In a pivotal ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down an Oregon law that required adoptive parents to affirm LGBT identities, citing violations of the First Amendment, the Federalist reported.
This decision has significant implications for Jessica Bates, who was previously hindered in her pursuit to adopt due to her personal beliefs.
Oregon's law had mandated that adoptive parents must support any LGBT identities that children may claim. Jessica Bates challenged this requirement, stating it conflicted with her religious beliefs.
With legal support from the Alliance Defending Freedom, Bates initiated a lawsuit against Oregon in 2023. She argued that the stipulations imposed by the law infringed upon her First Amendment rights.
The case advanced to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judicial panel, including Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, and Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of Bates. The dissent was from Judge Richard Clifton, a Bush appointee.
This decision underscored the unconstitutional nature of Oregon's law, emphasizing the infringement on Bates' free speech and religious freedom rights.
Judge Bress, in his majority opinion, critiqued the state's attempt to impose specific ideologies on adoptive parents. He stated that such state-mandated orthodoxies, whether religious or political, are against constitutional principles.
The ruling articulates that adoption practices should not be influenced by any state-imposed beliefs, ensuring the process remains apolitical and secular to respect individual constitutional rights.
Bates reacted to the decision with a sense of vindication, highlighting her commitment to maintain an environment of honesty and factual discussions with children under her care.
“I refused to lie to children and tell them that girls can be boys and vice versa,” Bates expressed, emphasizing the importance of straightforward communication about gender realities.
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy at ADF, supported Bates’ viewpoints in court, arguing against the state's criteria that he deemed exclusionary and discriminatory against individuals with traditional beliefs about gender.
“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 agenda,” Scruggs stated, applauding the court's decisions.
The implications of the 9th Circuit's ruling extend beyond Oregon, potentially affecting national adoption policies and practices. It raises questions about the balance between state regulations and individual constitutional rights.
While Oregon has not indicated plans for an appeal, the decision has certainly set a precedent, prompting discussions on the rights of adoptive parents and the extent of state involvement in personal beliefs.
Bates now looks forward to proceeding with the adoption of siblings from foster care, continuing her journey to provide a loving home while maintaining her personal and religious integrity.
