9th Circuit delivers huge blow to state’s attempt to impose transgender ideology on adoptive parents

In a huge blow to one state’s attempt to impose its own transgender ideologies on its residents, specifically adoptive parents, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that single mother Jessica Bate’s First Amendment rights likely were violated in Oregon’s orchestrated attempt to force her to embrace its gender campaign.

“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,” the 9th Circuit wrote in its ruling in Bates v. Pakseresht. “Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone. And a state’s general conception of the child’s best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights.”

Bates had applied to become certified to adopt children from foster care two years ago. But the state agency overseeing child welfare programs denied her application based only on the fact Bates would not agree to lie about a child’s gender by using inaccurate pronouns, or to take children to “Pride” parades.

The court decisions leaves Bates free to begin the process of adopting siblings from foster care without violating her religious beliefs while the legal fight continues.

Bates was represented by the ADF in her 2023 lawsuit challenging an Oregon Department of Human Services rule that categorically excluded her from adopting any child—no matter their age or beliefs—”because she would not lie to children and tell them that girls can be boys and vice versa,” the ADF reported.

The ruling said Bates likely will succeed in showing that Oregon is violating the First Amendment.

“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 ADF lawyer Jonathan Scruggs.

“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.”

Bates had confirmed to the state she would love and accept any child placed with her, but she still was rejected.

The ADF also noted that earlier this year, a coalition of foster and adoptive parents, religious liberty organizations, free speech advocates and those who promote families, 20 states and others argued in support of Bates in documents with the 9th Circuit.