Ongoing Lawsuits - Legal - Freedom From Religion Foundation

FFRF Member Sues Warren MI After Censorship

FFRF member, Douglas Marshall, is suing the City of Warren, Mich., after his request to install a “reason station” in the atrium of City Hall was rejected.

The City allows a local church group to run a prayer station in which volunteers distribute religious pamphlets, offer to pray with passersby, and discuss their religious beliefs with people who approach the station. 

In April 2014, Marshall submitted an application to city officials to reserve space in the atrium for his “reason station” two days a week. Marshall wished to set up a station that is similar in size, structure and function to the prayer station – a folding table and chairs with literature on display and available to the public – except that his station will offer information and opportunities for discussion from a non-religious perspective.  The station would be operated by Mr. Marshall and other volunteers.  Less than two weeks after it was submitted, Marshall’s application was rejected by Warren Mayor James Fouts because Marshall’s belief system “is not a religion.”   

Marshall is asking the court to declare the City’s denial of his request to reserve and use the atrium space a violation of his First Amendment rights and to enter preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring the City to allow the reason station.

Mr. Marshall is represented by attorneys from FFRF, Americans United and the ACLU.  The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on July 23, 2014.  The case (No. 14-CV-12872) has been assigned to Judge Marianne Battani.


Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Warren Response to Preliminary Injunction Motion

Warren Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs’  Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Sept. 5, 2014

Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9

Plaintiff’s Response to Summary Judgment Motion

Defendant’s Reply Brief for Summary Judgment

On November 13, 2014, in a ruling from the bench, Judge Battani denied the City of Warren’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The parties are currently in discovery.

FFRF sues Orange County schools over literature discrimination

1174311 10200498215878043 67569236 n

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit June 12, 2013, in U.S. District Court in Florida against the Orange County School Board in Orlando for censoring distribution of freethought materials while allowing unfettered distribution of the Christian bible. Plaintiffs are FFRF, its Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, and David Williamson, who heads the Central Florida Freethought Community, an FFRF chapter. While opposing literature distribution in public schools by outside groups, FFRF, its chapter and other area secular groups decided to counter a bible distribution by handing out nonreligious literature. The legal Complaint lists dozens of factual examples of how secular materials and secular volunteers were treated differently from the bible distributors, including prohibition based on viewpoint discrimination of much of its literature.

On May 12, 2014, FFRF asked the Court to rule that Orange County Schools violated the free speech rights and equal protection rights of the plaintiffs. The Motion for Summary Judgment includes an exhaustive appendix detailing how the District-approved Bible contained themes and content identical to plaintiffs' literature, but from a religious viewpoint. This proves that the District was prohibiting plaintiffs' speech because of its message, a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

In July, Judge Kendall Sharp of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed FFRF’s free speech case against the Orange County School District because the district agreed to let FFRF distribute all of the literature it had previously prohibited. Read more about this victory here

Orange County's decision means that any group wishing to distribute materials should be allowed into the schools. In September, The Satanic Temple asked Orange County for permission to distribute its literature in the public schools as well.  

Some procedural aspects of the case are being appealed to the 11th Circuit, but FFRF and CFFC expect to participate in the January 2015 distribution and allow students access to the once-prohibited materials.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Williamson Declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Appendix I to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment


FFRF and parents seek removal of Ten Commandments monuments in front of two Penn. public schools

FFRF and parents of children in two Pennsylvania public schools filed suits in September to remove Ten Commandments displays in front of the schools.

FFRF and two parents filed the first suit on Sept. 14, 2012, against the New Kensington-Arnold School District (Pa.) to challenge a six-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument in front of Valley High School. FFRF wrote to the District in March of 2012 requesting the monument be moved because it violated federal and Supreme Court precedent prohibiting the display of the decalogue in public schools. District officials defended the monument and refused to move it.

FFRF and a student's parent filed the second suit on Sept. 27, 2012, against the Connellsville Area School District (Pa.) in a challenge to a Ten Commandments monument in front of the District's junior high school. Plaintiffs FFRF and a parent of a student seek a declaration that the display is unconstitutional and an injunction requiring it to be moved, nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

After FFRF objected, the Connellsville district initially indicated it would move the monument. Following intense public pressure, the school board voted on Sept. 12 to "delay any further action concerning moving the monument from its current location . . . until further notice and pending further legal action."

