The U.S. Department of Justice has released revised religious liberty guidance for federal executive agencies, adding protections for parents and incorporating several recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Issued Thursday, the document updates the DOJ’s 2017 guidance and introduces a new principle addressing parents’ authority over their children’s religious education and upbringing.
While preserving the central principles of the earlier version, the guidance now states that “government may not interfere with parental rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children.” It adds that “parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing and education of their children.”
“This right extends beyond a mere right to teach religion in the confines of one’s home and encompasses the choices parents make for their children outside the home,” the guidance continues. “Government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children violate this right. Government may not choose to condition the availability of public benefits, such as public schooling, upon parents’ willingness to surrender their religious freedom.”
The revised document also directs federal agencies to consider religious liberty concerns earlier in rulemaking and in employment, contracting and grant decisions, rather than waiting until legal disputes arise.
Newly added cases include Carson v. Makin, which barred Maine from excluding religious schools from a tuition assistance program, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which involved a public high school football coach disciplined for praying on the field.
The guidance also references Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, in which the Supreme Court ruled against Philadelphia’s exclusion of a Catholic foster care organization because of its policy regarding same-sex couples. It additionally cites Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which involved a Christian baker penalized after declining to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Quoting Fulton, the guidance says that “a law is not neutral if, in its application, the government ‘proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.’” Citing Masterpiece Cakeshop, it adds that a law may also lack neutrality when its enforcement is “accompanied by ‘official expressions of hostility to religion.’”
Other cited cases include Mahmoud v. Taylor, which supported parents seeking religious exemptions from LGBT-related classroom materials, and Groff v. DeJoy, which involved a postal employee who objected on religious grounds to working on Sundays.
The document also points to Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Commission, in which the Supreme Court rejected Wisconsin’s refusal to grant a Catholic Charities affiliate a religious tax exemption because officials considered its services insufficiently religious.
The guidance further cites Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the 2014 decision holding that protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act can apply not only to individuals but also to organizations and certain for-profit corporations.
