Law & Principles, Culture & the Family

Federal court ruling buoys Oklahoma anti-discrimination law

July 28, 2025

Ray Carter

During this year’s legislative session, Oklahoma lawmakers voted to prevent state officials from discriminating against religious persons who want to serve as foster or adoptive parents.

Under Senate Bill 658, by state Sen. Julie Daniels and state Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services cannot require any current or prospective adoptive or foster parent “to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs as a condition for eligibility to adopt or foster.”

Some opponents objected and argued that, in effect, devout religious persons should be prohibited from serving if they will not embrace “woke” views on transgenderism, even though SB 658 also requires state officials to take “into account the religious or moral beliefs of a particular adoptive or foster child, or his or her family of origin including, but not limited to, the child’s or family’s views regarding sexual orientation and gender identity” when determining where to place a child.

However, a recent federal court opinion fortifies the legal soundness of SB 658.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled in Bates v. Pakseresht that an Oregon mother can begin the process of adopting siblings from foster care without violating her religious beliefs about human sexuality while her lawsuit against state officials continues.

Jessica Bates, a self-described “devout Christian” and widowed mother of five is seeking to adopt two children under the age of nine, applying in May 2022 for adoptive parent certification with the state of Oregon.

However, an Oregon Department of Health Services (ODHS) policy mandated that prospective adoptive parents must agree to “respect, accept, and support” a child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Bates’ application was denied because she said she objected to using “preferred pronouns” or taking a child to medical appointments for “gender transitions,” such as the injection of cross-sex hormones or sex-change surgeries.

Neither child Bates sought to adopt identifies as transgender or gay.

And Bates told Oregon officials that if one of her children told her “that they are gay, or that they are struggling with gender dysphoria, or that they identify as transgender, I will listen to them, share my heart with them, and most of all love them and encourage them that I will continue to be there for them no matter what.”

Bates sued Oregon officials in March 2023, alleging the state’s policy violated her free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Bates.

The majority opinion stated that the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause “encompasses religious speech and practice as a way of life and not merely as private thought,” and stressed that a state policy that “specifically and repeatedly references religion and religious organizations—and casts them as taking a view contrary to the state on matters of sexuality—does not suggest a policy that is neutral toward religion.”

The majority opinion noted that it would be equally illegal to bar prospective adoptive parents based on other viewpoints or personal backgrounds, writing, “No one thinks, for example, that a state could exclude parents from adopting foster children based on those parents’ political views, race, or religious affiliations. Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone.”

“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from the adoption and foster system. Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs, who argued before the court on behalf of Bates. “Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. 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 crusade.”

Several opponents of SB 658 indicated that they would prefer for Oklahoma to adopt a version of the discriminatory policy in place in Oregon by banning devout Christians from serving as adoptive or foster parents unless they agree to embrace and promote transgender dogma.

During House debate on May 6, Democratic Leader Cyndi Munson of Oklahoma City said, “I don’t think we should be relying on adults who are outwardly saying, ‘I can’t accept and embrace all children,’ to help us solve this problem.”

During Senate debate in February, state Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, said the bill “is prioritizing adults over vulnerable children.”

However, the Christian Alliance for Orphans (CAFO) filed a brief in the Oregon case urging the court to side with Bates. The group warned that Oregon’s policy would “dangerously constrain the already too-small pool of caregiving resources available to vulnerable children.”

The alliance noted, “Dozens of Christian denominations with tens of millions of adherents share Ms. Bates’s views.”

And the group noted that Oregon’s ban would include the relatives of many adoptive children who might otherwise be able to take those children into their home.

“Of most concern to CAFO is that ODHS’s actions threaten the viability of kinship adoption and fostering by willing, loving relatives if those relatives happen to be traditionally religious,” the group’s brief stated.

Another brief, filed by four detransitioners, also urged the court to side with Bates.

The four detransitioners experienced gender dysphoria, underwent “gender transition” medical processes, and came to regret that decision. The four individuals’ joint brief stated that they “learned through their experiences that such interventions did not resolve their mental health issues or gender dysphoria, but only caused physical harm and increased their distress as they realized their bodies had been irreversibly altered based upon a false promise.”

The four detransitioners’ brief warned that Oregon’s policy requiring adoptive parents to “affirm” a child’s transgender identity is harmful, writing that their “experiences as detransitioners provide a different perspective and demonstrate that ‘affirming’ a child’s asserted gender identity can lead to significant physical and psychological harm.”

The four detransitioners said that foster-and-adoptive children experiencing gender dysphoria “deserve to grow up in a truly supportive environment where they are loved for who they are, and no one tries to change them into someone else through harmful medical procedures.”