproductive Health Care. “‘Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant’s employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives,’ the order said. Sotomayor disagreed. She said the injunction ‘risks depriving hundreds of Wheaton’s employees and students of their legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage.’ And since the other ­cases around the country are indistinguishable, she said, the order might as well be national in scope.” [Washington Post, 7/3/14]

Becket Sought To Rule The Contraceptive Mandate Unconstitutional – Even With The Obama HHS’ Compromise – In Another Case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell (2016), Citing Their Hobby Lobby Win… “[Little Sisters] must either abandon their Catholic beliefs and participate in the Final Mandate, or they will be punished by the government with an array of fines and penalties unless and until they comply. The threat of such penalties imposes a substantial burden on the class members’ religious exercise, because it ‘requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief,’ prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, and ‘places substantial pressure on’ the class members ‘to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.’ Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1138 (10th Cir. 2013).” [Becket Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell Verified Complaint, 9/24/13] 

…And Relying On Medical Disinformation About Birth Control. “‘[E]mergency contraceptives’ such as Plan B, ella, and certain IUDs—are known abortifacients, in that they can cause the death of an embryo by preventing it from implanting in the wall of the uterus.” [Becket Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell Verified Complaint, 9/24/13]

• Becket Claimed That Requiring Little Sisters To Fill Out An Accommodation Form Violated Their Religious Freedom. “The Affordable Care Act requires most employers to offer health insurance to their employees, including contraceptive coverage. Religious nonprofits were offered a work-around that allows them to file a one-page form with the federal government, so that the insurance company can step in and provide the coverage directly to their employees. But the plaintiffs, a charitable group called the Little Sisters of the Poor, claimed that the accommodation doesn’t ameliorate the problem because the act of filing the form triggers an action their religion abhors. This, the Little Sisters of the Poor says, violates their religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” [Slate, 5/16/16]
  
• Little Sisters Of The Poor v. Burwell Was Eventually Consolidated Under The SCOTUS Case Zubik v. Burwell, Which SCOTUS Sent Back To The Lower Courts. “[I]nstead of ruling on the merits of the case, or breaking any new ground at all on the pitched battle between a woman’s right to seamless contraceptive coverage and the religious objections of her boss, the Supreme Court simply sent [Zubik v. Burwell] back to the lower courts.” [Slate, 5/16/16]
  
• Before Little Sisters Of The Poor v. Burwell Was Dismissed, The Trump Administration Issued A Becket-Approved Rule Rolling Back Contraception Access. “The Trump administration is making it easier for employers to exclude birth control from health insurance benefits provided under the Affordable Care Act, and it has come up with a new justification, saying that female employees can obtain contraceptives at family planning clinics for low-income people. […] Groups that have fought the contraceptive coverage mandate, like the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns, praised the policy. ‘It shows that the government has ways of delivering contraceptive services without conscripting the Little Sisters of the Poor to help,’ said Mark L. Rienzi, the president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the nuns in several court cases.” [New York Times, 11/17/18]

The Firm Won Another SCOTUS Case With Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020), Which Ruled A Trump HHS Rule Broadening Employers’ Ability To Deny Contraception Coverage Was Valid Amid State Challenges. “After six years of protracted litigation, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (Departments)—which jointly administer the relevant ACA provision—exempted certain employers who have religious and conscientious objections from this agency-created mandate. […] After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns—the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate. We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption.” [Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. (2020), 7/8/20]

• With This Decision, Even More Employers With “Sincerely Held Religious Or Moral Objections” Could Deny Their Employees Contraception… “In a 7-2 decision today, the US Supreme Court upheld a Trump administration rule that greatly broadens a religious exemption to the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Under Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, employers with ‘sincerely held religious or moral objections’ to providing this coverage may now decline to cover their employees’ contraception.” [Slate, 7/8/20]
  
• …Jeopardizing Coverage For As Many As 126,400 People At The Time Of The Decision. “Ginsburg pointed out the government has estimated between 70,500 and 126,400 women would lose their ‘no-cost contraceptive services’ if more employers were exempt from providing it. Echoing her own fears expressed at oral argument that the court seems to have written women’s health and equality interests out of the equation altogether, she wrote, ‘This court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.’ […] Without insurance, women can expect to pay $600 to $1,000 annually for oral contraception and more for IUDs.” [Slate, 7/8/20]

Becket’s Cases Jeopardized Birth Control Access By Increasing The Already-High Demand For Services From Title X Clinics. “[The rule] could increase demand for clinic services, which are already squeezed. […] Administration officials said the proposed rule, issued by Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, would meet the needs of women while deflecting legal challenges to the president’s birth control policy. […] But Clare Coleman, the president and chief executive of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents many clinics, said the proposal would ‘hijack Title X programs and use their limited federal funds to subsidize employers’ refusal to comply with the contraceptive coverage requirement.’” [New York Times, 11/17/18]

In 1997, Becket Won A Lawsuit Against The Pentagon To Allow Military Chaplains To Lobby On Behalf Of The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, Successfully Arguing That A Department Of Defense Directive Violated The First Amendment And The RFRA. “This lawsuit was precipitated by events surrounding the so-called “Project Life Postcard Campaign,” in which the Catholic Church in the United States sought to speak with a unified voice urging Congress to override the President’s veto of HR 1833, also known as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. […] [T]he defendants’ interpretation of DoD Directive 1344.10 and similar regulations as barring the plaintiff chaplains from urging their military congregants to communicate with Congress on passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” [Rigdon v. Perry, 962 F. Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1997), 4/7/97]

In Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich (2012), Becket Successfully Represented Pharmacy Owners In Illinois Who Refused To Dispense Emergency Contraception. “Consider the policy Illinois imposed in 2005 to force pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives, including ‘morning after’ and ‘week after’ pills. For Luke Vander Bleek and Glenn Kosirog, this requirement was troublesome because their religious beliefs prohibited them from selling these products.” [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]

Becket Represented Pharmacy Owners Who Refused To Dispense Emergency Contraception Against A Washington State Regulation But Lost At The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals. “We recognize that there is a ‘trend of protecting conscientious objectors to abortions,’ […] and that most—but not all—states do not require pharmacies to deliver prescriptions, such as Plan B and ella, in a timely manner. On balance, however, we are unconvinced that the right to own, operate, or work at a licensed professional business free from regulations requiring the business to engage in activities that one sincerely believes leads to the taking of human life is ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’ […] Accordingly, we decline to recognize a new fundamental right.” [Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2015), 7/23/15]

