Our Work

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae, supports the appellant in challenging a California school district’s policy of socially transitioning students without parental knowledge or consent. This case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Foundation argues that school policies allowing staff to change a child’s name and gender identity at school while concealing those actions from parents violate the fundamental rights of parents to oversee the care, custody, upbringing, and education of their children. The brief contends that school policies concealing a child’s social transition from parents violate both the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of parental rights and the First Amendment’s protection of religious exercise. Citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the Court’s recent decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Foundation urges the court to reaffirm that parents—not the state—have primary authority over decisions affecting their children’s identity, moral development, and well-being.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae, supports the petitioners in challenging Washington State laws that allow shelters to conceal runaway children from their parents while facilitating transgender-related services. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Foundation argues that parents should not be forced to wait until they have lost custody of their children before they can challenge policies that threaten their constitutional rights. The brief contends that Washington’s shelter framework undermines the longstanding right of parents to raise their children according to their convictions, make decisions regarding their welfare, and impart their family’s values and beliefs. The Foundation urges the Court to protect parental rights, clarify standing doctrine, and ensure that parents are not excluded from decisions that shape their children’s care, development, and future.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae, supports the petitioners in Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, where eight Washington firefighters were placed on unpaid leave after requesting religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Foundation argues that the firefighters’ requests were denied based on claims that accommodating their religious beliefs would impose an undue hardship on the department. Yet after being reinstated, the firefighters continued serving without the operational problems the employer had predicted. The brief contends that lower courts are divided on the proper standard for evaluating religious accommodation claims under Title VII, leaving religious employees with unequal protections across the country. The Foundation urges the Court to establish a clear standard for religious accommodations and safeguard the rights of employees seeking to practice their faith in the workplace.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae, supports the petitioners in their challenge to Colorado’s exclusion of Catholic preschools from the State’s Universal Preschool Program. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Foundation argues that Colorado is denying participation in a public benefit program unless Catholic schools agree to policies that conflict with their religious beliefs regarding marriage, sex, and gender. The brief contends that the First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions to govern their internal affairs and carry out their faith-based mission without government interference. The Foundation further argues that the State may not use public benefits as leverage to pressure religious schools into abandoning their religious convictions. The Foundation urges the Court to protect the autonomy of religious institutions and reaffirm the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty.

In Cambridge Christian v. Florida High School Athletic Association, we defended the right of students and faculty to begin a football game with voluntary public prayer. The state prohibited the prayer solely because it was broadcast through a government-controlled microphone, wrongly invoking the judge-made “government speech” doctrine to suppress religious expression. We argued that the Founders would not have recognized such a doctrine, and that the First Amendment was written to restrain government, not shield it from scrutiny. Public prayer has deep roots in American civic life, and the Constitution protects—not prohibits—such expressions of faith.

In Wuoti v. Winters, we defended the right of religious foster parents to provide loving homes without being coerced into affirming gender ideologies that violate their faith. The state of Vermont is now denying licenses to families who won’t use preferred pronouns or support social transitioning—even if these families have otherwise demonstrated exemplary care. We argued that such requirements amount to compelled speech and religious discrimination, and that they dangerously reduce the number of safe, nurturing homes available to vulnerable children.

In Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles, we stood beside a mother whose daughter was socially transitioned at school—without her knowledge or consent. The school district adopted a policy of “secret gender transitioning,” keeping parents in the dark and actively working against the family’s moral and religious values. We exposed this policy as a shocking breach of constitutional parental rights and religious liberty and a disturbing step toward a future where the state, not the family, determines a child’s identity.

In Chiles v. Salazar, we supported a Christian counselor in Colorado who is prohibited by law from offering talk therapy that aligns with the client’s biological sex and personal convictions. The state has declared that even compassionate conversations aimed at helping children accept their God-given bodies are “dangerous” and must be banned. We argued forcefully that such laws are not only scientifically unfounded—they are unconstitutional violations of free speech, religious liberty, and parental rights.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Wolford v. Lopez, supports the petitioners who challenge Hawaii’s sweeping restrictions on the public carrying firearms. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Foundation argues that these restrictions violate the plain text of the Second Amendment, disregard the historical understanding of the right to bear arms, and conflict with recent Supreme Court precedent, including District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Furthermore, the Foundation contends that the right to self-defense, particularly the duty of parents to protect their children, is inextricably linked to the right of life, and that Hawaii’s policy unjustly deprives citizens of both. The Foundation urges the Court to grant review and reaffirm the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Oliver v. City of Brandon, supports the petitioner who challenges restrictions on free speech and religious exercise outside a public amphitheater. This case is before the U.S Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Foundation argues that so-called “free speech zones” unlawfully suppress constitutionally protected expression and that Gabriel Oliver’s right to preach the Gospel was unjustly curtailed. Furthermore, the Foundation contends that the lower courts misapplied Heck v. Humphrey to bar Oliver’s claim for prospective relief, deepening an existing circuit split. The Foundation urges the Court to restore Oliver’s rights and reaffirm the availability of federal remedies for ongoing constitutional violations.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, supports the petitioners who seek equal treatment for religious charter schools under Oklahoma law. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Foundation argues that tax-funded education inherently constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion- whether that be secularism or a religious worldview- since education transmits ideological values. Nevertheless, the Foundation maintains that if such funding exists, it must not discriminate against religious schools like St. Isidore, which deserve the same opportunities afforded to “nonsectarian” Institutions.

The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Mahmoud v. Taylor, supports the petitioners who are parents objecting to school policies that did not allow them to opt-out their children from LGBT education materials in the Montgomery County School System. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Foundation argues that all taxpayer-funded education is an unconstitutional establishment of religion because it necessarily promotes a belief system, in this case, secular gender ideology.