Editing Alliance Defending Freedom (section)

==Litigation positions==
[[List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom|ADF's positions]] include supporting the place of religion in public institutions, opposing LGBTQ rights, opposing abortion and contraception, and other positions aligned with conservative Christianity in the United States.{{Pie chart
| caption=Issue advocacy as a function of press releases (2017)<ref name="bennett-masterpiece">{{Cite news |last=Bennett |first=Daniel |url=http://religionandpolitics.org/2017/09/19/masterpiece-cakeshop-alliance-defending-freedom-christian-supreme-court/ |title=Masterpiece Cakeshop: Meet the Christian Legal Group Behind the High-Profile Court Case |date=September 19, 2017 |work=Religion & Politics |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |location=Cambridge, England | access-date=February 14, 2018 |archive-date=November 22, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171122052755/http://religionandpolitics.org/2017/09/19/masterpiece-cakeshop-alliance-defending-freedom-christian-supreme-court/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
 | label1 = Religious liberty
 | value1 = 45 | color1 = purple
 | label2 = Opposition to [[abortion]]
 | value2 = 22 | color2 = lightskyblue
 | label3 = Opposition to [[same-sex marriage]]
 | value3 = 21 | color3 = white
 | label4 = Not specified
 | value4 = 12 | color4 = gray
 }}

===Religion in public institutions===
According to materials for its donors, ADF seeks to spread a belief in "the framers' original intent for the [[US Constitution]] and the [[U.S. Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] as it reflects God's natural law and God's higher law."<ref name=990-2008/> Before taking the oath of office as Speaker of the House of Representatives, {{as of |alt=current |2023|10}}, former ADF lawyer [[Mike Johnson]] stated, "The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority ... each of you, all of us."<ref name="johnson-christian-right" /> The organization pursues "strategies for reclaiming the judicial system as it was originally envisioned," most notably through litigation.<ref name=990-2008/>

The ADF has been involved in several [[United States Supreme Court]] cases that would permit equal access to public buildings and public funds for religious organisations, such as ''[[Rosenberger v. University of Virginia]]'' (1995) and ''[[Good News Club v. Milford Central School]]'' (2001). ADF also supported allowing [[prayer]] at the start of monthly public town meetings (see ''[[Town of Greece v. Galloway]]'') and the use of religious displays (such as [[Christian cross|crosses]] and other religious monuments) in public buildings and on [[public land]]s.<ref name="Human Events">{{Cite journal |last=Gizzi |first=John |year=2009 |title=Alliance Defense Fund Promotes Religious Freedom |journal=[[Human Events]] |volume=65 |issue=28 |page=21}}</ref>

==== Parental rights regarding sex education in schools ====
ADF has argued that parents who object to [[sex education]] on religious grounds should have the right to opt not to have their children attend.<ref name="Human Events" />

====Christian-only adoption====
In 2022, ADF took on a case defending a Tennessee-based Christian [[adoption agency]] that refused to work with Jewish prospective parents.<ref name="TN-adopt" /><ref name="TN-nyt" /><ref name="tn-apnews" /><ref name="guardian-TN" /> The case, which names the [[State of Tennessee]] as a defendant for its law permitting religious organizations to reject applicants based on faith, was dismissed on technical grounds.<ref name="mattise-dismiss" /> The case was appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals,<ref name="mattise-dismiss" /><ref name="AU" /> which reversed the trial-court panel's decision on August 24, 2023, agreeing that the prospective parents and all the other plaintiffs have the right to bring the lawsuit. The Tennessee Department of Children's Services then filed an application seeking review of the case by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which the court denied on May 16, 2024.<ref>{{cite web |last=Brown |first=Melissa |date=May 17, 2024 |title=Lawsuit alleging religious discrimination in Tennessee adoption law can proceed |url=https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2024/05/17/lawsuit-tennessee-jewish-couple-adoption-law/73734097007/ |website=[[Knox News]] <!-- agency? |work=[[USA Today]] --> |access-date={{date|March 13, 2025}}}}</ref>