• After The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Denied Their Claims And Reversed A Lower-Court Decision, Becket (Alongside ADF) Unsuccessfully Petitioned The U.S. Supreme Court To Hear The Case. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]
  
• Becket’s Clients Promulgate The Incorrect And Stigmatizing Claim That Emergency Contraception Operates As An Abortifacient… “The pharmacy’s owners, along with two other pharmacists who are also plaintiffs in the case, Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, refused to stock emergency contraception, including Plan B and ella, for religious reasons—they believe the pills are effectively abortifacients.” [The Atlantic, 6/29/16]
  
• …And Directly Harmed Customers By Denying Time-Sensitive Medication. “While the owners of Storman’s argued that they would have been happy to refer customers to other pharmacies, ‘Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception and of many other medications,’ the Ninth Circuit said. ‘The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs.’ Customers also shouldn’t get sent somewhere else when they ask for medication, the decision said, because ‘referrals could lead to feelings of shame in the patient that could dissuade her from obtaining emergency contraception altogether.’” [The Atlantic, 6/29/16]

Becket Represented Texas Catholic Conference Of Bishops In A Lawsuit Against Abortion Clinic Whole Women’s Health, Which Challenged A State Fetal Burial Law. [Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith, No. 18-50484 (5th Cir. 2018), 7/15/18]

Representing The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops, Becket Sued The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission To Ensure Abortion Care Is Not Protected Under The Federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. “In United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC, religious groups challenged a federal agency which had hijacked a law protecting expecting mothers and their unborn children to force employers nationwide to accommodate abortion.” [Becket, Press Release, 6/18/24]

• A Trump-Appointed Judge Ruled In Favor Of Becket, Parroting Talking Points That Abortion Isn’t A Form Of Health Care That Deserves Protection. “U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lake Charles, Louisiana, said on Monday that the commission exceeded its authority by adopting a rule that says a federal pregnancy accommodation law extends to abortions. Joseph agreed with the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Church that abortion is not a ‘medical condition’ that employers must accommodate.” [Reuters, 6/18/24]

In Diocese Of Albany v. Harris, The New York Court Of Appeals Rejected Becket’s Attempt To Threaten Abortion Access By Invalidating The State’s Abortion Coverage Mandate. “New York’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that employers’ health insurance plans have to cover medically necessary abortions, rejecting a lawsuit by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany claiming that the law’s exemption for religious employers was too narrow. The New York Court of Appeals found that the rule, passed in 2017 by the state’s Department of Financial Services (DFS), did not violate religious employers’ freedom because both the rule and its religious exemption were neutral and generally applicable to all employers.” [Reuters, 5/21/24]

• Becket Has Asked SCOTUS To Hear The Case. [Becket, Press Release, 9/18/24]

Becket Fought Regulations Put In Place By Baltimore To End AAC Deceptive Practices In The City. [Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, No. 16-2325 (4th Cir. 2018), decided 1/5/18]

• Baltimore Was The First City To Regulate AACs’ Deceptive Advertising. “The Baltimore City Council went where no local government has gone before, it seems, in telling crisis pregnancy centers in the city this week that they have to put up signs saying they don’t provide abortion or birth control.” [Slate, 11/25/09]
  
• After A Nearly Eight-Year Legal Battle, The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit Ruled That The Ordinance Requiring AACs To Disclaim They Do Not Offer Abortion Care Violated The AAC’s First Amendment Rights. “A federal appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a Baltimore law requiring pregnancy clinics that do not offer or refer women for abortions to post signs disclosing that fact in their waiting rooms. […] Friday’s decision in the nearly eight-year-old case followed dozens of court submissions from abortion rights, anti-abortion and religious freedom advocates, and came as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider a similar case from California. Maryland’s largest city had argued that its 2009 law was meant to address deceptive advertising and reduce the potential health risks from waiting too long to have an abortion.” [Reuters, 1/5/18]
  
• Baltimore Appealed The Fourth Circuit Ruling To The U.S. Supreme Court… “Attorneys in Baltimore are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that struck down as unconstitutional an ordinance requiring pregnancy centers notify patients if they don’t offer abortion or birth control services.” [Associated Press, 4/4/18]
  
• …Which The High Court Denied. [Becket, accessed 10/25/24]

Alongside Law Firm Locke Lord, Becket Represented California AAC-Chain Support Circle In A Lawsuit Seeking To Overturn San Francisco’s Pregnancy Information Disclosure And Protection Ordinance. [First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera, No. 15-15434 (9th Cir. 2017), decided 6/27/17]

• After Losing At The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals, Becket Appealed The Case To The U.S. Supreme Court And Was Denied. “[T]he high court without comment declined to review an appeal in which a center known as First Resort challenged a San Francisco law prohibiting false advertising by such centers. The denial of the appeal means the final ruling in the case is a decision last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upholding the city law. The law, enacted in 2011, bans false and misleading advertising by crisis pregnancy centers, which are termed ‘limited service pregnancy centers’ in the law. […] First Resort, which now operates under the name of Support Circle, claimed in a civil rights lawsuit that the San Francisco law violated its constitutional First Amendment right of free speech. But the 9th Circuit last year said the law did not violate that right because it regulates only commercial speech and not protected speech about ideas.” [CBS News, 6/28/18]
  
• San Francisco’s Passed The Ordinance To Protect Pregnant People From AACs’ Deception. “The law, enacted in 2011, bans false and misleading advertising by crisis pregnancy centers, which are termed ‘limited service pregnancy centers’ in the law. […] The measure was aimed at centers that advertise they can help women with unintended pregnancies decide what to do next, but do not disclose that they are anti-abortion and don’t provide referrals for abortions. […] San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office defended the law, said, ‘This case was about the truth. These groups are entitled to be advocates, but they’re not entitled to break the law.[’]” [CBS News, 6/28/18]
  
• Becket Filed An Amicus Brief For National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), The SCOTUS Decision The Gutted Regulation Of AACs’ Deceptive Advertising, On Behalf Of First Resort (AKA Support Circle). [Becket NIFLA v. Becerra Amicus Brief on behalf of First Resort, filed 1/16/18]

