Oregon has agreed to restore Christian widow Jessica Bates’ adoption application and permanently limit how officials may use her religious views on marriage, biological sex and gender identity when determining whether she can adopt through the state.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Oregon has agreed to reinstate Christian widow Jessica Bates’ adoption application and refrain from categorically excluding her because of religious beliefs that previously led state officials to deny her approval, bringing a three-year First Amendment dispute to a close after the state lost a key federal appeal.
Under a stipulated order and judgment, Oregon officials may not reject Bates because she believes sexual relations belong within traditional marriage or that “a person should identify and seek to live consistent with his or her biological sex.” The agreement also protects her ability to make ordinary caregiving decisions consistent with those beliefs.
The judgment further prohibits the state from requiring Bates “to use prescribed words or language, including chosen pronouns, to express views about sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” Oregon also may not “categorically disqualify” her from consideration for any particular placement solely because of those beliefs.
The settlement does not eliminate the state’s authority to make individualized placement decisions. Officials may still consider an applicant’s “concerns or limitations (including where religiously motivated) on their ability or willingness to meet the child’s specific needs, including with regard to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”
That distinction leaves Oregon able to evaluate whether a particular placement is appropriate for an individual child while preventing Bates’ religious beliefs from being used as an automatic barrier to adoption.
Oregon also agreed to pay Bates’ attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party, according to the judgment. Her attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom said the agreement makes permanent protections Bates received after prevailing at the appellate level.
“Oregon officials turned Jessica away just because of her common-sense belief that parents should help children become comfortable with who they are instead of pushing them down a path of confusion and medicalization,” ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said.
The dispute began after Bates applied through the Oregon Department of Human Services to become certified to adopt children from foster care. State rules required prospective parents to “respect, accept, and support” a child’s sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
Bates told state officials that her Christian beliefs prevented her from using pronouns she considered inconsistent with a child’s biological sex or facilitating certain gender-transition treatments. The state subsequently denied her application.
A federal district judge initially rejected Bates’ request for a preliminary injunction, but a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in July 2025. The appellate panel concluded that Oregon’s policy, as applied to Bates, burdened both her free-speech and free-exercise rights and was subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.
The majority found that Oregon had a valid interest in protecting the health and safety of LGBTQ children in foster care but concluded that automatically preventing Bates from adopting any child was not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. The court ordered the state to stop using the disputed rule to deem her categorically ineligible while the case proceeded.
The ruling marked a reversal of the lower court and allowed Bates to restart the application process. The litigation later returned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, where the case docket shows judgments entered in August 2026, ending the dispute.
The earlier appellate decision had drawn attention because it addressed not only religious exercise but compelled speech. The court concluded that Oregon’s policy could require prospective parents to express particular viewpoints about sexual orientation and gender identity rather than merely regulating their conduct. The case and the original appellate dispute were detailed in earlier reporting on the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Oregon’s agreement follows a separate development in Vermont, where state officials earlier this year changed foster-care requirements while settling litigation brought by parents who objected on religious grounds to gender-identity affirmation requirements. Under Vermont’s revised guidance, applicants could not be required to endorse specific identities or use particular terminology or preferred pronouns as a condition of licensing, while officials retained authority to consider an individual child’s needs when making placements. That dispute also ended through settlement.
For Bates, Oregon’s stipulated judgment converts the temporary protection she obtained through the appeals court into lasting restrictions on how the state may evaluate her application.
She remains subject to Oregon’s ordinary certification requirements and individualized decisions about whether a particular child is an appropriate match. What the state may no longer do is deny her the opportunity to adopt altogether because she will not abandon or affirm views contrary to the religious beliefs at the center of her First Amendment case.
Original article
Comments