Commenting on an earlier case in South Carolina, an ADF spokesperson expressed support for an [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] foster care provider in South Carolina that rejects Jewish prospective parents, as well as LGBTQ people, atheists, and other non-Christians.<ref name="miracle-hill-adl" /><ref name="barred" /> The agency, Miracle Hill Ministries, is the largest foster and adoption agency in South Carolina and receives public funding; its president has stated that its religious discrimination policy is justified, because "We look like a social service agency, but we're a community of Christ followers and our faith in Christ is the most important part of who we are."<ref name="davis-gvonline" /><ref name="exemption" /> A [[Catholicism|Catholic]] woman sued the agency after being rejected on the basis of religion, but the agency later changed its rules to permit "Catholics who affirm Miracle Hill's doctrinal statement in belief and practice to serve as foster parents and employees."<ref name="catholic-accepted" />

At the request of South Carolina governor [[Henry McMaster]], the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration]] granted the organization a waiver of federal non-discrimination law. An ADF spokesperson indicated that the organization is "grateful [to] HHS and South Carolina" for granting the waiver, which allows the agency to continue to restrict fostering and adoption work to those who endorse evangelical beliefs.<ref name="miracle-hill-adl" /><ref name="barred" /><ref name="miracle-hill-foster" />

=== Opposing LGBTQ rights===
In 2003, ADF unsuccessfully called for the [[criminalization of homosexuality|recriminalization of homosexual acts]] in the U.S. ([[Sodomy laws in the United States#Up to Lawrence v. Texas|prior to 1962, sodomy had been a felony in every U.S. state]]), filing a Supreme Court brief supporting Texas' [[sodomy law]] in the landmark ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' case which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional; it linked [[homosexuality]] to [[pedophilia]].<ref name="splc-profile" /><!--Please do not remove "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. Please see the Archives for previous discussions.--> ADF also opposes [[same-sex marriage]] and [[civil union]]s, as well as [[LGBT adoption|adoption by same-sex couples]], based on its leaders' "belief that God created men, women, and families such that children thrive best in homes with a married mother and father."<ref name="churches-face">{{cite web | url=https://www.adfchurchalliance.org/standforfreedom | title=Churches Face Mounting Religious Liberty Threats | publisher=Alliance Defending Freedom Church Alliance | access-date=March 19, 2022 | archive-date=April 3, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220403140714/https://www.adfchurchalliance.org/standforfreedom | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://adflegal.org/press-release/christian-adoption-agencies-us-supreme-court-let-us-help-children-find-loving-homes | title=Christian adoption agencies to US Supreme Court: Let us help children find loving homes | publisher=Alliance Defending Freedom | date=June 3, 2020 | access-date=March 19, 2022 | archive-date=January 31, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220131055225/https://adflegal.org/press-release/christian-adoption-agencies-us-supreme-court-let-us-help-children-find-loving-homes | url-status=live }}</ref> ADF provided legal support to the defendants in two Supreme Court cases dealing with the intersection of freedom of religion against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws for public-serving businesses, ''[[Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission]]'' (2018) and ''[[303 Creative LLC v. Elenis]]'' (2022); in both cases, the underlying issue was whether Christian business owners, under the anti-discrimination law, were compelled to create works with LGBT messaging that they said went against their Christian faith. In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from ADF attorneys on behalf of a [[Arlene's Flowers lawsuit|florist who refused to serve her clients' same-sex wedding]], with three of the nine justices indicating they were willing to hear the case.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hurley |first=Lawrence |date=July 2, 2021 |title=U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs appeal by florist who spurned gay couple |language=en |publisher=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-appeal-by-florist-who-spurned-gay-couple-2021-07-02/ |access-date=January 28, 2022 |archive-date=January 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220128053623/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-appeal-by-florist-who-spurned-gay-couple-2021-07-02/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

