Dear Friend,

Can government officials exclude someone from public service because of sincerely held religious beliefs?

That question sits at the heart of Pastor Dennis Hodges’ First Amendment case.

Pastor Hodges, a former law enforcement chaplain and longtime minister, was removed from San Diego’s Human Relations Commission after standing by his biblical beliefs on human creation and transgenderism. His case raises serious concerns about whether people of faith can participate in public life without being pressured to abandon or conceal their convictions.

In this episode of Advocates for Truth, we discuss why this case matters, why it deserves the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, and how conflicting rulings among federal courts can threaten the uniform protection of constitutional rights across the country.

The First Amendment does not only protect beliefs that are popular, convenient, or approved by government officials. It protects the right of Americans to live, speak, serve, and participate in public life according to conscience.

This case is about more than one pastor. It is about whether religious Americans can be pushed out of civic service simply because their beliefs do not align with the prevailing political agenda.

We invite you to watch the full conversation and learn more about what is at stake.

Thank you for staying informed and standing with us as we continue defending faith, freedom, and constitutional rights.

In Christ,

Robert Tyler
President and Chief Counsel

ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MONDAY, JULY  13, 2026
CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM

Murrieta, CA — July 13, 2026 — Advocates for Faith & Freedom (AFF), a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to defending religious liberty and constitutional rights, today announced the submission of its formal comment to the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission’s Draft Report. The comment strongly supports the Commission’s efforts to protect and defend First Amendment religious freedoms while documenting persistent, widespread violations experienced by students, parents, and teachers in public schools across America.

AFF’s 7-page comment emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution serves as a “safe harbor for religious freedom,” noting that many early American immigrants sought precisely this liberty. It warns that upholding these natural rights remains a high ideal because “the desire of government officials to gain power weighs against citizens’ rights,” and that “[f]reedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Despite recent Supreme Court decisions that have reasserted the rightful place of religious expression in public education—such as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) (protecting a coach’s private post-game prayer), Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) (affirming parents’ free exercise rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing and opt out of conflicting curriculum), and Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) (addressing secret gender transitions without parental knowledge)—AFF observes that many public school policies remain at odds with the Constitution and these rulings.

The comment details how secular progressive agendas on transgenderism, abortion, and the reframing of Christian Western history are advanced in schools under the banners of “enlightenment, compassion, and tolerance,” while religious viewpoints are suppressed through selective application of the Establishment Clause. This creates an uneven playing field: radical secularism operates without Establishment Clause constraints, while traditional religious expression faces censorship. The result, AFF argues, transforms schools from forums for truth-seeking into ideological battlegrounds where teachers are sometimes expected to “disrupt” values taught at home, and young children become political pawns.

Concrete examples from AFF’s clients illustrate the human cost:

• California teacher Jessica Tapia was fired for refusing to follow gender-identity policies that required using preferred pronouns or hiding students’ gender issues from parents—actions she saw as violating her religious convictions about truth and morality.
• Elementary teacher Ray Shelton was placed on administrative leave and investigated for “misconduct” after speaking at a school board meeting against pro-transgender policies and the practice of transitioning children without parental knowledge.
• The State of California sued the Chino Valley Unified School District for its policy requiring schools to notify parents when a student sought to transition at school.
• Additional cases involve religious objections to transgender sports policies that compel students to share locker rooms and compete with members of the opposite biological sex; viewpoint discrimination against a Michigan student’s announcement opposing a pro-abortion ballot measure (while pro-abortion announcements were permitted); and California’s denial of religious exemptions from school vaccine mandates (while granting medical exemptions).

AFF further notes that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, reinforced by Groff v. DeJoy (2023), protects teachers’ religious exercise at work, and that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). The comment stresses that government schools may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise and that the existence of private schools does not excuse public schools from respecting parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

The organization highlights the significant barriers families and teachers face when challenging well-resourced school districts and states, describing it as “David against Goliath.” These actions create a chilling effect, dissuading objections for fear of job loss or suspension. AFF calls for uniform application of constitutional protections in every public school district and urges the Commission to address these issues in its final recommendations.

The comment concludes: “Without the courage of students, parents, and teachers to challenge schools’ restrictions on their religious exercise, we would not have the Supreme Court precedent that exists today… Therefore, we applaud the Religious Liberty Commission’s efforts to protect this fundamental right.”

###