Defending the Contraceptive Rule

BOSTON – More than a dozen Quincy residents with diverse religious beliefs asked the state’s highest court today to uphold a ruling that blocked the Quincy mayor’s plan to install two large religious statues at the entrance of the city’s new public safety building. The plaintiffs argue that installing the ten-foot-tall statues — which depict the Catholic iconography of Saint Michael the Archangel and Saint Florian — as the sole adornments on the building’s facade would undermine religious pluralism in Quincy and violate the Massachusetts Constitution’s longstanding requirement that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. Today’s hearing follows an October 2025 ruling by a Norfolk Superior Court judge, which held that the City’s planned religious display would likely violate Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and temporarily enjoined the city from proceeding with the installation. The City appealed that ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court. "I am here as an American, and as a Christian," said Conevery Bolton Valencius, a resident of Quincy for more than 20 years and plaintiff in the case. "My faith is at the center of my life. If the government lifts up one religion over others, then no one’s faith is safe. All of us deserve the freedom to follow where our faith leads — or to have no faith at all. Installing statues of saints at the entrance to a prominent government building signals a preference that threatens my religious liberty. I want statues like these at my church, not looming over the doors of our new public safety building.” “I am deeply troubled by the City’s plans to install two large Catholic icons on a government building," said Claire Fitzmaurice, a resident of Quincy and a plaintiff. "To me, these statues are clearly religious. The winged figure of St. Michael the Archangel is even depicted stomping on the head of a demon! As an active member of my Unitarian Universalist church, one of my central religious principles is religious pluralism. These 10-foot-tall statues at the entrance to our public safety building violate that principle by literally elevating one faith above all others. This sends a clear signal that those who hold different religious beliefs are second-class citizens in Quincy. No city should send that message — especially when providing essential services.” Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights guarantees that “all religious sects and denominations ... shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” The Supreme Judicial Court’s 1979 ruling in Colo v. Treasurer and Receiver General set forth a careful balancing test to analyze government actions challenged under Article 3. Plaintiffs in this case argue that the planned installation fails this test, and the Superior Court agreed that they were likely to succeed in this argument. “The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights demands that our government remain neutral in matters of religion,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “This neutrality is precisely what allows the richly varied beliefs of our clients and others — including deeply held Christian beliefs — to flourish in cities like Quincy and across the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court established the legal test to analyze Art. 3 claims nearly 50 years ago, and for good reason, that test remains good law. Under that test, installing these statues as the sole adornment on a government building, especially one intended to provide essential services to all residents, violates our state constitution.” The plaintiffs in Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy filed their lawsuit in May 2025 after local media revealed Mayor Thomas P. Koch’s plan to install the statues, which had been commissioned in secret nearly a year and a half earlier. The estimated cost to taxpayers is at least $850,000. None of these details had previously been disclosed either to the public or to the full Quincy City Council. Despite significant opposition from constituents — including an online petition with over 1,600 signatures and a statement from 19 local faith leaders — the mayor pressed forward with his plan. In October, the Norfolk Superior Court denied the City’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the planned installation. Rejecting arguments that the Saint Michael and Saint Florian statues are secular, the court held that "the depiction of the statues, their association with one religion, and the various reactions of community members, City Council members, and faith leaders demonstrate Plaintiffs will likely be able to show that the statues convey to the public observing them the implicit government support for the religious doctrine and adherents of Catholic / Christian faith, and as a result, the subordination of other religions." The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Cloherty & Steinberg LLP. Find more information about Fitzmaurice et al. v. City of Quincy here.