The organization has worked internationally to prevent decriminalization of homosexuality in Jamaica and Belize.<ref name="Compton">{{Cite news |last=Compton |first=Julie |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/activists-takes-aim-anti-lgbtq-hate-group-alliance-defending-freedom-n936391 |title=Activists take aim at anti-LGBTQ 'hate group,' Alliance Defending Freedom |date=November 14, 2018 |publisher=NBC News |access-date=July 26, 2019 |language=en |archive-date=July 27, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190727200118/https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/activists-takes-aim-anti-lgbtq-hate-group-alliance-defending-freedom-n936391 |url-status=live }}</ref> The SPLC has reported on ADF support for a [[Sodomy Law|law criminalizing same-sex sexual acts]] in [[LGBT rights in Belize|Belize]] (ruled unconstitutional in 2016).<ref name="belize-splc">Staff (July 2013) [https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/publication/splc-report-dangerous-liaisons.pdf "Dangerous Liaisons: The American Religious Right & the Criminalization of Homosexuality in Belize"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027100012/https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/publication/splc-report-dangerous-liaisons.pdf |date=October 27, 2021 }} [[Southern Poverty Law Center]]</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/belize-supreme-court-overturns-anti-gay-law-n627511 | title=Belize Supreme Court Overturns Anti-Gay Law | date=August 10, 2016 | access-date=March 20, 2022 | archive-date=November 22, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122190007/https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/belize-supreme-court-overturns-anti-gay-law-n627511 | url-status=live }}</ref> The ADF denied playing any role in the case.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=26152 | title=Caleb On "Dangerous Liaisons" Report | date=July 26, 2013 | publisher=7 News Belize | access-date=March 19, 2022 | archive-date=May 13, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220513021054/http://www.7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=26152 | url-status=live }}</ref> In the United Kingdom, ADF International advocated in favor of a mother's custody of her child, against the custody of the child's father and his same-sex partner.<ref name="christian army" /> ADF also has links to the former prime minister of Australia, [[Tony Abbott]], an outspoken opponent of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Australia. Abbott gave a speech to ADF regarding marriage in 2016.<ref name="abc.net.au">{{Cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-26/tony-abbott-speak-at-us-conservative-christian-lobby/7114506 |title=Tony Abbott to address US conservative Christian lobby group on marriage views |last1=Doran |first1=Matthew |last2=Roscoe Whalan |date=January 25, 2016 |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |access-date=February 14, 2018 |archive-date=August 16, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816174926/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-26/tony-abbott-speak-at-us-conservative-christian-lobby/7114506 |url-status=live }}</ref>

ADF opposes [[transgender rights movement|transgender rights]] based on the idea that "God creates each person with an immutable biological sex—male or female..."<ref name="statement of faith">{{cite web |date=January 15, 2020 |title=Statement of Faith |url=https://adflegal.org/about-us/careers/statement-of-faith |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220320003248/https://adflegal.org/about-us/careers/statement-of-faith |archive-date=March 20, 2022 |access-date=March 19, 2022 |publisher=Alliance Defending Freedom}}</ref> The organization has litigated against transgender employment protections, access to bathrooms, and participation in sports for transgender people. Members of ADF also authored model legislation for [[bathroom bills]] in the United States, aimed at restricting transgender people's use of single-sex public bathrooms.<ref name="transrights" /> In 2020, the ADF lost a Supreme Court case in which ADF attorneys defended a funeral home that fired a trans employee in the Supreme Court case, ''[[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]'', losing in a 6–3 vote.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hurley |first1=Lawrence |title=In landmark ruling, Supreme Court bars discrimination against LGBT workers |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt-idUSKBN23M20N |access-date=January 28, 2022 |publisher=Reuters |date=June 15, 2020 |archive-date=June 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615215001/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/in-landmark-ruling-supreme-court-bars-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers-idUSKBN23M20N |url-status=live }}</ref>

