Summary of facts: Youth 71Five Ministries is a Christian nonprofit organization that provides youth programs such as mentoring, vocational training, and youth centers. Its stated mission is to “teach and share about the life of Jesus Christ.” To advance this mission, 71Five requires all board members, employees, and volunteers to affirm a Christian statement of faith.

In 2023, the Oregon Department of Education’s Youth Development Division (ODEYDD) added a new eligibility rule requiring applicants to certify that they do not discriminate in employment based on protected characteristics, including religion. ODEYDD then withdrew funding from Youth 71Five, on the ground that the nonprofit violated its nondiscrimination policy by requiring employees to sign a statement of faith.

Youth 71Five sued ODEYDD, alleging that enforcement of the nondiscrimination rule violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, religious autonomy, and expressive association and sought a preliminary injunction. The federal district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Youth 71Five was unlikely to succeed on its constitutional claims. Youth 71Five appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court rejected Youth 71Five’s religious autonomy claim, holding that the religious autonomy doctrine may only be raised as a defense to a suit rather than as a standalone claim for relief.

Youth 71Five then sought en banc review in the Ninth Circuit, i.e., reconsideration of its case by all judges of the appellate court. The appellate court denied that petition and Youth 71Five is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

RFI’s position: Withdrawing otherwise available funding simply because a religious non-profit requires its own employees to adhere to the organization’s religious tenets offends the First Amendment. Depriving Youth 71Five of a judicial remedy for this violation disregards Supreme Court precedent and creates a split with other courts of appeals on a fundamental constitutional right. The Ninth Circuit allowed Oregon to force Youth 71Five to choose between public funding and faith-based hiring, reasoning that the “religious-autonomy doctrines” are mere “defenses against or limits upon plaintiffs’ invocation of judicial authority.” That is wrong. Religious autonomy is not only a defense to a suit; it may also be raised by litigants as a standalone claim for relief.

Read the brief here.