Freedom Updates
Advocates in Action
PRESS RELEASE | SAN DIEGO MAYOR PUNISHES PASTOR FOR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, CASE HEADS TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
Advocates for Faith & Freedom asks the nation’s highest court to protect religious expression and prevent government officials from imposing ideological tests on public service.
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2026
CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM
Washington, D.C. — Advocates for Faith & Freedom has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Pastor Dennis Hodges, a longtime public servant who was denied reappointment to a San Diego advisory board because of his Christian beliefs about human sexuality.
The case raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can government officials exclude Americans from public service simply because they disagree with their religious convictions?
Hodges dedicated decades to public service as a California Department of Corrections captain and special agent, San Diego Police Department chaplain, and volunteer member of the City’s Citizens Advisory Board on Police/Community Relations.
In 2021, while serving on the separate San Diego County Human Relations Commission, Hodges abstained from voting on an initiative to amplify transgender voices, citing his belief that God created human beings male and female. He also affirmed that all people deserve love and respect.
Nearly two years later, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria vetoed Hodges’s reappointment to the City’s police advisory board because of his sincerely held Christian beliefs. Hodges had not voted against the initiative. Rather, he chose to abstain out of respect for his religious convictions while remaining fair and impartial. Despite his measured approach, the Mayor used his expression of faith as grounds to deny him continued public service.
Advocates challenged the Mayor’s actions as violations of Hodges’s First Amendment rights. However, the district court dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in February 2026.
Now, Advocates is asking the Supreme Court to intervene, warning that the ruling opens the door for government officials to impose religious and ideological tests on Americans seeking to serve their communities.
Significantly, Judge J. Campbell Barker, concurring in the Ninth Circuit’s decision, questioned whether the court’s approach was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and identified a conflict among federal appellate courts.
“Pastor Hodges was punished for expressing Christian beliefs that had nothing to do with his ability to serve,” said Joel Oster, Vice President and Chief of Trial Litigation for Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “If this ruling stands, government officials could effectively silence religious viewpoints by declaring them politically unacceptable. The First Amendment does not exist only for those whose beliefs align with the government.”
“This case is about far more than one pastor or one city,” said Robert Tyler, President and Chief Counsel of Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “It is about whether the government can demand ideological conformity as the price of public service.” The petition asks the Supreme Court to reaffirm that public service cannot come at the expense of religious freedom and free speech.
PRESS RELEASE | AMENDED LAWSUIT: GWU ALLOWED ANTISEMITISM TO FESTER WHILE JEWISH STUDENTS FACED THREATS, HARASSMENT, AND EXCLUSION
Federal lawsuit details years of alleged discrimination as University repeatedly failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2026
CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM
Washington, D.C. — Advocates for Faith & Freedom has filed a First Amended Complaint against The George Washington University, detailing a years-long pattern of antisemitic discrimination, intimidation, and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students.
The complaint details how Jewish students were threatened, physically harassed, blocked from classrooms and campus facilities, intimidated into concealing their Jewish identity, and denied equal access to educational opportunities, even as students, parents, and advocates repeatedly alerted GWU administrators to the rampant antisemitism. Despite those warnings, the complaint alleges the hostility continued.
After conducting an investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division concluded that GWU was “deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered by its students and faculty, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
“This case is about equal protection,” said Joel Oster, Vice President and Chief of Trial Litigation of Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “A university cannot promise nondiscrimination and then look the other way while Jewish students are threatened, intimidated, and driven from classrooms and common areas because of their Jewish heritage. Civil rights laws exist precisely to ensure that students are not forced to endure that kind of treatment because of who they are.”
During the Spring 2024 encampment, protesters displayed or shouted messages including “final solution,” “Globalize the Intifada,” “Hamas are freedom fighters,” and “Zionist, go die.” Protesters broke through barricades, occupied University Yard, obstructed access to campus, and posted warnings including “No Zionists.”
The amended complaint further alleges that antisemitism extended beyond campus protests and into University-sponsored programming and classrooms, where pro-Israel and Zionist perspectives were marginalized or excluded. Plaintiffs allege that despite repeated complaints and federal scrutiny, discriminatory treatment continued.
“Jewish students should never have to hide their identity, avoid parts of campus, or remain silent in class because they fear for their safety,” said Erin Mersino, Vice President and Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation at Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “Universities have a legal obligation to apply their protections equally. When they fail to do so, they must be held accountable.”
The lawsuit asserts claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief requiring GWU to enforce its nondiscrimination and conduct policies evenhandedly, address antisemitism on campus, and implement meaningful accountability measures.
PRESS RELEASE | CALIFORNIA COURT RESTORES PARENTAL RIGHTS IN CHINO VALLEY, LIMITING STATE SECRECY POLICIES
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM
Murrieta, California — In an important victory for parental rights, a California court today granted in part and denied in part Chino Valley Unified School District’s motion to dissolve the permanent injunction restricting its parental notification policy.
The court affirmed that parents who want to receive information concerning their own children that would otherwise be withheld under their school district’s policies have the right to receive that information.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom, alongside co-counsel California Justice Center, represents Chino Valley Unified School District in its defense of parental notification and parents’ constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their children.
“This is an important step forward for parents,” said Erin Mersino, Vice President and Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation with Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “Parents should not have to wonder whether a public school is withholding significant information about their own child. Today’s ruling recognizes that parents who want this information have a right to receive it. The State cannot simply shut parents out of decisions involving the welfare and mental health of their children.”
The case began after California Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged Chino Valley Unified School District’s parental notification policy, which required school personnel to notify parents when a student requested to be treated as a gender different from his or her biological sex, including requests involving names, pronouns, or access to sex-segregated facilities and programs. A permanent injunction entered in October 2024 prohibited enforcement of the gender identity-specific portions of that policy.
The legal landscape changed significantly following the United States Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta. The Supreme Court recognized that policies excluding parents from information concerning a child’s gender transition at school likely violate parents’ constitutional rights, including their right to participate in decisions concerning their children’s upbringing, education, and mental health.
Following Mirabelli, the Ninth Circuit also prohibited enforcement of key provisions of AB 1955 against parents who affirmatively sought information concerning their own children.
In response to those developments, Chino Valley Unified School District asked the court to dissolve the permanent injunction, arguing that the injunction could no longer be reconciled with controlling federal constitutional law.
Today, the court granted that motion in part.
Under the ruling, a parent who affirmatively wants to be informed of information concerning his or her child that might otherwise be withheld has the right to receive it.
The District is now evaluating how best to implement the ruling.
“This case has always been about a basic principle: parents are the primary caretakers of their children, not the government,” Mersino added. “Today’s ruling moves California closer to respecting that constitutional reality. We will continue working to ensure that parents are not forced to surrender their rights simply because their children enter the public-school classroom.”
Additional developments are expected as the District considers its next steps and the precise implementation of the court’s ruling.
###