Editing Alliance Defending Freedom (section)

==Supreme Court wins==
===Free Speech===
The 2023 case [[303 Creative LLC v. Elenis|''303 Creative LLC v. Elenis'']] addressed an intersection between the [[Free Speech Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] and [[LGBTQ rights in the United States|LGBTQ rights]]. It pitched Lorie Smith, a graphic designer represented by ADF's [[Kristen Waggoner]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-476 |title=303 CREATIVE LLC, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AUBREY ELENIS, ET AL., Respondents |date=5 December 2022 |access-date=14 April 2025}}</ref> against a Colorado public accommodations law that she feared would have compelled her to also create expression about same-sex marriages that contradicted her religious beliefs if she designed websites celebrating marriages between men and women. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbade the state of Colorado from compelling speech that contradicted her beliefs.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf|title=303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL.|publisher=Supreme Court|date=June 30, 2023|access-date=5 April 2025}}</ref><ref name="Cloudfront">{{cite web |url= https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2023-12/Securing-Freedoms-Future_0.pdf |title=Securing Freedom's Future at the U.S. Supreme Court |access-date=5 April 2025}}</ref>       

The 2018 case [[National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra|''National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra'']] addressed the issue of Free Speech and abortion. At issue was California's Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act that compelled pro-life pregnancy care centers, represented by ADF's [[Michael Farris (lawyer)|Michael Farris]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140 |title=NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., Respondents |date=20 March 2018 |access-date=14 April 2025}}</ref> to post information in their waiting rooms saying that California provides free or low-cost abortion, as well as providing a number to call for abortion referrals.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-pro-life-crisis-pregnancy-centers-a-breakdown-of-nifla-v-becerra |title=Supreme Court to hear anti-abortion and free speech case: A breakdown of NIFLA v. Becerra|publisher=Fox News|date=16 November 2017 |access-date=5 April 2025}}</ref> The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that requiring those notices was a free speech violation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-divided-court-rules-for-anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers-in-challenge-to-california-law/ |title=Opinion analysis: Divided court rules for anti-abortion pregnancy centers in challenge to California law|work=SCOTUSBlog|date=26 June 2018|access-date=5 April 2025}}</ref>

The 2001 case [[Good News Club v. Milford Central School|''Good News Club v. Milford Central School'']] concerned a public school's exclusion of a club from using the school building after hours based solely on the club's religious nature. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Good News Club, represented by ADF's senior counsel [[Thomas Marcelle]], was the victim of impermissible [[viewpoint discrimination]]<ref name="GoodNewsClub">{{ussc|name=Good News Club v. Milford Central School|link=|volume=533|page=98|pin=107|year=2001}}.</ref>and that religious clubs must be afforded equal access to use public school facilities.<ref>{{cite web |author=Joel Stashenko |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202427943170&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 |title=Conservative Christian Group Targets New York |website=[[Law.com]] |date=February 3, 2009 |access-date=18 April 2025 |archive-date=March 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321190738/https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202427943170/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Abortion===
The 2022 case ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', considered the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that placed a ban on abortions after 15 weeks, in conflict with ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973) and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' (1992). The Mississippi law was based on ADF's model legislation, specifically designed to provoke a legal challenge that could then be appealed up to the Supreme Court.<ref name="nation-dobbs" /><ref name="Cloudfront" /> ADF lawyers then served on the Mississippi Attorney General's legal team to defend the ban.<ref name="adf-who" /> The strategy succeeded: the Justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade, and Casey, and to return the power to regulate abortion to the States.