Becket Filed A Lawsuit On Behalf Of The Catholic Organization Sisters Of Life, Which Operates The AAC Visitation Center Of New York. [Sisters of Life v. Bassett, 1:22-cv-07529, (S.D.N.Y.), Stipulation and Order filed 11/8/23]

• Becket Strategically Filed The Lawsuit To Distrupt A New York State Department Of Health Study On The Public Health Threat Of AACs, Which Would Have Required Information From The AAC On Its Operations. “Legislation S.470/A.5499 directs the New York State Department of Health commissioner to conduct a study and issue a report examining the unmet health and resource needs facing pregnant people in New York and the impact of limited service pregnancy centers. This ensures New Yorkers have access to information and resources necessary to have healthy pregnancies with positive outcomes.” [Office of the Governor of the State of New York, Press Release, 6/13/22]
  
• In A Victory For Becket, The New York State Department Of Health Agreed To Not Take Any Action Against The AAC For Refusing To Comply With The Public Health Study. “Defendant agrees and is hereby ordered not to take any enforcement action of any kind against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s nonresponse to or noncompliance with any survey, document request, or information request of any kind authorized by or issued by Defendant pursuant to the Statute.” [Sisters of Life v. Bassett, 1:22-cv-07529, (S.D.N.Y.), Stipulation and Order filed 11/8/23]

Becket Is Fighting For AACs To Promote The Harmful Practice Of “Abortion Pill Reversal” By Representing Colorado AAC Bella Health And Wellness. [Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, 1:23-cv-00939, Order filed 10/21/23]

• Major Medical Bodies Such As The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Do Not Support The Pseudoscientific “Abortion Pill Reversal.” “Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Claims regarding abortion “reversal” treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) ranks its recommendations on the strength of the evidence and does not support prescribing progesterone to stop a medication abortion.” [ACOG, accessed 10/25/24]
  
• “Abortion Pill Reversal” Is An Unproven, Unethical AAC Practice. “So-called abortion ‘reversal’ procedures are unproven and unethical. A 2012 case series reported on six women who took mifepristone and were then administered varying progesterone doses. Four continued their pregnancies. […] This is not scientific evidence that progesterone resulted in the continuation of those pregnancies. This study was not supervised by an institutional review board (IRB) or an ethical review committee, required to protect human research subjects, raising serious questions regarding the ethics and scientific validity of the results. Case series with no control groups are among the weakest forms of medical evidence. […] Subsequent case series used to support use of medication abortion reversal have had similar limitations, including no ethics approval, no control group, under-reporting of data, and no reported safety outcomes.” [ACOG, accessed 10/25/24]
  
• In 2019, An IRB-Approved Study On The Effects Of Progesterone Taken After Mifepristone Due To Severe Hemorrhaging Among Participants. “We planned to enroll 40 patients in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. We enrolled patients at 44–63 days of gestation with ultrasound-confirmed gestational cardiac activity who were planning surgical abortion. Participants ingested mifepristone 200 mg and initiated oral progesterone 400 mg or placebo 24 hours later twice daily for 3 days, then once daily until their planned surgical abortion 14–16 days after enrollment. […] We enrolled participants from February to July 2019 and stopped enrollment after 12 patients for safety concerns. […] Severe hemorrhage requiring ambulance transport to hospital occurred in three patients.” [Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1/2020]
• “Abortion Pill Reversal” Was Invented By Dr. George Delgado, Who Operates AAC Giant Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Rescue Network… [Pro-Lies.org, accessed 10/25/24]
• …And Attempted To Overturn The U.S. Food And Drug Administration’s Approval Of Mifepristone In Food And Drug Administration v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine (2024). “In a Supreme Court ruling this month, all nine justices declared that plaintiffs including Delgado, who has practiced medicine in California for more than 30 years, lacked standing and could not seek to pull abortion pills off the market simply because they are morally opposed. The court unanimously voted to uphold access to abortion pills in the high-stakes case, ruling that the plaintiffs had made ‘too speculative’ of a reach in their attempt to limit distribution of the medication.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/27/24]
• Immediately After Colorado Signed The First-In-The-Nation Law To Regulate “Abortion Pill Reversal” As A Deceptive Trade Practice, Becket Sued In A U.S. District Court Overseen By A Trump-Appointed Judge. “A federal judge over the weekend temporarily exempted a Catholic anti-abortion clinic from a first-in-the-nation law enacted Friday by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis that bans medical professionals from administering abortion-reversal drugs through at least Oct. 1. The decision to issue a temporary restraining order sought by Englewood-based Bella Health and Wellness came from U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico, who was nominated to the federal bench in 2017 by President Donald Trump. Bella Health and Wellness filed a lawsuit Friday, soon after Polis signed Senate Bill 190 into law, asking that enforcement of the measure be temporarily halted. The group, through its attorneys at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, argued that the legislation violated their constitutional free speech and equal protection rights.” [Colorado Sun, 4/17/23]
• After A Temporary Order Halting The State From Enforcing The Public Health Regulation Was Lifted… “A federal judge Friday lifted a temporary order shielding a Catholic anti-abortion clinic from being subject to a new Colorado law banning so-called abortion pill reversal treatment. U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Domenico said Colorado’s promise to not start enforcing Senate Bill 190 until the state’s three medical boards weigh in on whether abortion pill reversal is a ‘generally accepted standard of practice’ was reason enough to lift the prohibition.” [Colorado Sun, 4/28/23]
• …The Colorado Medical Board Agreed That “Abortion Pill Reversal” Is Unethical, But Would Not Charge Physicians Engaging In This Practice With Misconduct. “The board, composed mainly of doctors, also made clear that it will review reported uses of the reversal pill, which is progesterone, on a case-by-case basis. ‘Although the board will not treat medication abortion reversal as a per se act of unprofessional misconduct, the board does not consider administering, dispensing or delivering progesterone with the intent to interfere with, reverse, or halt a medication abortion through the use of mifepristone to meet generally accepted standards of medical practice,’ its new rule states.” [Colorado Sun, 8/17/23]
  