The organization has worked to prevent transgender athletes from [[Transgender people in sports|playing sports]] with the gender they identify with, through lawsuits and by lobbying state legislatures.<ref name="girls-sports">{{cite news | url=https://www.outsports.com/2020/2/12/21135174/adf-connecticut-federal-lawsuit-transgender-girls-sports-high-school | title=ADF sues Connecticut for letting trans girls compete in high school sports | last=Ennis | first=Dawn | date=February 12, 2020 | work=Outsports | access-date=March 19, 2022 | archive-date=April 11, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220411085348/https://www.outsports.com/2020/2/12/21135174/adf-connecticut-federal-lawsuit-transgender-girls-sports-high-school | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2022/02/10/clarification-us-indiana-legislature-schools-story.html | title=Indiana transgender athlete ban draws increasing pushback | date=February 10, 2022 | access-date=March 19, 2022 | archive-date=March 20, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220320003248/https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2022/02/10/clarification-us-indiana-legislature-schools-story.html | url-status=live }}</ref> In April 2022, ADF-affiliated lawyers defended a professor at [[Shawnee State University]], Ohio, who refused to use [[misgendering|preferred pronouns]] when referring to a [[transgender rights|transgender]] student; the university agreed to a $400,000 settlement with the professor.<ref name="anti-trans-prof">{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/professor-wouldnt-use-trans-students-pronouns-wins-400k-settlement-rcna24989 | title=Professor who wouldn't use trans student's pronouns wins $400K settlement | date=April 19, 2022 | last=Lavietes | first=Matt | publisher=NBC News | access-date=April 29, 2022 | archive-date=April 29, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429165519/https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/professor-wouldnt-use-trans-students-pronouns-wins-400k-settlement-rcna24989 | url-status=live }}</ref>

In Europe, ADF International has supported mandatory genital surgery (and consequent [[Sterilization (medicine)#Promoted sterilization|sterilization]]) of transgender people before they are allowed to change the gender marker on government [[identification documents|IDs]].<ref name="eu-sterilize">{{Cite web |url=https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/27/anti-lgbt-hate-group-alliance-defending-freedom-defended-state-enforced-sterilization |title=Anti-LGBT Hate Group Alliance Defending Freedom Defended State-Enforced Sterilization for Transgender Europeans |last=Amend |first=Alex |date=July 27, 2017 |publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center |access-date=November 26, 2017 |archive-date=December 16, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171216025038/https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/27/anti-lgbt-hate-group-alliance-defending-freedom-defended-state-enforced-sterilization |url-status=live }}</ref> However, a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, ''A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France'', has led France, Greece, Portugal, and several other countries to allow non-medical pathways to gender marker change.<ref name="tlmr">{{cite report | author1=Zhan Chiam |author2=Sandra Duffy |author3=Matilda González Gil |author4=Lara Goodwin |author5=Nigel Timothy Mpemba Patel | title=Trans Legal Mapping Report 2019: Recognition before the law | institution=ILGA World | date=2020 | url=https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_World_Trans_Legal_Mapping_Report_2019_EN.pdf | access-date=December 4, 2022 | archive-date=January 27, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127231222/https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_World_Trans_Legal_Mapping_Report_2019_EN.pdf | url-status=live }}</ref>

In June 2022, several groups opposing trans rights, including Alliance Defending Freedom, [[Women's Declaration International|WDI USA]], [[Family Research Council]] and [[Women's Liberation Front]], organized a rally in Washington D.C. supporting single-sex athletic competition.<ref>{{cite web |title=Our Bodies, Our Sports |url=https://ourbodiesoursports.com/ |access-date=6 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220621104605/https://ourbodiesoursports.com/ |archive-date=21 June 2022}}</ref>

