A federal appeals court has struck down an Oregon rule that required potential foster and adoptive parents to affirm a child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression — ruling that it violates the First Amendment rights of a Christian mother who refused to comply.
In a 2–1 decision Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Jessica Bates, a widowed mother of five, whose application to adopt from Oregon’s foster care system was denied because she said she could not support or facilitate a child’s gender transition due to her religious beliefs.
The court reversed a lower court decision that rejected Bates’ claim and ordered the district court to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon Department of Human Services from enforcing the rule against her while litigation continues.
Bates filed the lawsuit after telling Oregon officials that she would not use a transgender child’s preferred pronouns or take them to medical appointments related to gender-affirming care, which she characterized as “child abuse.” Her refusal, officials said, violated a state policy requiring adoptive parents to affirm and support a child’s identity across a range of categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity.
Writing for the majority, Judge Daniel Bress — a Trump appointee — said the rule unlawfully compels speech and interferes with religious freedom. He was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by President Bill Clinton.
“Oregon’s rule, as reflected in its training materials, clearly restricts and compels speech based on content and viewpoint,” Bress wrote. “Applicants must affirm the state’s perspective on sexuality and gender, while silencing opposing beliefs — particularly those rooted in religion.”
The rule, the court said, is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and fails under strict constitutional scrutiny.
Bates’ objection to the policy, the court said, wasn’t based on hostility toward LGBTQ youth but rather on her religious conviction that gender is assigned by God and immutable. The state’s decision to disqualify her from adoption on the possibility that she might one day be paired with an LGBTQ child, the majority wrote, was overly broad and speculative.
The judges also pointed to Oregon’s “Resource and Adoptive Family Training” (RAFT) materials, which encourage adoptive parents to display LGBTQ-affirming symbols and promote stories about queer figures. The court said these requirements evidence the state’s focus on compelled ideological conformity rather than child welfare.
In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, accused the majority of mischaracterizing the rule and emphasized that the requirement is about safeguarding the health and well-being of vulnerable children — not promoting state ideology.
“This rule is not some ideological litmus test,” Clifton wrote. “It is more akin to a policy requiring foster parents to vaccinate children or provide them with necessary medical care. Bates is asking the state to place children in her care despite her stated refusal to follow medical guidance.”
He also noted that Bates could pursue adoption through private agencies if she objects to Oregon’s standards, but she prefers the public system due to cost and convenience.
“If Bates wants to adopt under her terms, she’s free to do so elsewhere,” Clifton said. “But she can’t demand that the state bend its responsibility to protect children’s health and identity to fit her personal beliefs.”
The ruling is a major win for religious liberty advocates and a blow to Oregon officials, who defended the rule as necessary to ensure safe, affirming homes for all foster children. The case now returns to the district court, where litigation over the rule’s constitutionality will continue.
