Case: Youth 71Five Ministries v. Charlene Williams, Individually and as Director of Oregon Department of Education, et al., No. 25-776
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-01-02
Status: Pending
Question Presented: 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 ...
On March 19, 2026, Oregon filed its brief in opposition to certiorari, and the following day petitioner Youth 71Five Ministries waived the standard 14-day waiting period before the case can be distributed for conference. That procedural move signals that petitioner is pressing for prompt consideration, likely before the Court’s current term closes.
The underlying dispute arose when Oregon added an anti-discrimination condition to its Youth Community Investment Grants program, barring grantees from making employment decisions based on religion. Because 71Five requires employees to sign a statement of faith, the state stripped it of already-awarded funds and excluded it from future grants. The Ninth Circuit merits panel affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction, holding the grant condition neutral and generally applicable. It further held that the religious-autonomy doctrine operates only as an affirmative defense, not as an independent basis for a Section 1983 claim. A motions panel had earlier reached the opposite conclusion on the injunction question.
The petition raises two distinct issues. The first is procedural but consequential: whether religious organizations may assert religious autonomy offensively under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as they would any other constitutional right, or must instead wait to be sued before invoking it. The second is substantive: whether conditioning access to a public grant program on abandoning faith-based hiring violates the First Amendment. Six amicus briefs, including submissions from a coalition of states led by Montana and from the Christian Legal Society, suggest the questions have attracted broad interest across religious and governmental actors.
The case sits at the intersection of the Court’s recent free-exercise decisions and its unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. Attorneys John J. Bursch for petitioner and Paul L. Smith for respondents will frame whether the Ninth Circuit’s defensive-only rule creates a circuit split worth resolving and whether Oregon’s grant condition can survive heightened scrutiny.