• Because Of This, Becket Filed A New Preliminary Injunction Motion To Block Colorado’s Enforcement Of SB 23-190… “Lawyers for a national religious rights organization have filed a new motion for a preliminary injunction against Colorado’s law banning so-called abortion pill ‘reversal.’ The motion, filed last week by lawyers from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on behalf of Catholic health clinic Bella Health and Wellness, says recent rulemaking by state medical boards has ‘doubled down’ on the law’s alleged violations of religious freedom and free expression. […] The lawsuit seeks to overturn Colorado’s law, but it could ultimately have a much broader impact than that.” [Colorado Sun, 9/29/23]
• …And Fallaciously Claimed The AAC Is “Religiously Compelled” To Offer “Abortion Pill Reversal” Because It Is A Catholic Organization. “Plaintiffs are religiously compelled to offer this treatment to women facing threatened miscarriage. They cannot in good conscience turn their backs on either their pregnant patient or the pregnancy she seeks their medical help to continue. […] Colorado, in no uncertain terms, now tells them that if they choose to follow their religious beliefs, they risk losing their licenses and face crushing financial penalties.” [Becket Bella Health and Wellness Amended Complaint, 9/27/23]
• Agreeing With Becket’s Association Fallacy, Trump-Appointed Judge Domenico Struck Down Colorado’s Bill. “In his ruling on the preliminary injunction, federal district court judge Daniel D. Domenico said Colorado’s law runs afoul of First Amendment principles and that the state ‘generally cannot regulate an activity if that regulation burdens religious exercise’ and ‘targets religious activity,’ in particular if it fails to regulate comparable secular activities that raise similar risks. […] In his ruling, Domenico also said Colorado could not enforce a provision in law that labels abortion pill reversal as unprofessional conduct and makes advertising the service a deceptive trade practice.” [Colorado Public Radio, 10/23/23]
• Becket Praised The Ruling, Describing The Public Health Threat Of “Abortion Pill Reversal” As “Compassionate Care.” “In a statement, attorney Rebekah Ricketts with Becket Law, the firm representing Bella Health, celebrated the ruling and said ‘Colorado is trying to make outlaws of doctors and nurses providing life-saving and compassionate care to women they serve.’” [Colorado Public Radio, 10/23/23]

Representing An Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Harasser, Becket Successfully Overturned A Massachusetts Statute Requiring 35-Foot Buffer Zones Around Abortion Clinics. [McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), decided 6/26/14

• SCOTUS Court Unanimously Ruled In McCullen v. Coakley (2014) That The Massachusetts Statute Violated The First Amendment. “The Supreme Court has struck down a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot buffer zone around clinics that provide abortion services. Backers of the legislation have said the law treats groups equally, requiring both supporters and opponents of abortion rights to maintain their distance from the clinics. But in a unanimous ruling Thursday, the justices found that the buffer zone infringes on the First Amendment rights of protesters.” [NPR, 6/26/14]

Becket Further Attempted To Erode Buffer Zone Protections In A New York County. [Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, No. 23-30 (2d Cir. 2023), decided 6/21/23]

• The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit Upheld The Law… “A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday upheld a New York county’s law barring anti-abortion activists from approaching people outside abortion clinics, teeing up potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law adopted last year by Westchester County, New York, was valid under a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that rejected a challenge to a similar law in Colorado.” [Reuters, 6/21/23]
  
• …And The Supreme Court Declined To Hear The Case, While The New York County Law Had Already Been Repealed. “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday passed up a chance to consider overruling its own precedent allowing protective ‘bubble’ zones around abortion clinic patients, turning away a challenge by a Catholic woman in New York to a now-repealed county law passed after the justices overturned abortion rights nationally in 2022. The justices declined to hear abortion opponent Debra Vitagliano’s appeal of a lower court’s decision to throw out her lawsuit that had claimed the Westchester County measure that had limited protests or “sidewalk counseling” near abortion clinics violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech. The county is located north of New York City. […] The county repealed the “bubble zone” part of the law in August, saying it proved unnecessary and difficult to enforce.” [Reuters, 12/11/23]
• Becket Admitted That Its Goal Was To Overrule The Hill v. Colorado (2000) And Thereby Strike Down Buffer Zone Laws Across The Country. “The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, opens new tab the law adopted last year by Westchester County, New York, was valid under a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that rejected a challenge to a similar law in Colorado. […] The court said it was bound to follow that ruling unless the Supreme Court expressly overturns it. Lawyers for the plaintiff, ‘sidewalk counselor’ and devout Catholic Debra Vitagliano, acknowledged that their challenge was foreclosed by the Supreme Court ruling. But they have said in court papers that they intend to ask the high court to overrule that decision and strike down ‘buffer zone’ laws. […] In the 2000 case, Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that a nearly identical law was not a regulation on speech but ‘a regulation of the places where some speech may occur.’” [Reuters, 6/21/23]

Buffer Zone Laws, Also Known As Bubble Zones Or Safe Access Zones, Protect Abortion Clinics And Patients From Harassment And Violence. “Beth Sousa, a senior policy advisor at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said clinic violence has increased since the 2022 Supreme Court decision and that the zones help protect against violence, harassment and threats, while balancing free speech rights. ‘These zones can be used to protect the rights of patients and health care providers and staff, while still allowing protesters to convey their messages,’ Sousa said.” [Reuters, 12/11/23]

Becket Attempted To Block Obama-Era Transgender Nondiscrimination Protections Under The ACA’s Section 1557 In At Least Two Lawsuits, Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra (2022) and Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra (2022). [Becket, accessed 10/1/24]

• Becket Filed Both Lawsuits Shortly After The Obama HHS Finalized The Rule. “Just hours after sending out clear guidelines against anti-transgender discrimination in schools, the Obama administration published another rule protecting trans people — this time in health care. The US Department of Health and Human Services finalized the regulations for Section 1557 of Obamacare, which bans sex discrimination in health services and insurance. HHS says that bans on sex discrimination protect trans people, because discrimination based on gender identity is, fundamentally, discrimination over what people of certain sexes should be like.” [Vox, 5/13/16]
• In Franciscan Alliance, A Three-Judge Panel (Two Of Whom Were Trump-Appointed Judges) Of The Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Unanimously Affirmed A U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of Texas Ruling. [Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, No. 21-11174 (5th Cir. 2022), 8/26/22]
• The Ruling Allowed Doctors To Refuse Providing Essential Health Care Without Facing Consequences Under The ACA’s Section 1557. “The U.S. government cannot require several Christian medical groups and providers to perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act, a federal appeals court has ruled. A unanimous panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a lower court’s permanent order shielding Christian Medical and Dental Associations and Specialty Physicians of Illinois, along with Catholic hospital system Franciscan Alliance Inc, from any enforcement action under the ACA’s anti-discrimination provision, known as Section 1557, for refusing to perform the procedures, which they say would violate their religious freedom.” [Reuters, 8/29/22]