In June 2023, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled in favor of the plaintiff, represented by ADF, for the ''[[303 Creative LLC v. Elenis]]'' case.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/web-designer-wants-legal-fees-supreme-court-win-free-speech-lgbt-rights-case-2024-07-25/ |title= Web designer wants legal fees for Supreme Court win in free speech, LGBT rights case |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=26 July 2024|access-date=5 April 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-30 |title=What the Supreme Court's gay wedding website ruling means for LGBTQ rights |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/supreme-courts-gay-wedding-website-ruling-means-lgbtq-rights-rcna92022 |access-date=2023-07-06 |publisher=NBC News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Kruzel |first=John |date=2023-07-03 |title=LGBT rights yield to religious interests at US Supreme Court |language=en |publisher=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/lgbt-rights-yield-religious-interests-us-supreme-court-2023-07-01/ |access-date=2023-07-06}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-30 |title=The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples |url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5 |access-date=2023-07-06 |publisher=Associated Press |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-03 |title=Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags |url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-9c058addfdd581ce0ead81eb59660130 |access-date=2023-07-06 |publisher=Associated Press |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sosin |first=Kate |date=2020-10-15 |title=Amy Coney Barrett Has Ties To an Anti-LGBTQ Hate Group |url=https://msmagazine.com/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-alliance-defending-freedom-adf-lgbtq-hate-group/ |access-date=2023-07-06 |website=Ms. Magazine |language=en-US}}</ref> The ruling sparked widespread criticism regarding whether the plaintiff lacked standing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cole |first=David |date=January 29, 2024 |title="We Do No Such Thing": 303 Creative v. Elenis and the Future of First Amendment Challenges to Public Accommodations Laws |url=https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/we-do-no-such-thing-303-creative-v-elenis-and-the-future-of-first-amendment-challenges-to-public-accommodations-laws |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=133 |via=Yale Law School}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=M. Re |first=Richard |date=November 29, 2023 |title=Does the Discourse on 303 Creative Portend a Standing Realignment? |url=https://www.law.virginia.edu/node/2171631 |journal=Notre Dame Law Review Reflection |volume=99 |issue=67 |via=Notre Dame Law School}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Morrison |first=Alan B. |date=September 15, 2023 |title=Standing When You Want It |url=https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/standing-when-you-want-it/ |access-date=May 22, 2024 |publisher=American Constitution Society}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Baude |first1=William |last2=Bray |first2=Samuel |date=November 13, 2023 |title=Proper Parties, Proper Relief |url=https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/proper-parties-proper-relief/ |journal=Harvard Law Review |volume=137 |issue=1 |via=Harvard Law School}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2023/07/07/adf-sets-the-record-straight-on-303-creative-case-n2625413|title=ADF Sets the Record Straight After the Left Attempts to Discredit 303 Creative Case|website=Townhall|date=July 7, 2023|author=Leah Barkoukis|access-date=September 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Swaine |first1=Jon |last2=Reinhard |first2=Beth |date=2023-09-27 |title=Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings |language=en-US |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/09/24/alliance-defending-freedom-wedding-lawsuit/ |access-date=2023-09-28 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> These criticisms prompted several articles myth-busting the attackers on the plaintiff's standing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/foolish-arguments-against-standing-in-303-creative-part-1/|title=Foolish Arguments Against Standing in 303 Creative—Part 1|website=[[National Review]] |date=July 3, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/foolish-arguments-against-standing-in-303-creative-part-2/|title=Foolish Arguments Against Standing in 303 Creative—Part 2|website=[[National Review]] |date=July 3, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/foolish-arguments-against-standing-in-303-creative-part-3/|title=Foolish Arguments Against Standing in 303 Creative—Part 3|website=[[National Review]] |date=July 5, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/more-on-standing-in-303-creative/|title=More on Standing in 303 Creative|website=[[National Review]] |date=July 10, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/news/correcting-the-record-on-the-fake-same-sex-couple-in-the-303-creative-case/|title=Correcting the Record on the 'Fake' Same-Sex Couple in the 303 Creative Case|website=[[National Review]] |date=June 30, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thefire.org/news/myth-busting-reactions-supreme-courts-decision-303-creative-v-elenis|title=Myth-busting reactions to the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis &#124; The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression|first=Darpana|last=Sheth|date=July 7, 2023|website=thefire.org}}</ref>

=== Opposing abortion, birth control, and euthanasia ===
ADF has long opposed [[abortion]], and has litigated to restrict access to abortion and contraception in the US and in other countries. The ADF was a key participant in the 2022 case, ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', that ended the Right to an abortion in the first 24 weeks and returning the power to the States to regulate abortion. 