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today upheld S.B. 10, a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom across the state. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are a multifaith group of 15 Texas families with children in public schools. The organizations representing the plaintiffs issued the following statement in response to the decision: "We are extremely disappointed in today’s decision. The Court’s ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority. The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights. We anticipate asking the Supreme Court to reverse this decision and uphold the religious-freedom rights of children and parents.” Read the court’s opinion here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/04/2026-04-21-PUBLISHED-OPINION-FILED.-25-50695-Reversed-Judge-Nathan-v.-Alamo-Heights-ISD-ca5-2025-50695-00507945887.pdf

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In support of church-state separation and public education, a predominantly Jewish group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers – including families with children attending public schools, teachers and clergy – filed a motion today in federal court seeking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. This religious organization is trying to open the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma – a clear violation of state and federal law that defines charter schools as public schools that must be secular and open to all students. Like all public schools, charter schools cannot lawfully indoctrinate religion or discriminate. But Ben Gamla’s charter school application makes clear that Jewish religious teachings will be integrated into “every dimension of . . . life” at the school, including classroom instruction and other activities. Additionally, Ben Gamla’s application indicates that the school plans to exclude students and staff who do not share its faith. Ben Gamla’s application states that “[a]dmission assumes the student and family willingness to adhere with respect to the beliefs, expectations, policies, and procedures of the school.” Because the school would promote the beliefs of a specific religion, students and families outside that faith would effectively be excluded on the taxpayer’s dime. And Ben Gamla’s application further states that the school may base employment decisions on religion. The public school families are seeking to join the lawsuit, The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, Inc. v. Drummond, to oppose Ben Gamla’s effort to force Oklahoma to authorize and fund an unconstitutional religious public charter school. They object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will indoctrinate students into a particular religion, in violation of Oklahoma and federal law and our nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state. They also object to public funds being diverted from their nonreligious and inclusive public schools – which already face serious resource limitations – to a religious school that plans to discriminate based on religion. These taxpayers are asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to allow them to participate in the case in order to safeguard their interests in public education, religious freedom and church-state separation. “Public education is a foundation of our pluralistic society, and it is worth protecting,” said proposed intervenor Rabbi Dan Kaiman, Principal Rabbi of Congregation B’nai Emunah in Tulsa, Okla., and the parent of two public school students. “I care deeply about Jewish education, but our community does not need or want the government’s help to pass our values on to our children. The separation of church and state is what protects every faith community, including my own.” “My family is Jewish. We know firsthand that people of all faiths are best served when public schools don't impose one idea of religion over others,” said Kara Joy McKee, another proposed intervenor and parent of a public school student. “A religious public charter school would undermine religious freedom and drain tax dollars from schools that are welcoming to students of all faiths, families, and backgrounds.” The proposed intervenors are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Education Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Freedom From Religion Foundation. Many of these organizations represented Oklahomans who challenged the first attempt to establish a religious charter school in their state, which the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared unconstitutional two years ago. “Our clients are seeking to vindicate the age-old, basic constitutional principle that religious schools can’t be public schools, and public schools can’t be religious,” said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “That vital protection, guaranteed by both Oklahoma and federal law, helps ensure that public education remains available to all students, free from religious pressure or discrimination.” “The courts, Oklahoma public school families and taxpayers, and Jewish leaders in the state all have rejected the creation of the nation’s first religious public school,” said Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “We’re proud to represent Oklahomans who won’t let a religious organization backed by Christian Nationalists strong-arm the people of Oklahoma into violating the Constitution’s promises of religious freedom and church-state separation.” “Oklahoma kids and families deserve public schools that embrace everyone,” noted Oklahoma Appleseed Interim Executive Director Brent Rowland. “That includes respecting the religious freedom of every child and family rather than imposing a government-supported religious viewpoint on students, regardless of what the viewpoint is. We're grateful for partners and for Oklahomans who steadfastly insist on religious freedom within every public school — whether neighborhood or charter — and stand against diversion of public school resources to establish religious schools.” “There is a concerted effort underway to demolish the church-state separation and antidiscrimination guarantees that are crucial parts of this nation’s public school system,” said Jessica Levin, Litigation Director at