Becket Represented Parents Who Were Accused Of Verbally and Emotionally Abusing Their Transgender Daughter. [Becket M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services Reply Brief, 2/15/24]

A Few Months After The Michigan Supreme Court Interpreted The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act To Include Sexuality And Gender Identity As Protected Characteristics, Becket Filed St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel To Erode That Precedent. [St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel, No. 1:22-cv-01154, 12/5/22] 

Becket Is Challenging The Michigan Civil Rights Statute In Christian Healthcare Centers v. Nessel As Well. “A unanimous three-judge panel, opens new tab of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Christian Healthcare Centers and Sacred Heart of Jesus, a school in Grand Rapids, had shown a “credible threat” of facing legal claims from the state given its history of actively enforcing laws banning discrimination, including bias against LGBT people. Both plaintiffs say they want to post job ads online that explicitly seek Christian workers and require applicants to sign statements of faith and agree with certain positions, including opposition to gay marriage, using preferred gender pronouns, and gender-affirming care.” [Reuters, 9/20/24]

In A Disgusting Effort To Endanger Transgender Children, Becket Is Representing An Anti-LGBTQIA+ Conversion Therapist In Catholic Charities v. Whitmer. [Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, 1:24-cv-00718, (W.D. Mich.), 7/12/24]

• Becket’s Lawsuit Targets A Michigan Suicide Prevention Bill Passed To Protect LGBTQIA+ Youth From The Harms Of Conversion Therapy. “The lawsuit specifically targets House Bill 4616, which was signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in July 2023 and stated that a ‘mental health professional shall not engage in conversion therapy with a minor.’ Violation of the statute subjects those professionals to disciplinary action and licensing sanctions. In response to the lawsuit, Equality Michigan Executive Director Erin Knott said its goal of ending the ban will put kids’ lives at risk. ‘House Bill 4616 is a suicide prevention bill, period. Protecting LGBTQ young people from conversion “therapy” in Michigan is literally life-saving,’ said Knott.” [Michigan Advance, 7/15/24]
• Becket’s Transphobic, Homophobic Argument Insidiously Frames Conversion Therapy As Empowering, Focusing On How Children Should Obey Hateful Interpretations Of Religion Rather Than Affirm Who They Are. “By helping clients address underlying trauma and heal from past experiences, Plaintiffs have often seen clients change their behavior and gender expression in ways that better align with the clients’ own religious beliefs and the clients’ own goals for their lives—including by accepting and embracing their biological sex and by refraining from sexual activity outside of male-female marriage. Out of respect for their clients and their autonomy, Plaintiffs plan to keep providing the kind of therapy that helps their clients accomplish their goals.” [Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, 1:24-cv-00718, (W.D. Mich.), 7/12/24]
• Despite Becket’s Bad-Faith Claims, Major Medical Bodies Agree That Conversion Therapy Is Unscientific And Harms Those Subjected To Its Abuse. “Conversion therapy, as defined by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, ‘are interventions purported to alter same-sex attractions or an individual’s gender expression with the specific aim to promote heterosexuality as a preferable outcome.’ The academy, as have most major health institutions, say such therapies ‘lack scientific credibility and clinical utility. Additionally, there is evidence that such interventions are harmful.’ That stance is shared by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the American Psychological Association and the National Association of School Psychologists.” [Michigan Advance, 7/15/24]
• Ignoring Scientific Evidence, Becket Dismissed The Effectiveness Of LGBTQIA+-Affirming Care And Cited The Cass Review, A UK Government Report Widely Cited Among Transphobes. “However, the lawsuit claims the opposite, alleging that there is ‘no sound evidence’ that treatments which affirms a client’s sexual preference or gender identity ‘provide any long-term benefits.’ As proof, the suit extensively cites the highly controversial and politicized Cass Review, commissioned by England’s National Health Service […] the Cass Review has been the subject of intense debate since it was issued earlier this year with a host of medical organizations on both sides of the Atlantic either calling its conclusions into question, or outright condemning them as unfounded.” [Michigan Advance, 7/15/24]

Becket Is Asking The U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, An Attempt To Ban Books With LGBTQIA+ Characters In The Classroom And Sow Animosity Toward LGBTQIA+ Students. [Becket Mahmoud v. Taylor Cert Petition, 9/12/24]

• Previously, The Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled That Becket’s Clients Did Not Have Standing. “A divided federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected a bid by a group of Maryland parents to force a school district to allow them to opt their elementary school children out of being assigned to read books that include LGBTQ characters. A 2-1 panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the parents had not demonstrated how the Montgomery County Board of Education’s book policy would burden anyone’s rights to freely exercise religion. […] Eric Baxter, a lawyer for the parents at Becket, in a statement promised a further appeal. ‘The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,’ he said.” [NBC News, 5/15/24]

Becket Has Targeted LGBTQIA+ Staff And Students In Religious Secondary And Higher Education Institutions In At Least Five Separate Lawsuits. [Becket, accessed 10/4/24]

• These Cases Include YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University (2022), Where Becket Is Targeting An LGBTQIA+ Pride University Club. “Yeshiva University filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking to block a court order requiring the New York university to recognize a ‘Pride Alliance’ LGBTQ student club. In court papers, the school says that ‘As a deeply religious Jewish university, Yeshiva cannot comply with that order because doing so would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values.’ Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing Yeshiva, argued that the lower court’s order is an ‘unprecedented’ intrusion into the University’s religious beliefs and a clear violation of Yeshiva’s First Amendment rights.” [CNN, 8/29/22]

Becket Won Another High-Profile U.S. Supreme Court Case With Fulton v. City Of Philadelphia, Which Ruled That Catholic Social Services (CSS) Could Receive Taxpayer Funds While Engaging In LGBTQIA+ Discrimination. [Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021), 6/17/21]

