Alliance Defending Freedom Lawsuits and Court Victories

Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuits span nearly every major religious-liberty, free-speech, abortion, and gender-identity dispute in American law over the past two decades. The Scottsdale, Arizona–based Christian legal nonprofit says it has won 18 cases at the U.S. Supreme Court since 2011, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 303 Creative v. Elenis, and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and it reports a roughly 80 percent win rate across all its litigation.¹ Its docket in 2025 and 2026 remains among the most active of any advocacy litigator in the country.

Landmark Supreme Court Wins

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

The June 24, 2022 ruling overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion regulation to the states. Senior ADF attorney Erin Hawley argued the case on behalf of Mississippi.² Ending the federal constitutional right to abortion had been a stated goal of ADF for years, and Dobbs reshaped the organization’s public profile.

303 Creative v. Elenis (2023)

On June 30, 2023, the Court ruled 6–3 that Colorado could not compel graphic designer Lorie Smith to create wedding websites celebrating same-sex marriages. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that Smith’s custom websites constituted “pure speech” and that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing an individual to express messages they disagree with.³ ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner argued the case. The decision built on compelled-speech principles from Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and courts in other states have begun reconsidering discrimination claims in light of it.⁴

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

ADF represented cake artist Jack Phillips after he declined to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled 7–2 for Phillips, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown “clear and impermissible hostility” toward his religious beliefs. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion said the Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause by failing to act with constitutional neutrality.⁵ The ruling was narrow. Because the Court resolved the case on government-hostility grounds, it did not decide whether states may compel an artist to create speech that violates their beliefs.⁶

Other Rulings in ADF’s Supreme Court Record

ADF’s high-court wins also include National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), which struck down a California law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to post information about state-funded abortions; Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017), involving Missouri’s exclusion of a church from a public grant program; Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), which barred viewpoint discrimination against signs; Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), which upheld public prayer at government meetings; and Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021), which allowed students to seek nominal damages for past campus speech restrictions.⁷

Recent and Pending ADF Cases

Chiles v. Salazar — Conversion Therapy and Free Speech

On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 for Kaley Chiles, a Colorado counselor represented by ADF who challenged the state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, held that Colorado’s law regulates speech based on viewpoint when applied to talk therapy and must survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The Court rejected the state’s argument that the law regulated professional conduct rather than speech, writing that “the First Amendment is no word game.”⁸ The case was remanded, and ADF filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2026.⁹

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport — Donor Privacy

On April 29, 2026, the Court ruled unanimously that a faith-based pregnancy center in New Jersey had standing to challenge a state attorney general’s subpoena demanding its donor identities. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion held that such government demands create a present injury to First Amendment associational rights whether or not the subpoena has been enforced, and that promises of confidentiality or protective orders cannot cure the harm.¹⁰ The ruling lets nonprofits go directly to federal court when hit with investigative demands for donor lists.

Transgender Athletes at the Supreme Court

The Court heard argument on January 13, 2026, in two companion cases: Little v. Hecox, involving Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, and West Virginia v. B.P.J., involving a West Virginia law restricting sports participation based on biological sex at birth.¹¹ ADF helped draft the Idaho law and represents the states in both cases.¹² The central question is whether state laws limiting girls’ and women’s teams to athletes born female violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

During oral argument, Justice Kavanaugh questioned whether the Court should impose a nationwide constitutional rule while state policies remain divided, while Justice Sotomayor framed the bans as sex-based classifications that would require intermediate scrutiny.¹³ A decision is expected by mid-2026, and observers have suggested the justices appear inclined to uphold the laws.¹¹ Twenty-seven states currently have laws restricting transgender participation in school sports, many drafted with ADF’s model legislation.¹²

K.M.K. v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association

In June 2026, ADF filed suit in the Western District of Washington on behalf of 15-year-old wrestler Kallie Keeler and her mother. The complaint alleges that during a December 2025 girls’ wrestling tournament, Keeler was matched against a male athlete without prior notification and was sexually assaulted during the match. It also alleges that school and state officials waited 53 days to report the incident to law enforcement, in violation of a mandatory 48-hour reporting law.¹⁴ The Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office had declined to file criminal charges, citing uncertainty about proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.¹⁵ The suit raises claims under Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment.

DeGross v. Senn — Foster Care and Religious Liberty

In May 2026, ADF settled a lawsuit against Washington’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families on behalf of Shane and Jennifer DeGross, a Christian couple whose foster care license was denied in 2022 because they could not comply with a state policy requiring foster parents to use a child’s chosen pronouns and support social gender transitioning. Under the settlement, the state agreed to a permanent injunction, committed to revising its licensing policies so that officials may not condition or restrict a license based solely on a family’s religious beliefs, and paid $250,000 in attorneys’ fees.¹⁶

Abortion Litigation After Dobbs

Since Dobbs, ADF has largely turned to defending state-level abortion restrictions and challenging federal regulatory decisions. It served as counsel for Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds in a series of cases defending the state’s fetal heartbeat law. In June 2022, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned its own 2018 ruling that had recognized a state constitutional right to abortion, finding the earlier decision lacked “textual and historical support.” By June 2024, the court reversed a lower court injunction and allowed Iowa’s heartbeat law to take effect, applying rational-basis review to future abortion regulations.¹⁷