Education Law Center. “The Oklahoma Supreme Court has declared religious charter schools unconstitutional, but just two years later we must defend against them once more. We will never stop fighting to protect and strengthen the public education opportunities that are the bedrock of our democracy.” “We’re honored to be part of this pushback against religious imposition,” said Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The public school system must remain secular — and we’ll do our utmost to ensure that.” Ben Gamla’s lawsuit was filed less than two weeks after Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit in state court arguing that the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board intentionally and improperly manipulated the administrative record of its denial of Ben Gamla’s application in a manner designed to aid Ben Gamla’s litigation position. Concern about statements by a majority of the board’s members expressing disagreement with state law prohibiting religious public charter schools is one reason that the proposed intervenors are seeking to participate in Ben Gamla’s lawsuit. Americans United Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser is the lead attorney for the proposed intervenors, representing them together with AU Constitutional Litigation Fellow Luke Anderson; Brent Rowland and Morgan Bandy of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice; Dan Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Jessica Levin, Wendy Lecker, Patrick Cremin, and Katrina Reichert of Education Law Center; and Nancy A. Noet and Samuel T. Grover of Freedom From Religion Foundation. A link to the filing can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/04/Ben-Gamla-Intervention-Filing.pdf

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – In a victory for religious freedom and church-state separation, a federal district court issued a permanent injunction today in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, prohibiting the school district defendants from implementing an Arkansas law that requires all public schools to permanently display a government-chosen, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library. In his decision U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks wrote, “Act 573 must be permanently enjoined. Failing to do so would violate the Establishment Clause rights of all Arkansas public-school children and their parents and also violate Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights.” Ruling that the law would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the child plaintiffs and interfere with their parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious education, Brooks explained: “Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children. The State has said the quiet part out loud.” Brooks added: “Nothing could possibly justify hanging the Ten Commandments—with or without historical context—in a calculus, chemistry, French, or woodworking class, to name a few. And the words ‘curriculum,’ ‘school board,’ ‘teacher,’ or ‘educate’ don’t appear anywhere in Act 573. Accordingly, there is no need to strain our minds to imagine a constitutional display mandated by Act 573. One doesn’t exist.” “Act 573 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we’re pleased that the court ruled in our favor,” said Samantha Stinson, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Jonathan Stinson. “The version of the Ten Commandments mandated by Act 573 conflicts with our family’s Jewish tenets and practice, and our belief that our children should receive their religious instruction at home and within our faith community, not from government officials.” “Today’s ruling is a resounding affirmation that public schools are not Sunday schools. The Constitution protects every student’s right to learn free from government-imposed religious doctrine,” said John C. Williams, legal director for ACLU of Arkansas. “Arkansas lawmakers cannot sidestep the First Amendment by mandating that a particular version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom. As the court recognized, this law served no educational purpose and instead placed the authority of the state behind a specific religious message. We’re grateful that the court has permanently blocked this unconstitutional law and protected the religious freedom of Arkansas students and families of all faiths and none.” “Today’s decision ensures that our clients’ classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state’s preferred religious beliefs,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Today’s decision honors the Constitution's promise of church-state separation and religious freedom,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It will ensure that Arkansas families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide how and when their children engage with religion." “We are delighted that reason and our secular Constitution have prevailed, and that children will be spared this unconstitutional proselytizing,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “Our public schools exist to educate, not to evangelize a captive audience.” “Today’s thoughtful decision reinforces a bedrock principle of our constitutional system: the government may not compel adherence to any religious doctrine,” said Jon Youngwood, co‑chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department. “This ruling is a critical affirmation of the First Amendment rights of students and families to decide for themselves whether—and in what ways—they engage with religion.” The injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, permanently prohibits the school-district defendants, including Bentonville School District No. 6, Conway School District, Fayetteville School District No. 1, Lakeside School District No. 9, Siloam Springs School Dist. No. 21, and Springdale School District No. 50, from “complying with Act 573.” Last year, the court issued a preliminary injunction temporarily barring the school district defendants from displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms and libraries. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 are a group of 10 multifaith and nonreligious Arkansas families with children in public schools.