This brief was filed before the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in support of the Final Exit Network, an organization who believe in the rights of mentally competent adults to voluntarily end their own life. In May of 2015 they were convicted of the felony of assisting a suicide because they provided a Minnesota resident with the necessary information for her to be able to end her own life.
FFRF’s brief argued that suppressing information on the subject of end of life care would have a direct impact on freethinkers and others who support the rights of individuals to make end of life decisions without religious influence. Additionally, it explained that the Minnesota statute applied in the case would have a chilling effect on speech because it is impossible to discern what speech was permitted under the law.
FFRF joined a coalition to file this brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in opposition to the Rowan County Board of Commissioners’ prayer practice. Rowan County officials typically opened their meetings with prayer led by the commissioners and then instructed attendees to join in those prayers.
This brief argued that the prayer practice put pressure on citizens of varying or no faith to violate their conscience by participating in Christian religious exercises. It also pushed back on the notion that Greece v. Galloway would allow for this type of legislative prayer.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State authored the brief. It was also joined by the American Humanist Association, Anti-Defamation League, Center for Inquiry, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, Sikh Coalition, Union for Reform Judaism, and Women of Reform Judaism.
FFRF filed this amicus brief in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that concerns religious exemptions for retirement plans. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates retirement plans, but exempts church plans from requirements such as paying insurance premiums, meeting minimum funding standards, and disclosing funding levels to plan participants.
FFRF’s brief argued that the "church plan exemption" itself is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it treats churches preferentially.
This amicus brief was filed on May 13, 2015 in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a case surrounding religious exemptions for retirement plans. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates retirement plans, but exempts church plans from requirements such as paying insurance premiums, meeting minimum funding standards, and disclosing funding levels to plan participants.
FFRF’s brief made the argument that the "church plan exemption" itself is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it treats churches preferentially.
FFRF filed this brief with the California Court of Appeals on April 22, 2014 in support of a local atheist who opposed the city council opening their meetings with prayers. Prior to 2009, the town had no official policy on invocations. Beginning that year, anyone who volunteered was permitted to give an invocation. The practice of sectarian prayers at meetings was challenged in 2012 by the plaintiff and local resident.
The brief argued that prayers at government meetings violate the constitution. It goes on to explain that the California Constitution provides protection of the separation of state and church and that the government should refuse to use its power to endorse religious practices.
This coalition amicus brief was filed in the Supreme Court on January 27, 2014. At issue in this case was the corporation Hobby Lobby’s argument that it was “a person” under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and that the federal government’s mandate on contraceptive insurance imposed a substantial burden on the corporation’s claimed Christian beliefs.
This brief countered Hobby Lobby’s claim that for-profit corporations have a right to deny contraceptive coverage to workers based on religious objections. It argued that the intensity surrounding religious freedom and women’s reproductive health obscured the fact that the unconstitutionality of RFRA was the real issue that the court should have ruled on. FFRF’s interest in this case arose from its radical redefinition of religious liberty to include the right to impose those beliefs on others.
This brief was drafted by Constitutional legal scholar Marci Hamilton. FFRF was joined by BishopAccountability.org, Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), the Child Protection Project, the Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse, Survivors for Justice, and the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
FFRF filed this amicus brief on September 23, 2013 in the Supreme Court. This case centered around the town of Greece, NY, which began scheduling prayers to open meetings starting in 1999. Up until that point, two-thirds of the prayers had been sectarian Christian. Two local residents challenged the prayer practice as unconstitutional, one of whom was Jewish and the other an atheist.
The brief focuses on the argument of overturning Marsh v. Chambers, the 1983 decision that originally allowed for nonsectarian government prayer. It further explains that because legislative invocations are government speech that it is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.
This amicus brief was filed in October 2012 in support of the Kountze Independent School District (KISD). The issue in the case arose after KISD hosted cheerleader banners with bible verses painted on them for the football team to run through during games. FFRF sent KISD a letter of complaint in September of 2012. The District adopted a new policy on banners and requested that the cheerleading squad stop putting bible verses on run-through banners. Several cheerleaders then brought a lawsuit against the District.
FFRF’s brief focused on the argument that the cheerleaders’ banners were not an exercise of free speech. The brief argued that the banners were government speech as they were displayed in a context implying school endorsement and because the school had effective control over the messages.
This coalition amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court on September 22, 2010. The case involved tax credits for donations to groups that provide tuition payments to private, religious schools. The program started in 1997 and allowed dollar-for-dollar income tax credits for individuals who contributed to School Tuition Organizations.
This brief made the argument that the scholarship program was unconstitutional because it violates the Arizona and US Constitutions as they both prohibit government funding of religious institutions.
This brief was drafted by Attorney Bob Ritter of the American Humanist Association. FFRF joined the brief alongside the American Ethical Union, Atheist Alliance International, Center for Inquiry, Council for Secular Humanism, Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, and Universalist Association.