FFRF's complaint states that the continued presence of the Ten Commandments on district property is an unconstitutional advancement and endorsement of religion. The Connellsville case was transferred from Judge Cathy Bissoon on February 25, 2013 to Judge Terrence McVerry in the Pittsburgh Division of the Western District of Pennsylvania. FFRF's case against the New Kensington-Arnold School District is also before Judge McVerry. The suits will likely be joined into one. Pittsburgh-based attorney Marcus Schneider represents the plaintiffs.

Connellsville Area School District:
New Kensington-Arnold School District:

FFRF sues IRS for preferential treatment of churches, which are exempt from filing fees, filing Form 990

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its North Carolina chapter, Triangle Freethought Society, are suing the Internal Revenue Service for giving religious groups preferential treatment.

Under IRS regulations, all 501(c)3 non-profit organizations must file an onerous annual Form-990 — except churches. The Form 990 requires detailed reports on revenue and functional expenses, activities, governance, management, how groups fulfill their mission, and what proportion is spent on programs, management and fundraising.

FFRF and Triangle Freethought spend thousands of dollars each year to complete the 990. We have to track all our money and show the IRS where it all goes. Churches and other religious organizations do not have to file this form, do not have to track their funds, do not have to publicly report their funds, and do not have to pay accountants to complete the form.

The "preferential treatment of churches" directly benefits churches, while discriminating against other non-profit organizations, "solely on the basis of religious criteria."

Legal complaint
Press Release
Motion to Dismiss
Court order denying IRS's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
IRS's motion for summary judgment 
FFRF's response brief opposing the IRS motion for summary judgment
IRS's reply to FFRF's response brief 


FFRF, students, bring suit over graduation and school board prayers

FFRF and one of its South Carolina members filed suit on May 30, 2012, against School District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties challenging a district graduation prayer policy. The policy allowed prayer by a vote of the graduating class. Matthew Nielson, an Irmo High School senior at the time, was the lead plaintiff.

A district policy titled "School Ceremonies and Observations" set guidelines for benedictions and invocations at graduations and athletic events: Use of prayer "will be determined by a majority vote of the graduating senior class with the advice and counsel of the principal." The school facilitated a vote by students and the graduation ceremony on May 30, 2012, contained a prayer.

Two other Irmo High students joined the suit June 11, 2012. FFRF and the students, represented by local counsel Aaron Kozloski, asked the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, to declare the district's policy null and void, enjoin it from further school-sponsored graduation prayers and to award damages, costs and attorney fees. On Nov. 16, 2012, the plaintiffs amended the suit to also challenge prayers before Board of Trustees meetings.

The District and the plaintiffs subsequently settled the graduation prayer issue once the District rescinded its prayer policy in August of 2013 and paid the plaintiffs’ attorney fees.

On August 7, 2014, the plaintiffs filed for summary judgment on the issue of prayer at school board meetings. "A school board is not the same as a state legislature or a city council," the brief states. "Rather, it is by design and activity created solely for the governance and operation of a public school system. As such, school board prayers are scrutinized for constitutionality under tradition Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie presides over the case.



Amended Complaint

Second Amended Complaint


FFRF Summary Judgment Brief

District Summary Judgment Brief

District Summary Judgment Response Brief

FFRF Summary Judgment Response Brief


FFRF challenges Catholic shrine on Big Mountain

FFRF filed suit in U.S. District Court in Montana, challenging the Forest Service's decision to renew a special permit for a "shrine to our Lord Jesus Christ" on federal property in the Rockies. The Knights of Columbus, a conservative Roman Catholic men's club, has placed a devotional shrine on Big Mountain near Whitefish Mountain's Resort Chair Two in Flathead National Forest, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. On June 24, 2013, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen issued a ruling granting summary judgment for the Defendants.

Legal complaint

Read News Release

Affidavit (Aug. 14, 2012)

Order (Nov. 27, 2012) 

Read FFRF's Nov. 28, 2012, news release

Government's Brief for Summary Judgment 

Intervenor's Brief for Summary Judgment (the Knights of Columbus)

Smith declaration

FFRF Response Brief

Bonham declaration

Morris declaration

Gaylor declaration, exhibits

Decision and Order 

FFRF filed a notice of appeal on August 22, 2013. The case will be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

FFRF Appellate Brief

Government's Response Brief

Amicus Briefs filed in support of Government: 

