In a “huge win” for religious freedom, a Christian mother of five can begin adopting children in the state of Oregon.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in favor of Jessica Bates, a “devout Christian and widowed mother of five” who rejects gender ideology. Bates wants to begin the process of adopting children but objected to the state’s requirement that parents unconditionally accept a child’s assertions about his or her gender or sexual inclinations.

The court ruled that Bates can continue the process of adopting while her lawsuit works its way through the system.

The three-circuit panel explained how the First Amendment protections of speech and religion supported Bates’ case.

“Fundamental as basic freedoms, these rights spring from a common constitutional principle: that the government may not insist upon our adherence to state favored orthodoxies, whether of a religious or political variety,” Judge Daniel Bress wrote along with Judge Michael Hawkins. Judge Richard Clifton dissented.

Oregon’s restrictions “quite clearly restricts and compels speech based on both content and viewpoint,” the two judges concluded in the majority opinion.

“It restricts certain speech by adoptive parents on the topic of sexual orientation and gender identity, while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective on these intensely debated issues in our society,” the majority ruling stated. “Applicants who wish to adopt children through the foster care system must reinforce the state’s perspective of sexuality and gender identity as evolving concepts, while withholding contrary views that are less embracing of same-sex relationships and a conception of gender identity that does not align with biological sex.”

There is “no question that they are infringements.”

The judges further concluded religious animosity was at play.

“Oregon’s policy as a whole stands most obviously in opposition to more traditional understandings of sexuality and gender,” the majority opinion stated. “And those more traditional understandings are often held by persons with religious viewpoints.”

The case drew national interest, with conservative think tanks, religious groups, and Republican attorneys general defending the rights of Bates to follow her faith while raising children. Liberals group lined up in opposition to Bates.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Bates, celebrated the victory.

“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,” ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs stated in a news release.

“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,” Scruggs, who argued on behalf of Bates, stated.

“That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home,” he said. “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.”

More on this excellent ruling in our press release: https://t.co/0TBssgUivK

— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) July 24, 2025

ADF President Kristen Waggoner also voiced her support for the ruling.

“HUGE WIN at the 9th Circuit for our client Jessica Bates,” she wrote on X. “This widowed Oregon mom was categorically barred from adopting a foster child—regardless of the child’s age or beliefs—because she wouldn’t promise to affirm gender ideology.”

Waggoner said this is a persistent problem, as her Christian legal nonprofit is challenging similar laws in Vermont and Washington.

“We pray [this case] will lead to more victories for children & families,” she said.

Supreme Court precedent appears to support Bates’ case
As cited in the majority ruling, recent Supreme Court rulings have generally affirmed the religious liberty rights of individuals and entities to oppose the LGBT agenda.

For example, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled Colorado had violated the First Amendment rights of Christian baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding.” However, this 2018 decision was a narrow ruling based on officials’ stated animosity toward Phillips due to his religious beliefs.

A 2020 Supreme Court decision in favor of a Catholic adoption agency also came on narrow grounds, finding Philadelphia unfairly discriminated against Catholic Social Services (CSS).

In that case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the court ruled in favor of the social services agency, which lost a contract with the city after refusing to place foster kids with homosexual “parents.”

“The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion.