Skip to primary navigation Skip to content
- Endorsed Legislation
- During the 116th Congress, the CFC endorsed
- Commissioned a GAO report on:
- What types of court-ordered, federally funded drug treatment programs currently exist and what are their characteristics (e.g., religion-based)?
- What is known about cases in which defendants have refused drug treatment options in federally funded adult drug courts, including the number of cases and the basis for such refusal?
- To what extent has DOJ, or its grantees, examined potential barriers, including religious barriers, for individuals to enter court-ordered drug treatment programs?
- Led letter opposing the nomination of Judge Walker: In On Fire Christian Ctr., Inc. v. Fischer, Judge Walker issued a temporary restraining order against Louisville, Kentucky, to prevent the city’s stay at home order from thwarting city residents’ Easter Sunday church gatherings after a city church sued the city and the mayor. The church claimed the city government had, as part of efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, banned the church’s drive-in Easter service. However, city guidelines had welcomed Louisville residents to attend such church services despite the city’s stay at home order but simply encouraged them to do so by practice safe social distancing. Despite ample the evidence disproving the church’s allegations, Judge Walker insisted on wading into the case and issuing a temporary restraining order against the city. In his decision, Walker hyperbolically claimed that “On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter.” Furthermore,Walker cast aside the adversarial process that lies at the heart of our judicial system. Walker issued the opinion ex parte—that is, without giving the government a chance to respond or seeking to hear its side of the case. Moreover, Walker’s 20-page order relied on citations to the bible over fact. Factually, Walker relied only on the church pastor’s affidavit, and accepted no input from the city.
- Led letters with the Democratic Women’s Caucus and Equality Caucus to 9 federal agencies opposing new faith based regulations under the Trump administration. The proposed rules sought to weaken important first amendment rights. Their enactment would greatly undermine our country’s social safety net by reducing people’s access to critical services, with the most vulnerable in our communities facing the greatest harm. The nine proposed rules eliminate critical religious freedom protections recommended by the previous administration’s President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood partnerships for people who use government-funded social service programs. The proposed changes are wide-ranging; they span many governmental agencies and include removing a requirement for religious providers to notice a beneficiary of alternative providers if they are uncomfortable with the provider’s religious affiliation, doing away with a requirement for faith based providers to give beneficiaries written notice of their rights alerting beneficiaries that they cannot be discriminated against based on the provider’s religious affiliation, and vastly expanding religious exemptions under Title IX. a
- Led a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, to protect the religious liberties of all the platform’s users. Today, many ex-religious members of various faiths have found a home in online platforms, such as Facebook, where they can cultivate a community of other non-religious individuals. For example, Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA) is a nonprofit organization with a Facebook group dedicated to erasing the stigma associated with leaving Islam and normalizing dissent in Muslim communities. Despite non-religious individuals’ efforts to protect themselves in a safe space, religious extremists have still found ways to undermine their freedom of thought. Extremists groups have targeted groups such as EXMNA by abusing Facebook’s reporting system for inappropriate content. Religious extremists will falsely report that groups such as EXMNA should be blocked from the site and have their pages taken down under the guise that such content violates the site’s standards for appropriate content. In the absence of any offensive content, such actions are clearly an attempt to deny individuals their community and promote their own religious agenda.