ADF also represented plaintiffs challenging the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone. That challenge focused on the FDA’s removal of in-person doctor-visit requirements and extension of the drug’s permitted use from seven to ten weeks of pregnancy. Waggoner has said that specific lawsuit did not seek to remove mifepristone from the market entirely but aimed to reinstate what ADF characterized as the drug’s “original safety standards.” ADF has separately endorsed an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that would recognize embryos as “persons” from the moment of conception, which Waggoner acknowledged would amount to a constitutional ban on abortion if courts adopted it.¹⁸

On June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina could direct Medicaid funding away from Planned Parenthood, another case in which ADF participated.⁷

Gender Identity and Title IX Beyond the Sports Cases

Gender-identity litigation is one of ADF’s busiest practice areas. In 2020, ADF filed the first federal Title IX lawsuit challenging policies allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports, Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal in 2022, but ADF has continued advocating for the athletes involved.¹²

ADF also successfully challenged the Biden administration’s 2024 Title IX rule redefining “sex” to include “gender identity”; a federal court vacated the rule nationwide in January 2025.¹² On medical treatment, ADF filed an amicus brief in United States v. Skrmetti supporting Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors and served as co-counsel defending a similar Alabama law in Boe v. Marshall.¹⁹ ADF has helped draft state legislation restricting gender-transition medical treatment for minors in states including Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, and Ohio, and members of the American College of Pediatricians have testified in support of those bans at ADF’s recruitment.²⁰

Religious Liberty in Employment and Education

ADF has litigated extensively to expand the “ministerial exception,” which shields religious organizations from employment discrimination claims when an employee’s role involves religious functions. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020), the Supreme Court broadened the exception, holding that the doctrine turns on an employee’s actual duties rather than a formal religious title or training.²¹ In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, the Fourth Circuit ruled unanimously in 2024 that a religious school could make employment decisions aligned with its beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality, a case in which ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief.²²

On college campuses, ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom reports more than 400 legal victories challenging university speech codes, censorship zones, and viewpoint-discriminatory policies.²³ Cases include Speech First v. McCall, a Fifth Circuit challenge to a discriminatory harassment policy at Texas State University, and the earlier Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski ruling.²⁴

Who Alliance Defending Freedom Is

ADF was launched on January 31, 1994, by a coalition of more than 30 Christian ministry leaders, including Bill Bright, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, and Larry Burkett. The organization operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit funded entirely by private donations and litigation awards; it does not accept government money and does not charge clients. A seven-member Grants and Review Committee of volunteer attorneys evaluates each case request, prioritizing matters with a “high likelihood of establishing positive precedents.”²⁵ ADF says it focuses on five areas: religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and marriage and family.¹

Kristen Waggoner has served as CEO, president, and chief counsel since October 1, 2022, taking over from Michael Farris, who led the organization from January 2017 and remains in an advisory capacity. Founding CEO Alan Sears led ADF for its first 23 years.²⁶ Waggoner has personally argued three Supreme Court cases: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Uzuegbunam, and 303 Creative.²⁷

ADF’s revenue has grown to $119.8 million in fiscal year 2025, of which $109.8 million came from individual contributions.²⁸

How ADF Is Described by Critics

The Southern Poverty Law Center designates ADF as an “anti-LGBTQ hate group.” The SPLC cites what it describes as ADF’s support for recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults, its advocacy for legislation permitting denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people, and internal communications the SPLC says link LGBTQ people to pedophilia and describe a “homosexual agenda” as a threat to society.²⁹ The SPLC also points to ADF’s amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), arguing that states should retain the power to criminalize same-sex sexual activity.²⁰

ADF has said it has “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” toward LGBTQ individuals and frames its litigation as a defense of First Amendment rights against government coercion.²⁹ Internal ADF media guidelines have instructed staff to avoid the term “transgender,” suggesting alternatives such as “gender confusion,” and the organization has described anti-discrimination ordinances as tools of “sexual indoctrination.”³⁰

1
Alliance Defending Freedom. About ADF
2
Congress.gov. Alliance Defending Freedom Annual Report Submission
3
Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21-476
4
League of Women Voters. LGBTQIA+ Discrimination and the Impact of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
5
Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
6
Alliance Defending Freedom. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
7
Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF at the U.S. Supreme Court
8
Justia. Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)
9
Alliance Defending Freedom. Chiles v. Salazar
10
Supreme Court of the United States. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, No. 24-781
11
SCOTUSblog. Little v. Hecox
12
Alliance Defending Freedom. Winning the Battle Against Gender Ideology
13
Quarles & Brady. Oral Arguments Point to Upholding Limits on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports
14
Alliance Defending Freedom. High School Female Athlete Sues After Unknowingly Wrestling Male
15
KING 5. Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Girl Wrestler After Puyallup Tournament
16
EWTN News. Washington State Settles Foster Care Suit
17
Alliance Defending Freedom. How ADF Helped Iowa Protect Unborn Life After Dobbs
18
Politico. Head of Alliance Defending Freedom Kristen Waggoner Speaks on Mifepristone
19
Supreme Court of the United States. ADF Amicus Brief in United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477
20
GLAAD. Alliance Defending Freedom
21
ADF Church Alliance. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
22
Alliance Defending Freedom. 4th Circuit Allows Religious School to Make Employment Decisions Aligned With Beliefs
23
Alliance Defending Freedom. Free Speech
24
ADF Media. Speech First v. McCall
25
MinistryWatch. Alliance Defending Freedom
26
Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF History
27
Federalist Society. Kristen Waggoner
28
ProPublica. Alliance Defending Freedom – Nonprofit Explorer
29
Southern Poverty Law Center. Alliance Defending Freedom
30
The New Yorker. Alliance Defending Freedom’s Legal Crusade