The ADF represents the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in ''[[Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. US Food and Drug Administration]]'',<ref>{{Cite web |title=Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al |url=https://www.law360.com/cases/6377d1beb6593203c70c9b44 |access-date=2023-03-03 |website=law360.com |language=en |archive-date=March 3, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230303005754/https://www.law360.com/cases/6377d1beb6593203c70c9b44 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="shadow-medical">{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Jordan |title=The Shadow Medical Community Behind the Attempt to Ban Medication Abortion |url=https://theintercept.com/2023/02/28/medication-abortion-lawsuit/ |access-date=2023-03-03 |website=The Intercept |date=February 28, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=March 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230308010655/https://theintercept.com/2023/02/28/medication-abortion-lawsuit/ |url-status=live }}</ref> a case where the plaintiff has challenged the [[Food and Drug Administration|U.S Food and Drug Agency's]] longstanding approval of [[mifepristone]], a drug frequently used in [[medical abortion]] procedures.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=McCann |first1=Allison |last2=Walker |first2=Amy Schoenfeld |date=2023-03-02 |title=Where Restrictions on Abortion Pills Could Matter Most in the U.S. |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/02/us/abortion-pill-lawsuit-mifepristone.html |access-date=2023-03-03 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306054512/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/02/us/abortion-pill-lawsuit-mifepristone.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=In lawsuit challenging FDA approval of abortion pills, state attorneys general weigh in |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/lawsuit-seeks-to-reverse-fda-approval-abortion-pills-rcna70207 |access-date=2023-03-03 |publisher=NBC News |date=February 11, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=March 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306055138/https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/lawsuit-seeks-to-reverse-fda-approval-abortion-pills-rcna70207 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pierson |first=Brendan |date=2023-01-17 |title=Reversing abortion drug's approval would harm public interest, U.S. FDA says |language=en |publisher=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reversing-abortion-drugs-approval-would-harm-public-interest-us-fda-says-2023-01-17/ |access-date=2023-03-03 |archive-date=March 4, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304165314/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reversing-abortion-drugs-approval-would-harm-public-interest-us-fda-says-2023-01-17/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

One of its most notable legal battles was a 2014 case challenging the [[Affordable Care Act]]. In ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]]'', the Court ruled that the birth control mandate in employee-funded health plans when the company is "closely-held" violated the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] of 1993. The case set a precedent for allowing corporations and individuals to make religious claims for exemption from laws and regulations based on a religious freedom argument.<ref name="sherry">{{Cite web |url=https://www.cpr.org/news/story/who-is-the-alliance-defending-freedom-masterpiece-cakeshops-legal-team |title=Who Is The Alliance Defending Freedom, The Legal Team Behind Masterpiece Cakeshop? |last=Allison |first=Sherry |date=December 5, 2017 |publisher=Colorado Public Radio |access-date=January 28, 2018 |archive-date=January 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180130205203/https://www.cpr.org/news/story/who-is-the-alliance-defending-freedom-masterpiece-cakeshops-legal-team |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Willis|first1=David|title=Hobby Lobby case: Court curbs contraception mandate|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/28093756|access-date=June 30, 2014|publisher=BBC News|date=June 30, 2014|archive-date=June 30, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140630234018/http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=O'Donoghue|first1=Amy Joi|title=Group protests Hobby Lobby decision on birth control|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865606395/Group-protests-Hobby-Lobby-decision-on-birth-control.html?pg=all|access-date=July 30, 2014|work=Deseret News|date=July 5, 2014|archive-date=August 12, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140812150817/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865606395/Group-protests-Hobby-Lobby-decision-on-birth-control.html?pg=all|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | work=BusinessWeek | url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-07/supreme-court-feuds-over-the-hobby-lobby-birth-control-ruling | title=A Supreme Feud Over Birth Control: Four Blunt Points | date=July 7, 2014 | first=Paul | last=Barrett | access-date=July 17, 2014 | archive-date=January 13, 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150113042937/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-07/supreme-court-feuds-over-the-hobby-lobby-birth-control-ruling | url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] held that privately held [[corporations]] could be [[Religious exemption|exempt]] from [[Affordable Care Act]] regulations if the owners asserted religiously objections, basing the decision on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The decision meant that many employers could decide not to cover contraceptives through their health insurance plans.<ref>{{cite news | last=Blake | first=Aaron | title=A LOT of people could be affected by the Supreme Court's birth control decision — theoretically | date=June 30, 2014 | newspaper=The Washington Post | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/ | access-date=July 25, 2022 | archive-date=April 4, 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150404014432/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | publisher=CNN | url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/ | title=Supreme Court rules against Obama in contraception case | first=Bill | last=Mears | author2=Tom Cohen | date=June 30, 2014 | access-date=June 30, 2014 | archive-date=April 30, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430042415/https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2014, lawyers from the organization represented parents who wanted public schools to remove pages from a biology textbook that mentioned abortion and [[sexually transmitted diseases]].<ref name="gilbert-sex-ed">{{cite news | title=In Arizona, a Textbook Fuels a Broader Dispute Over Sex Education | author=Rick Rojas | work=The New York Times | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/us/in-arizona-a-textbook-fuels-a-broader-dispute-over-sex-education.html | date=28 November 2014 | access-date=24 June 2023}}</ref>

