Oregon gender ideology rule for adoptive parents likely violates Constitution, court says

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 25, 2025 / 15:53 pm (CNA).

A federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ordered that the Oregon Department of Human Services must allow the mother, Jessica Bates, to begin the process of adopting two children without first making her comply with the gender ideology affirmation.

Bates, who is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, challenged the department rule in 2023. The rule requires that, to obtain certification to become an adoptive or foster parent, the applicant must agree to “respect, accept, and support the … sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression … of a child or young adult” who is placed in the home.

According to the lawsuit, Bates told the certification officer that she would love and treat any child as her own. Yet, she was denied certification because she said she would not provide transgender drugs to the child if he or she requested them and would not use a child’s preferred pronouns if he or she began to identify as transgender.

Bates was seeking to adopt two children under the age of 9. The gender ideology affirmation rule applies to any person seeking to foster or adopt, regardless of how old the children are and regardless of whether any of the children suffer from gender dysphoria or other gender identity issues.

Bates is a devout Christian who objected to promoting values to her adoptive children that conflict with her religious beliefs, according to the lawsuit. The court agreed with her objections, saying that adoption is “not a constitutional law dead zone” and that state’s interests do not “create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights.”

“We deal here with two vital such rights: the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion,” the ruling stated.

The court opinion states the rule “restricts and requires speech based on content and viewpoint in the areas of sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression.” It also found that although the state is not likely acting on a “hostility or animus toward religion” with its enforcement of the rule, it is still not a “policy neutral toward religion” because certain religious beliefs are implicated.

In the opinion, the court’s majority found that Bates is likely to succeed on the merits of her challenge against the Oregon rule. The case is still ongoing and does not settle the constitutionality of the rule, which will likely be decided at a later date.

Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and president of litigation strategy for Alliance Defending Freedom, argued on behalf of Bates in court. He said in a statement after the ruling that she is already a “caring mom of five [children]” who can now adopt.

“Oregon officials excluded her because of her commonsense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa,” Scruggs said.

“Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents,” he added. “That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state’s ideological crusade.”

Conscience Project Director Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, who filed an amicus brief with the court in support of Bates, told CNA that the court’s decision “is an important rebuke against the attacks of gender ideologues on people of faith.”

“There is a foster care crisis in America where there aren’t enough qualified homes to meet the needs of vulnerable children,” she said. “There is no reason to exclude loving parents with traditional Christian beliefs on human sexuality from responding to these needs of children.”

A few other states, such as Vermont, have adopted similar rules for people seeking to adopt or foster children that force them to embrace gender ideology. A handful of states, such as Kansas and Arkansas, have gone in the opposite direction, passing laws that ensure religious freedom rights for adoptive and foster parents.