First Liberty Calls on US Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to Uphold Religious Freedom – News

by Jorge Gomez • 4 minutes

This week, First Liberty filed friend-of-the-court briefs in two important cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Parental Rights: Choose the religious upbringing of their children

The Supreme Court agreed to a hearing United States v. Skrmettia case involving a Tennessee law that prohibits health care providers from performing sex reassignment surgery or administering hormones or puberty blockers to minors. The key question is whether this law violates the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The teenagers who challenged Tennessee’s law won in part in district court. The judge put on hold the state’s ban on hormone therapy and puberty blockers, but not the ban on gender reassignment surgery, because the teenagers were not candidates for such surgeries. But then the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision and upheld the law as constitutional. The 6th Circuit ruling rejected recognition of a new constitutional right in the area of ​​sex reassignment procedures.

Although the case is not specifically about religious freedom or the First Amendment, the outcome could impact Americans with deeply held religious beliefs about sex and gender.

We filed the petition on behalf of Abigail Martinez, a Christian mother in California whose young daughter, Yaeli, was beginning to question her sexuality. The teenager struggled with severe depression for years and an older transgender friend told her the only way to be happy was to change gender. School staff encouraged her to secretly join the LGBTQ club and hide it from her mother. The school psychologist recommended that she change gender instead of treating her depression.

Abigail tried to advocate for Yaeli to receive mental health treatment through the school, but school staff turned her away. In 2016, the state abducted Yaeli from her home. At age 19, Yaeli’s depression had not been resolved by the transition attempt. Her pain was too deep and the hormone treatment made it worse. Yaeli eventually committed suicide.

The government’s intervention in Yaeli’s life against her mother’s wishes denied Abigail the opportunity to treat her daughter’s mental health and save her life.

The families who challenged Tennessee’s law say it violates their parental rights. But as the appeals court noted, there is no deep-rooted tradition supporting the right of parents to reasonably prohibited medical treatments for children.

Our submission argues that Tennessee law does not violate parents’ rights but rather strengthens existing protections the Constitution upholds, such as the right of parents to raise their children consistent with their religious beliefs.

As we emphasize in our letter, “There is perhaps no right more deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition than the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”

“This is especially true for religious parents like Abigail Martinez,” the letter said. “If her state had passed SB1, she likely would never have lost custody of Yaeli, government officials would not have been able to order gender reassignment treatments over her objections, and her beloved daughter would likely still be alive today.”

The government cannot force Americans to express messages that go against their beliefs

First Liberty also filed an amicus brief State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Educationa case pending before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state of Kansas joins three other states and private parent, student and student-athlete groups in objecting to a Biden-Harris administration rule that seeks to rewrite Title IX to include “gender identity” in the federal definition of “sex.” .”

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a civil rights law that protects students from discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. It was written into law to provide equal opportunities and treatment for female athletes in sports from elementary school through college.

We filed the amicus brief on behalf of 30 scholars who raise concerns that the Biden-Harris administration’s rule forces schoolchildren to use other students’ preferred pronouns or risk investigation or discipline. According to the new regulation, school children are not allowed to simply remain silent. This government wants to force them to affirm preferred pronouns, even if it violates their beliefs and forces them to lie.

“They could either reveal themselves as heretical dissenters from gender ideology, betray their religious beliefs by agreeing to use preferred pronouns, or face punishment for their silence,” the letter said.

We declare that the outcome of this case impacts freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of silence – which includes the right not to express messages that are contrary to one’s religious beliefs or beliefs.

“It would be surprising and inappropriate for America’s tradition of civil liberties under the law,” the opinion concludes, “for this court to authorize a government agency to force schoolchildren to use certain pronouns in reference to a specific person, rather than them “I am free to remain silent on this matter.”