• In 2018, The Philadephia Inquirer Revealed That CSS, Which Held A Contract With The City Since 1997, Was Refusing To Place Foster Children With LGBTQIA+ Foster Parents. “At the same time that the city’s Department of Human Services is urgently calling for more foster parents, two of its foster care agencies, Bethany and Catholic Social Services, operate under policies that turn away LGBTQ people who come knocking. The organizations, which also offer adoption services, are likely violating city contract rules that forbid discrimination. […] DHS said it was unaware, until contacted by the Inquirer and Daily News, of the policies held by the two organizations. Bethany Christian Services has had a contract with the city since 1996 and Catholic Social Services since 1997.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/13/18]
• A Spokesperson For The Archdiocese Of Philadelphia Confirmed That CSS Had Not And Would Not Work With LGBTQIA+ People Seeking To Foster. “Ken Gavin, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, said Catholic Social Services wasn’t aware of any recent inquiries from same-sex couples but confirmed that the organization would not work with interested LGBTQ people if approached. ‘Catholic Social Services is, at its core, an institution founded on faith-based principles,’ Gavin said. ‘The Catholic Church does not endorse same-sex unions, based upon deeply held religious beliefs and principles. As such, CSS would not be able to consider foster care placement within the context of a same-sex union.’ Gavin said that arrangement is a ‘well-established and long-known one in our relationship with DHS.’” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/13/18]
• Becket Argued CSS Should Be Able To Discriminate And Simultaneously Receive Taxpayer Funds… “CSS sued, claiming that it has a constitutional right to receive this government contract and to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, because that refusal is rooted in CSS’s religious beliefs.” [Vox, 6/17/21]
• …And Requested The SCOTUS Decision Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Be Overturned To Further Allow Religious Entities To Discriminate. “The plaintiffs in Fulton, moreover, also asked the Supreme Court to overrule its seminal decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which held that religious objectors must follow ‘neutral law[s] of general applicability.’ Under Smith, a religious objector typically is bound by a state or local law so long as it applies with equal force to non-religious actors — so, if secular organizations are forbidden from discriminating, the same rule will generally apply to religious organizations. But neither of these important questions was resolved in Fulton.” [Vox, 6/17/21]
• A Lower Court Initially Ruled In Favor Of Philadelphia. “A district judge and a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the city was within its rights to end the contract and was not targeting the Catholic agency for its religious views.” [Washington Post, 6/17/21]
• Later, Becket Successfully Argued Before SCOTUS That Philadelphia Violated The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause By Refusing To Renew CSS’ Contract. “The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that Philadelphia was wrong to end a Catholic group’s contract to provide foster-care services because the organization refused to work with same-sex couples. […] Roberts reasoned that because Philadelphia theoretically allows some exceptions to its policy, the city had violated the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion by not extending one to Catholic Social Services, which screens potential foster-care parents. ‘CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else,’ Roberts wrote.” [Washington Post, 6/17/21]
  
• The Case Was The Second Time, After Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), SCOTUS Ruled Against Governmental LGBTQIA+ Protections In The Face Of Religious Liberty Litigation. “It was the latest victory for religious organizations at the increasingly conservative court, and the second time it has ruled against governments trying to enforce an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ rights against those claiming religious liberty. […] The court last looked at the clash of gay rights and religious beliefs in 2018, when it ruled for a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.” [Washington Post, 6/17/21]
  
• While The SCOTUS Ruling Was Not Immediately Damaging To LGBTQIA+ Rights Outside Of Philadelphia… “Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case involving a Catholic group that objects to placing foster children with same-sex couples, was widely expected to be a sweeping victory for the religious right, and a correspondingly significant defeat for LGBTQ rights. Instead, the Court’s opinion dodges nearly all of the important issues raised by the case. It’s still a small win for religious conservatives and a similarly small loss for the LGBTQ community in Philadelphia. But the Court’s decision is unlikely to have many implications outside of that city.” [Vox, 6/17/21]
• …It Nevertheless Signaled That A Taxpayer-Funded Entity Could Discriminate Against LGBTQIA+ People Without Consequence. “The dramatic nature of Thursday’s decision was underlined by the fact that the case involved government contracting — an area of the law in which the court in the past has said that government is at the apex of its power to impose conditions on how the taxpayers’ money is spent.” [NPR, 6/17/21]

Before And After Its Counsel Role In Fulton, Becket Represented Michigan And South Carolina Foster And Adoption Agencies In Other Cases Attempting To Erode LGBTQIA+ Discrimination Protections, Including Dumont v. Lyon, Buck v. Gordon, And Rogers v. HHS. [Becket, accessed 10/4/24]

In Related Fostering Litigation, Becket Represented Homophobic Couples In Lasche v. New Jersey Department Of Children And Families And Burke v. Walsh. [Becket, accessed 10/4/24]

In A Case Resembling Masterpiece Cakeshop, Becket And Thomas More Society Worked Together To File An Appeal For A California Baker Refusing To Design Wedding Cakes For Same-Sex Couples. [Becket Cathy’s Creations Respondents Brief, 1/18/24]

• Before Becket Joined The Case, Thomas More Society Argued That The Free Exercise Clause Permitted Baker Cathy Miller To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples. “A California judge has ruled in favor of a bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple because it violated her Christian beliefs. California’s department of fair housing and employment had sued Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, arguing that the owner, Cathy Miller, intentionally discriminated against the couple in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Miller’s attorneys argued her right to free speech and free expression of religion trumped the argument that she violated the anti-discrimination law.” [The Guardian, 10/24/22]

In An Amicus Brief For Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Becket Argued The Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage Would Cause “Incremental Harm To Religious Liberty.” “Although religious liberty does not appear on the face of the questions presented, the Court’s decision in these cases will nevertheless have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty. If the Court rules in favor of Petitioners, then the decision will result in the recognition of same-sex marriage by the states that have not done so already, and some incremental harm to religious liberty will follow. […] [T]he tension between protecting religious liberty and laws enforcing same-sex marriage will continue and will result in future conflicts, some of which inevitably will reach this Court.” [Becket Obergefell Amicus Brief, 3/6/15] 

Becket Urged SCOTUS To Exclude Gender Identity Protections Under Title IX So That Medical Providers Could More Easily Deny Health Care To Transgender People. “Redefining ‘sex’ under Title IX to include ‘gender identity’ will open a Pandora’s box of litigation with massive impact on religious organizations and individuals well beyond the education arena. It will directly infringe the right of religious health care providers to rely on their best medical and moral judgment in determining appropriate care for transgender individuals.” [Becket Gloucester County School Board Amicus Brief, 1/10/17]