ACLJ Amicus Brief

State of Montana and American Legion Amicus Brief

FFRF v. Lew Parish Exemption (US District Court Western District of Wisconsin) (Sept. 13, 2011)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, with plaintiffs Annie Laurie Gaylor, Anne Nicol Gaylor and Dan Barker, filed a nationally significant federal lawsuit in Madison, Wis., on Sept. 13, 2011, challenging tax benefits for “ministers of the gospel,” commonly known as “the parsonage exemption." FFRF seeks a declaration that the federal statute creating the parish exemption, as administered by the IRS and the Treasury Department, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by providing preferential tax benefits to ministers of the gospel. FFRF requests the court to enjoin the allowance or grant of tax benefits exclusively for ministers of the gospel under the litigated act. The individually named plaintiffs, either currently directors or retired directors of FFRF, currently receive a housing allowance designated by FFRF's governing body, yet do not qualify for the housing allowance as they are promoting non-belief, rather than religion. In fact, Dan Barker is an ordained minister who previously was able to utilize the housing allowance and exclude such payments from his taxable income.

Ministers, who are paid in tax-free dollars, also may deduct their mortgage interest and property tax payments. Under federal law, allowances paid to “ministers of the gospel” are not treated as taxable income. “Ministers of the gospel” may uniquely claim these benefits, so the statutes convey a governmental message of endorsement, unconstitutionally favoring religious employees and institutions over all others. The exemptions permit clergy to deduct from their taxable income housing allowances furnished as part of compensation. The unique benefits to clergy date to 1954, when Congress amended the tax code to permit all clergy to exempt their housing costs from their incomes taxes. U.S. Rep. Peter Mack, author of the amendment, declared:

"Certainly, in these times when we are being threatened by a godless and antireligious world movement we should correct this discrimination against certain ministers of the gospel who are carrying on such a courageous fight against this foe. Certainly this is not too much to do for these people who are caring for our spiritual welfare."

“The income taxation of ministers of the gospel under the general rules that apply to other individuals would not interfere with the religious mission of churches or other organizations or the ministers themselves,” the legal complaint maintains. The statutes are not an accommodation of religion, therefore, but a subsidy.

Defendants are Jacob Lew, U.S. Treasury Secretary and John Koskinen, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner; who are all providing tax benefits only to “ministers of the gospel,” rather than to a broad class of taxpayers. (When originally filed in 2011 defendants were Timothy Geithner and Douglas Shulman). FFRF withdrew its previous case, filed in October 2009 in federal court in Sacramento with 21 federal taxpaying FFRF-dues paying plaintiffs, following the Supreme Court's 2011 decision on taxpayer standing in the Winn Arizona tax credit case. FFRF has refiled with plaintiffs who have been directly injured by the preferential law.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, Western District of Wisconsin, issued a strong 20-page opinion and order on Aug. 29, 2012, permitting FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor and President Emerita Anne Gaylor to pursue their challenge of the 1954 law. The plaintiffs receive part of their salaries designated for a housing allowance. Yet they do not qualify for the parish exemption as they are not "ministers of the gospel.” The government contested their standing to sue, but Crabb wrote that “there is no plausible argument that plaintiffs could make that they qualify as ‘ministers of the gospel,’ so it would be pointless to require plaintiffs to jump through the hoop of filing a claim to prove that they are not entitled to the exemption.”

Legal Complaint (Sept. 13, 2011)

Motion to dismiss

Amended Complaint

Opinion and Order - Motion to Dismiss

FFRF News Release "FFRF parish exemption case clears hurdle" 

Opinion and Order, August 29, 2012

Government Brief for Summary Judgement

FFRF's Brief in Opposition

Annie Laurie Gaylor Declaration

Dan Barker Declaration 

FFRF won the case in Federal Court on November 21, 2013.


The federal government filed notice on January 24, 2014, that is is appealing Judge Crabb’s ruling.  

Oral arguments will be held before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on September 9, 2014.

Government’s Appellate Brief

FFRF Brief

Government’s Reply Brief

Amicus Briefs filed in support of Government: 

Amicus Brief filed in support of FFRF:
Center for Inquiry - Amicus Brief

On November 13, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the exemption. FFRF will be retrenching its challenge of this unconstitutional subsidy. Read FFRF news release

Decision for 7th Circuit

FFRF is a non-profit, educational organization. All dues and donations are deductible for income-tax purposes.

FFRF has received a 4 star rating from Charity Navigator


FFRF privacy statement


FFRF is a member of Atheist Alliance International.