Freedom Updates
Advocates in Action
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM FILES RESPONSE IN NINTH CIRCUIT DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND PARENTAL RIGHTS IN ROYCE V. BONTA
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2026
CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM
Murrieta, CA — July 10, 2026 — Advocates for Faith & Freedom filed a response letter with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the Appellants in Royce v. Bonta, addressing supplemental authority recently submitted by the State of California.
The filing explains why the recent Second Circuit decision in Miller v. McDonald does not support affirming California’s vaccine mandate and is materially distinguishable from the issues presented in Royce v. Bonta. The response argues that the Second Circuit’s decision repeats constitutional errors previously rejected by the United States Supreme Court and does not alter the legal analysis governing California’s law.
“Government cannot deny religious accommodations while granting broad secular exemptions to similarly situated individuals,” said Erin Elizabeth Mersino, counsel for the Appellants. “When the State singles out religious exercise for less favorable treatment, the First Amendment requires the courts to apply strict scrutiny. That is exactly what should happen here.”
The response letter highlights several critical distinctions between the two cases, including:
- California’s SB 277 contains numerous secular exemptions—including exemptions for students with individualized education programs (IEPs), independent study participants, adults over age 18, medical exemptions, and certain categories of vulnerable students—while continuing to deny religious exemptions.
- Unlike the record in Miller, there is no evidence in Royce that granting religious exemptions would create unvaccinated enclaves or otherwise undermine public health objectives.
- SB 277 forces parents to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by conditioning access to both public and private school education on vaccination, imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise and parental rights.
- The district court improperly applied rational basis review rather than the strict scrutiny required under Supreme Court precedent governing free exercise claims.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom maintains that California’s refusal to accommodate religious objectors while permitting broad secular exemptions violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The organization argues that longstanding Supreme Court precedent requires strict scrutiny whenever government treats comparable secular conduct more favorably than religious exercise.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Royce v. Bonta on April 17, 2026. The court’s decision remains pending.
###
A Critical Moment for Freedom
Dear Friend,
There are moments when the defense of religious liberty requires more than agreement. It requires action.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom is currently facing a critical fundraising need, and we are prayerfully asking a select group of generous-hearted supporters to consider making a leadership gift of $1,000, $5,000, or $10,000 to help us continue the work God has placed before us.
This is not a general appeal. This is a timely request tied to the very real legal battles unfolding right now.
Just today, Advocates for Faith & Freedom, in collaboration with the ACLJ, filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Calvary Chapel San Jose and Pastor Mike McClure in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy. This case asks the Supreme Court to protect religious families and faith-based institutions from being excluded from generally available public benefits simply because they refuse to compromise their beliefs.
At the heart of the case is a basic constitutional principle: the government should not punish families, churches, schools, or ministries for living according to their faith.
For Calvary Chapel San Jose and Pastor Mike McClure, this issue is not theoretical. They understand what happens when government officials single out people of faith for disfavored treatment. After standing firm during the COVID-19 pandemic, they faced more than $1.2 million in fines for holding worship services.
Now, they are standing with families and faith-based schools in another fight before the highest court in the land.
This is the kind of work Advocates for Faith & Freedom exists to do.
We defend churches. We stand with pastors. We protect parents. We advocate for families. We fight for the First Amendment freedoms that allow believers to worship freely, educate their children according to their convictions, and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ without government hostility or coercion.
But we cannot do this alone.
Every Supreme Court brief, every lawsuit, every demand letter, every legal strategy, and every client we serve requires resources. As a nonprofit legal ministry, we depend on faithful donors who believe these freedoms are worth defending for this generation and the next.
Today, we are asking you to prayerfully consider making a special leadership gift of $1,000 to $10,000.
Your gift will help us continue taking on the cases that matter most — cases that defend religious liberty, free speech, parental rights, election integrity, the unborn, and the constitutional foundations that protect our ability to live out our faith in public.
We know not everyone can give at this level. But for those who can, this is a meaningful opportunity to strengthen the legal defense of religious freedom at a critical time.
If God has placed it on your heart to help carry this mission forward, we invite you to give today.
Thank you for standing with Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Your prayers, generosity, and courage help make this work possible!
For faith and freedom,
Robert Tyler
President and Chief Counsel
###
PRESS RELEASE | SUPREME COURT DELIVERS LANDMARK VICTORY FOR FEMALE ATHLETES: UPHOLDS BIOLOGICAL REALITY IN WOMEN’S SPORTS AND FACILITIES
Washington, D.C – June 30, 2026 — In a major win for female students’ safety, fairness, and equal opportunity, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of State protections for women’s sports and facilities in Little v. Hecox and B.P.J. v. West Virginia. The decisions affirm that laws safeguarding biological sex-based categories in athletics and facilities do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The rulings reverse lower court decisions that had undermined sex-based distinctions, including the Fourth Circuit’s decision in B.P.J. by Jackson v. W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ., 98 F.4th 542 (4th Cir. 2024). Advocates for Faith & Freedom, representing a coalition of California public school districts and charter schools, played a key role by filing an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to protect female students.
The coalition includes John Adams Academies, Chino Valley Unified School District, Temecula Valley Unified School District, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Perris Union High School District, Placer Union High School, Orange County Board of Education, and Kern County Board of Education. Our brief emphasized that redefining “sex” under Title IX to include gender identity ignores biological realities, endangers girls’ physical safety, psychological well-being, and destroys athletic opportunities.
“For nearly fifty years, Title IX has allowed female athletes to thrive in their own competitions and protected girls in their locker rooms and bathrooms,” said Erin Mersino, Vice President and Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation at Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “Title IX was a hard-won victory for women’s equality, built on recognizing sex-based differences — not erasing them. Today’s decision upholds the original meaning of Title IX and protects the rights of female students across the country.”
The Supreme Court’s decisions draw on history, science, and common sense. Biological males, on average, possess significant physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance due to puberty-driven differences. Allowing males to compete in female categories or access sex-segregated facilities creates unfair competition and risks safety and privacy, and invokes of number of religious liberty concerns. Female students have reported trauma-like embarrassment, avoidance of facilities, and lost opportunities when sex-based protections are eroded.
Erin Mersino added: “Our clients have bravely stood up to ask the Supreme Court to preserve the promise of Title IX. This ruling is a victory for our daughters, granddaughters, and female athletes nationwide who deserve fair play and safe spaces.”
Advocates for Faith & Freedom has a number of cases in the federal courts in California which will continue to be litigated on this issue, as much more work will need to be done to protect girls’ sports nationwide. The fight continues, but with your support we will achieve victory. Advocates for Faith & Freedom celebrates this outcome as a defense of constitutional principles, women’s rights, and the rule of law. The organization remains committed to safeguarding religious liberty, parental rights, and equal protection for all.
###