====International anti-abortion work====
ADF has led an international campaign to influence and restrict the right to abortion.<ref>[https://adfinternational.org/regions/europe/campaigns/freedom-of-conscience ADF website: ''Members of the European Parliament speak out for Freedom of Conscience''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170124110419/https://adfinternational.org/regions/europe/campaigns/freedom-of-conscience|date=January 24, 2017}}. Retrieved January 24, 2017</ref> The organization takes the position that [[healthcare]] workers have a right to refuse to provide care for abortion and other practices the individual finds morally objectionable.<ref name="hobby-decision">{{cite web | url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/06/30/supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision | title=The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Decision | last=Holst | first=Lindsay | date=June 30, 2014 | access-date=March 19, 2022 | archive-date=April 23, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220423183543/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/06/30/supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision | url-status=live }}</ref> ADF has backed anti-abortion causes in Ireland,<ref name="christian army" /> El Salvador, Colombia, Poland and Sweden.<ref name="dark money">{{cite web | url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/us-rightwing-mississippi-abortion/ | title=US 'dark money' groups behind Mississippi abortion case spend millions overseas | last1=Cordero | first1=Mónica | last2=Cariboni | first2=Diana | last3=Ferreira | first3=Lou | date=December 3, 2021 | access-date=March 21, 2022 | archive-date=March 22, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220322023547/https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/us-rightwing-mississippi-abortion/ | url-status=live }}</ref> In the United Kingdom, the group has campaigned against [[Legal protection of access to abortion|buffer zones]] around abortion clinics.<ref name="uk-spending">{{cite news |last1=Provost |first1=Claire |last2=Geoghegan |first2=Peter |title=Revealed: US anti-LGBT 'hate group' dramatically increases UK spending |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/revealed-us-anti-lgbt-hate-group-dramatically-increases-uk-spending/ |work=openDemocracy |date=March 20, 2019 |access-date=November 30, 2021 |archive-date=November 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211130225325/https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/revealed-us-anti-lgbt-hate-group-dramatically-increases-uk-spending/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In Sweden, a midwife, Ellinor Grimmark, sued the province of [[Jönköping County|Jönköping]] for discrimination because she was refused employment when, citing "freedom of conscience", she refused to give [[morning-after pills]], perform abortions, or put in copper [[IUDs]]. She lost both her hearing before the Discrimination Ombudsman, and at the Jönköping district court.<ref name="barnmorskor">[[Sveriges Radio]] 24 januari 2017: [http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6614458 ''Abortvägrande barnmorskor får stöd av amerikansk lobby''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220211957/https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6614458 |date=February 20, 2022 }}. Retrieved January 24, 2017</ref> The proceedings in the Labor Court of Sweden began on January 24, 2017, and her case received both legal and financial aid from ADF. Grimmark's legal representative, Ruth Nordström, was a registered partner of ADF,<ref>[http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9848 ADF website 27 januari 2016: ''Sweden faces human rights problem''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170103040410/http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9848|date=January 3, 2017}}. Retrieved January 24, 2017</ref> and both Grimmark and Nordström participated in ADFs marketing films.<ref>[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6615313 Sveriges Radio 24 januari 2017: ''Abortvägrande barnmorskan välkomnar lobbyns stöd''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825051911/http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6615313 |date=August 25, 2017 }}. Retrieved January 24, 2017</ref> Nordström co-wrote an opinion piece opposing abortion rights with an ADF representative for [[Sveriges Television]], Sweden's national public television broadcaster.<ref>[http://www.svt.se/opinion/sverige-behover-ett-starkare-rattsskydd-for-ofodda-barn SVT 23 augusti 2013: ''Sverige behöver ett starkare rättsskydd för ofödda barn''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221002082838/https://www.svt.se/opinion/sverige-behover-ett-starkare-rattsskydd-for-ofodda-barn |date=October 2, 2022 }}. Retrieved January 24, 2017</ref>