Becket Filed An Amicus Brief In Masterpiece Cakeshop Supporting Anti-LGBTQIA+ Discrimination By Businesses. “LGBT customers can obtain their desired services from many willing vendors, and religious individuals such as Phillips need not forfeit their livelihood.” [Becket Masterpiece Cakeshop Amicus Brief, 9/7/17]

Becket Supported AAC Intermediary NIFLA, Arguing That AACs Can Lie In Their Commercial Speech To Prevent People From Accessing Abortions Because They Provide “Free” Services. “Between pregnancy centers and the women who come to them for help, there is not even a passing of the plate. And this Court has never held that speech by entities who provide all their services for free and in furtherance of a moral or religious mission can be regulated as ‘commercial.’ […] Here, under this Court’s longstanding test, the Ninth Circuit was correct to conclude that the speech by licensed pregnancy clinics who provide all of their services for free is not ‘commercial.’” [First Resort NIFLA Amicus Brief, 1/16/18]

Becket Claimed In Its Support Of Mississippi In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) That Abortion “Haunts The Law” And Dismissed The Real Obstacles Religious Exemptions Cause To Contraception Access. “Abortion haunts the law. The Court’s abortion cases — and the Roe/Casey framework in particular — neither fit within the bounds of the Constitution’s design nor help to resolve in any meaningful way the underlying societal conflict over abortion. One casualty of this phenomenon is the law of religious liberty, which has also been haunted by abortion. For example, a decade after the contraceptive mandate was first promulgated, religious nonprofits still face the imposition of millions of dollars in fines. But in all that time, no one has identified a single woman who could not obtain contraceptives if the government simply left ministries like the Little Sisters of the Poor alone. Thus, abortion proponents’ purpose in ensuring that the mandate is applied to religious nonprofits is not to solve any real-world problem but is instead symbolic: to ensure that all organizations, religious or not, toe the party line on contraception and abortion.” [Becket Dobbs Amicus Brief, 7/27/21]

Becket Filed An Amicus Brief On Behalf Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Member Christian Medical and Dental Associations For Moyle v. United States (2024) And Idaho v. United States (2024), Arguing That Harmful Anti-Abortion Beliefs In The Name Of Religion Supercede The Right To Medically Necessary Emergency Abortion Care Under EMTALA. “HHS has spent more than a decade embroiled in litigation over the contraceptive mandate and the transgender mandate, regulations that impose draconian penalties on religious healthcare professionals who serve their communities. In that time, HHS has repeatedly used its regulatory authority to trample the rights of religious objectors. Federal courts—including this Court—have had to repeatedly intervene to ensure the agency follows RFRA. But here, HHS didn’t even try, instead dashing off a guidance document just weeks after this Court’s Dobbs decision in a transparent attempt to protect access to abortion at all costs.” [Christian Medical and Dental Associations Moyle and Idaho Amicus Brief, 2/27/24]

In An Amicus Brief Supporting A Homophobic Web Designer, Becket Argued That The Right To Freely Discriminate Against LGBTQIA+ People Matters More Than Enforcing Anti-Discrimination Protections. “Colorado’s stubborn insistence on forcing religious wedding vendors to conform to its moral vision is a shameful chapter in that State’s history, and one that is a dark echo of past outrages on religious speech in the Anglo-American tradition.” [Becket 303 Creative Amicus Brief, 6/2/22]

In An Amicus Brief Filed On Behalf Of Little Sisters, Becket Asked SCOTUS To Eliminate The Chevron Deference In Order To Sharply Curtail Federal Agencies’ Authority To Protect Reproductive And Transgender Health Care By Transferring Their Decision-Making Authority To The Federal Courts. “This case offers an opportunity for the Court to exercise the checking role the Constitution entrusts to it. Abjuring a rule of judicial deference that tends to fuel executive overreach is a good in itself. But eliminating undue deference will also reduce future church-state conflicts, since most recent religious liberty conflicts have originated not with Congress but with regulators. Eliminating Chevron deference will not fix everything; this Court cannot make Congress do its job. But this Court can prevent the Executive Branch from rushing in where Congress fears to tread, and that alone would be an important rebalancing of power.” [Little Sisters Loper Bright Amicus Brief, 7/24/23]

In A Hypocritical Amicus Brief, Becket – Notorious For Constructing “Religious Freedom” Arguments To Impede Reproductive Health Care At Any Cost – Argued Hoosier Jews For Choice Cannot Claim That The State’s Abortion Ban Violates Their Rights Under The RFRA. “Abortions are, tragically, sought for many reasons—but only post-Dobbs did religious abortion claims become prominent. […] Indeed, here, organizational Plaintiffs do not claim their religious beliefs require or even motivate their potential future abortions, saying only that they can ‘connect’ their objections to Indiana’s law to religion.” [Indiana Catholic Conference, Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, 5/21/24]

• To Becket’s Chagrin, Many Jewish Believers Are Compelled To Protect Abortion Rights Per Their Faith. “Christians aren’t the only people of faith with deeply held religious convictions regarding reproductive rights. Judaism not only teaches that abortion is permitted, but compels Jewish faith leaders to fight for reproductive rights […]. If Judaism teaches that abortions are necessary, then laws denying the right to an abortion infringe upon the religious freedoms of Jewish people to have them.” [Vox, 7/3/22] 

Alongside Other Firms, Becket Filed An Amicus Brief On Behalf Of Anti-Abortion Medical Groups… “Americans United for Life joined forces with other pro-life legal organizations to file the leading pro-life amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration’s healthcare law, violates the Constitution by forcing Americans to pay for abortion. […] AUL joined lead counsel Bioethics Defense Fund, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Life Legal Defense Foundation in filing a brief on behalf of American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro-Life Nurses, and Medical Students for Life of America.” [Americans United for Life, Press Release, 2/13/12]

• Many Of These Same Groups Would Later Go On To Form The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine And Sue The FDA To Gut Access To Mifepristone. [Pro-Lies.org, accessed 10/25/24]

Becket Has Served As A Reference To Likeminded Law Firms On More Than 90 Lawsuits Attempting To Gut The ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate And Prevent Insurance Coverage Of Abortion. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]

These Firms Include Alliance Defending Freedom, Thomas More Society, First Liberty Institute, Liberty Counsel, American Center For Law And Justice, American Freedom Law Center, And Jones Day. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]

