For years, Petitioner Youth 71Five Ministries received grant funds from Oregon's Youth Community Investment Grants program. One year, 71Five even had a top-rated application. But that all changed when Respondents added a new eligibility rule that prohibits grantees from "discriminating" in employment based on religion. That rule stripped 71Five of already-awarded grants and disqualified it from further grants because the Christian ministry requires all employees to sign a statement of faith.

A Ninth Circuit motions panel granted 71Five an injunction pending appeal. But the merits panel disagreed and affirmed the district court's denial of an injunction as to grant-funded initiatives and dismissal of 71Five's damages claim, finding the new grant rule neutral and generally applicable. The merits panel further held that the religious-autonomy doctrine can only be asserted as an affirmative defense to a lawsuit, not to stop unconstitutional government action when it occurs. That ruling presents two questions for the Court's review:

1. Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional rights, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed, as the Ninth Circuit held here.

2. Whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.

Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging government action and whether conditioning public grant access on waiving religious employment rights violates the First Amendment