====Campaigns against assisted suicide====
The ADF has campaigned against the legalization of [[voluntary euthanasia]] in the United Kingdom.<ref name="uk-spending" /> The group has also challenged the right to euthanasia in Belgium, before the [[European Court of Human Rights]].<ref name="belgium">{{cite web | url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/right-die-belgium-inside-worlds-liberal-euthanasia-laws | title=The right to die in Belgium: An inside look at the world's most liberal euthanasia law | work=[[PBS NewsHour]] | publisher=PBS | date=January 15, 2015 | access-date=March 20, 2022 | archive-date=March 21, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220321005230/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/right-die-belgium-inside-worlds-liberal-euthanasia-laws | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite report | url=https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/cp_belgium_eng.pdf | title=Press Country Profile | publisher=European Court of Human Rights | date=January 2022 | access-date=March 20, 2022 | archive-date=March 4, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220304231433/https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Belgium_ENG.pdf | url-status=live }}</ref> ADF India also campaigns against assisted suicide and euthanasia.<ref name="adfindia2">{{cite web | title=Affirm Dignity - End Euthanasia | website=ADF India | date=June 17, 2020 | url=https://adfindia.org/campaigns/affirm-dignity-end-euthanasia/ | access-date=2023-03-05 | archive-date=March 6, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306043050/https://adfindia.org/campaigns/affirm-dignity-end-euthanasia/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

===COVID-19 restriction cases===
ADF has opposed government measures aimed at stopping the spread of COVID-19 in the United States and in other countries. In the US, ADF partnered with [[The Daily Wire]] in a legal challenge against the Biden administration's [[Biden Administration COVID-19 action plan#OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Emergency Temporary Standard|OSHA vaccine mandate]].<ref name="block-vaccine" /> In Uganda, ADF joined a Texas libertarian organization in backing a campaign to end restrictions on large gatherings that the government had implemented to reduce [[COVID-19]] spread.<ref name="covid-misinformation" /> ADF brought legal challenges against the Ugandan government's regulations on large gatherings.<ref name="uganda-worship-covid" /> In Scotland, ADF fought against COVID-19 regulations on large gatherings, claiming that the measures were unfair to religious groups.<ref name="open-doors-covid" /> The ADF-backed lawsuit won in Scotland's high court. A poll commissioned by the Humanist Society showed that more than three-quarters of Scots were opposed to the church's reopening and the [[Church of Scotland]] distanced itself from the legal action, saying that they accepted measures to prevent COVID-19 spread.<ref name="scotland-covid" />

===Non-profit donor disclosure===
In the US Supreme Court decision ''[[Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta]]'' (2021), ADF argued that non-profits should not be required to disclose the identities of their donors on California state tax returns. Donors who gave more than $5,000 or 2% of the total donations to a non-profit in a year were to be named on the state returns. In a victory for ADF, the court struck down the disclosure law as unconstitutional.<ref name="disclosure" />