• Among These Cases, Becket Served As A Reference For ADF When It Represented AAC Contractor Real Alternatives In A Lawsuit Against The Obama HHS. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]
• Becket Served As A Reference For ADF Again When It Represented March For Life In Another Lawsuit Against The Obama HHS. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]
• Becket Served As A Reference For ADF When It Represented Religious-Right Figurehead Dr. James Dobson In Another Lawsuit Against The Obama HHS. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]
• Becket Served As A Reference For The American Freedom Law Center When It Represented Priests For Life In A Lawsuit That Would Later Be Folded Into The SCOTUS Case Zubik v. Burwell. [Becket, accessed 10/11/24]

Becket Filed An Amicus Brief In Pavez v. Chile, A Case Overseen By The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Concerning A Lesbian Woman’s Withdrawn Teaching Certification By The Catholic Diocese Of Chile. [Becket Pavez v. Chile Amicus Brief, filed 5/6/21]

Becket Filed An Intervenor’s Brief In Fernández Martínez v. Spain, A Case Overseen By The European Court Of Human Rights Concerning A Married Priest’s Teaching Contract. [Becket Fernández Martínez v. Spain Intervenor’s Brief, filed 3/15/15]

For Its 2023 Fiscal Year, Becket Reported Total Revenue Of $17,272,623, Total Expenses Of $10,668,730, And Net Assets Of $18,078,708.

[Becket Fund 2023 Form 990, filed 2/2/24]

Becket Is Also Affiliated With The Becket Reserve, A 501(c)(3) Designated To Fundraise For Becket That Has Not Filed Tax Documents Since Fiscal Year 2014. [ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, “Becket Reserve,” accessed 11/13/24]

After It Filed The First Lawsuit Challenging The ACA’s Birth Control Benefit, Becket Reported Donations Rising By More Than 60 Percent. “Although its supporters were always conservative, right-wing activists began to fill Becket’s coffers just as the contraception-mandate litigation took off. The group’s contributions and grants rose by more than 60 percent in the year after the Belmont Abbey suit was filed.” [The American Prospect, 6/18/14]

Board Chairman William Mumma Once Said Becket Receives 70 Percent Of Its Donations From Individuals. “Becket relies on donors to underwrite its free representation of clients. Some 70% of its donations come from individuals, usually in $25,000 to $100,000 chunks, says Becket Fund president Bill Mumma.” [TIME, 10/7/14]

For Its Fiscal Year 2017, Becket Gave Stanford Law School $1.6 Million To Help Establish Its Religious Liberty Clinic; The Firm Is Connected To Stanford Via Professor Michael McConnell. “The Religious Liberty Clinic is housed within the Stanford Mills Legal Clinic and is the latest addition to the law school’s distinguished program of clinical legal education. The clinic was made possible, in part, by a generous $1.6 million gift from the The Washington DC based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.” [Becket Fund 2017 Form 990, Filed 5/17/18]

Between 2013 And 2016, The Trump-Connected Mercer Family Foundation Gifted Becket $1 Million. “Charity filings show that between 2013 and 2016, the Mercer Family Foundation gave a million dollars to the Becket Fund, on whose board Leo has served since 2014.” [The Nation, 9/5/18]

The Center For Media And Democracy Reported That Between 1998 And 2022, Right-Wing Grantmaker The Lynde And Harry Bradley Foundation Awarded Becket Grants Ranging From $25,000 To $225,000. [Center for Media and Democracy, SourceWatch, 2/27/24]

Becket Has A Financial Relationship With The Leonard Leo-Funded Donors Trust, Which Gave Becket $130,500 In Its Fiscal Year 2022 Alone.

[Donors Trust 2022 Form 990, Filed 10/31/23]

Becket Has Received Funding From The Anti-Abortion Ed Uihlein Family Foundation. “The Uihleins are known for anti-abortion activism and election denialism. […] The Uihleins have given generously to Becket, a powerful religious law firm, the Pro-Life Action League and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which provides model legislation to states, including anti-abortion laws and information.” [The Guardian, 2/29/24]

• For Its Fiscal Year 2023, The Uihleins Gave Becket $50,000.

[Ed Uihlein Family Foundation 2023 Form 990, Filed 8/26/24]

Between 2006 And 2010, The Anti-LGBTQIA+ And Anti-Abortion Catholic Group Knights Of Columbus Gave Becket More Than $1.5 Million. “So how much of the Knights’ money has been diverted to this conservative law firm? A lot. Between 2006 and 2010, Knights officials diverted over $1.5 million to the Becket Fund under the guise of annual ‘charitable contributions.’” [National Catholic Reporter, 7/10/14]

Prominent Anti-Abortion And Anti-LGBTQIA+ Hedge Fund Manager Sean Fieler Directed $650,000 To Becket Via The Chiaroscuro Foundation. “Fieler appears to have given nearly $13 million to the foundation since 2006, with contributions ramping up in 2010. […] In all, Chiaroscuro disbursed some $19.2 million to conservative, and mostly religious, organizations between 2011 and 2013, […] [including] $650,000 to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the nonprofit law firm that, along with the Alliance Defending Freedom, has played a central role in the scores of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act.” [Rewire, 9/23/14]

U.S. Senator And Former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Once Gave Becket $25,000. “In 2008, Romney gave $25,000 to the Becket Fund, a religious-rights legal aid group that is suing the Obama administration on behalf of a North Carolina Catholic college over federal rules requiring employer health plans to cover contraceptives and other birth control.” [Pioneer Press, 12/22/11]

Baltimore Was Ordered To Pay $1.1 Million In Legal Fees For An AAC Represented By Becket. “Baltimore’s spending board voted Wednesday to pay $1.1 million to cover a Christian pregnancy center’s legal fees after a federal court ruled a city law violated the center’s First Amendment rights. The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns sued the city and the case wound its way through the legal system for nearly a decade before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January.” [Baltimore Sun, 9/12/18]

The U.S. Government Was Ordered To Pay Becket $2.2 Million In Legal Fees Over Its Litigation Challenging Reproductive And Transgender Health Care Protections Under The ACA’s Section 1557. “A federal judge in Texas has hit the U.S. government with a $2.2 million legal tab, awarding fees to the nonprofit Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for its work leading a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department over abortion and gender identity.

In a 19-page order, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Wichita Falls, Texas, on Tuesday approved most of the compensation that Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund sought after winning its case.” [Reuters, 7/12/23]