This coalition amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court on March 15, 2010 in collaboration with like-minded organizations. The case centered around the formation of a Christian Legal Society (CLS) student club at the UC Hastings College of the Law (now UC Law San Francisco). The law school had a non-discrimination policy that required official student clubs to be open to all regardless of faith or sexual orientation. CLS sought an exemption from the non-discrimination policy on the basis that it had a statement of faith that included restricting marriage between a man and a woman. The law school refused to provide an exemption to the policy.
The amicus brief argued that CLS was allowed to have restrictions on their membership, however, they were not entitled to school approval of their discriminatory policies. Additionally, it argued that Hastings College of the Law’s non-discrimination was allowed because it was neutral and generally applied to every student group.
This brief was drafted by Attorney Bob Ritter of the American Humanist Association. FFRF joined the brief along with The American Ethical Union, Atheist Alliance International, Institute for Humanist Studies, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, and Secular Student Alliance.
FFRF filed this amicus brief with the Eastern District Court of Michigan on December 9, 2009 on behalf of the Macomb County Road Commission. The case centered around a nativity display that had been placed without a permit along a road in Warren, MI for the previous sixty years. The Road Commission requested the removal of the display to avoid the appearance of religious endorsement.
This amicus brief argued that the Macomb County Road Commission was right to request the removal of the display. It explained that if the Commission allowed the display to stand that it would be an endorsement of religion and a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney Danielle J. Hessell of Butzel Long Law Firm.
FFRF filed this amicus brief with the Supreme Court on August 5, 2009. At issue in this case was an effort to save a large cross on public land in the Mojave Desert through a land transfer. This cross was framed as a memorial for World War I veterans.
This brief focused on the fact that many veterans are not religious and did not feel represented by the religious message the cross conveyed. It explained that the Foundation’s own membership was made up of many veterans who identified as atheist or non-religious. It also argued that a land transfer was not a viable solution and the cross should have instead been relocated to a new piece of land.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Brief on July 21, 2006 in support of the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. This case was brought by an atheist mother on behalf of her child as a challenge to the teacher-led recitation of the pledge and the “under God” language.
This brief argued that due to the “under God” language the pledge is forced religious exercise and indoctrination. It also argues that required recitation of the Pledge created a religious requirement for participation in the government.
This brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney George Daly.
FFRF filed this amicus brief with the Supreme Court on January 7, 2005 in support of the ACLU. The ACLU sued two Kentucky counties after they placed framed pictures of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the counties received unfavorable rulings they added other historic and religious documents along with interpretive signs in an attempt to claim the documents were important to the founding of the United States.
This brief argued that the displays violated the Establishment Clause because they endorsed a particular religion. It also argued that the addition of other documents and signage did not negate the intrinsically religious nature of the Ten Commandments.
This brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney James A. Friedman.
FFRF filed this Supreme Court amicus on December 13, 2004. At issue in this case was a Ten Commandments monument that was gifted to the state of Texas for display at the capitol.
This brief argued that the Ten Commandments display was a violation of the Establishment Clause because it gave the appearance of the state endorsing religion.
This brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney James A. Friedman.
FFRF filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court in February 2004. This case was centered around a challenge to The Pledge of Allegiance in the Elk Grove Unified School District by Michael Newdow.
This brief argued that the Pledge was unconstitutional in a school setting and shouldn’t be recited regardless of whether or not students are willing. It goes on to argue that the “under God” language is harmful to students whose parents are raising them to be non-religious.
This brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney Robert Tiernan.
This Supreme Court brief was filed on July 25, 2003 in support of Michael Newdow. At issue in this case was the petition to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
FFRF’s brief argued that having “under God” in the Pledge is unnecessarily divisive and unrepresentative of those who are non-religious.
This brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney Robert Tiernan.
This Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals brief was filed in collaboration with other organizations on December 2, 1997. This case centered around the state of Maryland establishing Good Friday and Easter Monday as public school holidays.
This brief took the position that allowing these to be public school holidays is an Establishment Clause violation and endorses Christianity. FFRF had a particular interest in this case because of its successful 1996 challenge to Good Friday as a state holiday in Wisconsin.
FFRF was joined in filing this brief by the National Council on Islamic Affairs, Americans for Religious Liberty, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Humanist Association and the American Ethical Union.
FFRF filed this Supreme Court amicus brief on February 23, 1995. This brief was filed in opposition to the Ku Klux Klan’s request to put up a cross on the state-house plaza in Columbus, Ohio, during the 1993 Christmas season.
This brief took the position that an unattended cross display is a violation of the Establishment Clause and it should not be permitted to be on public grounds. It argued that the First Amendment should not be applied to religious speech in this instance because it forced the government to endorse a particular religion.
This brief was drafted and filed on FFRF’s behalf by Attorney Robert Tiernan.