True North Legal says “No”, and that’s why we engaged in a pivotal case this week in the Minnesota Supreme Court.
True North Legal submitted an amicus brief this week, also representing Minnesota Family Council and the National Legal Foundation, in support of female athletes in the Cooper v. USA Powerlifting & USA Powerlifting Minnesota, case. The case, which will be heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court, is extremely important in the fight to ensure that the hard-fought gains of female athletes in all sports and at all levels of competition are not erased. Women deserve a safe and fair playing field, especially in strength competitions like female powerlifting. True North Legal’s brief details how Minnesota law, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act, requires that female athletics be reserved for female athletes, and speaks to the avalanche of evidence and data regarding the necessity to protect women-only sports categories. Most significantly, the brief incorporates data from the recently published UN Report cataloging the necessity of allowing sex-based distinctions in sport — in other words, women should compete against biological women in female-only categories. Women should not be forced to compete against transgender women, male-bodied athletes, in female athletic competitions.
Yes, it really is (and should be) that simple. And if you don’t take our word for it, consider the number of NCAA teams forfeiting games because they refuse to risk their health and safety by competing against a team with a biological male athlete, identifying as female. Read True North Legal’s brief here and stay posted for more updates on this case in our upcoming Family Beacon Podcast.
(Minnetonka, MN) – The Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) and co-counsel True North Legal (TNL) have filed an appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States District Court’s decision yesterday to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction in its case to reinstate Plaintiff Anthony Schmitt’s highly successful Christian rehabilitation program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility – St. Cloud. UMLC argues that this termination has unjustly deprived prisoners of a proven and transformative resource solely because of the DOC’s ideological opposition to normal Christian beliefs which have existed for millennia.
For over a decade, the entirely voluntary program led by plaintiff Anthony Schmitt and his team provided a lifeline for male inmates, helping them to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society by teaching principles of authentic manhood through Christian teachings. The program’s success is undeniable. It graduated more than a thousand inmates, and scores of inmates reported restored family relationships, resolved personal conflicts, and significant personal growth as a result of their participation.
However, in July 2023, the DOC abruptly canceled the program, citing its “direct conflict with the diversity, equity, and inclusivity values of the DOC” because it defined manhood through a “biblical lens.” This decision was conveyed to Schmitt in an email from DOC Assistant Commissioner Jolene Rebertus, effectively ending a program that had become a cornerstone of inmate rehabilitation in the facility.
Schmitt argues that the DOC’s actions are not only discriminatory but also a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights as well as the rights of the inmates. By terminating the program, the DOC has deprived prisoners of a critical rehabilitative service based solely on ideological opposition to its Christian foundation.
“The DOC has sacrificed the well-being of prisoners on the altar of left-wing secular religion. This program was not just successful—it was life-changing for the inmates who participated. Canceling it because it is rooted in Christian beliefs is a grave injustice.” said James Dickey, Senior Counsel at UMLC. “It is absurd that the DOC is openly discriminating against mainstream views of human sexuality shared across every major theistic faith tradition. We are committed to seeing this case through at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to restore this vital resource to the prisoners who desperately need it as soon as possible.”
“If the DOC and the Walz administration are truly committed to ‘freedom,’ as they claim, then Minnesota inmates deserve the freedom to choose to engage in a voluntary faith-based program that has set many inmates on a path to recovery,” said Renee Carlson, General Counsel at True North Legal. “The DOC’s actions are standing in the way of that freedom, denying inmates access to a program with proven results because the program is founded in principles consistent with millennia of Christian tradition and does not conform to secular government religion of the day.”
UMLC and TNL are seeking declarations from the courts that the DOC’s actions violate the federal and Minnesota constitutions and are demanding the reinstatement of the Christian rehabilitation program.
Click here to view the decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Today, Rep. Barbara Ehardt of Idaho, author and principal sponsor of the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which was enacted on March 30, 2020, filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the state of Idaho in Hecox v. Little asking the court to grant certiorari in the case. She was joined by fifty-five female state legislators and thirty-four family policy organizations across the country, including the Idaho Family Policy Center who helped the law pass through the Idaho legislature. All of these legislators and organizations have authored, sponsored, introduced, supported, or advocated legislation defining eligibility for women’s sports based on biological criteria,
The Fairness in Women’s Sports Act was passed to keep other female athletes from facing unfair competitions as was the case in Idaho prior to the law’s enactment. Shortly after the law was passed, the ACLU sued the state of Idaho claiming the law is unconstitutional because it does not allow transgender females — males who identify as females — to play in female only sports. The case has made its way up through the federal courts, and most recently, a panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the law unconstitutional.
The amici represented in this brief are legislators and policy organizations that championed Fairness in Women’s Sports laws or similar laws that protect women and girls’ athletic opportunities. These legislators and family policy organizations understand that the consequences of mandating a gender-identity criterion for participation in women’s sports would fundamentally change and erase women’s and girl’s sports altogether. This means years of hard fought gains and future opportunities for young girls would no longer remain. Moreover, legislators across the country who authored and co-authored these bills believe it is their responsibility and duty to protect the opportunities of women and girls in their respective states by enacting legislation like the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act that was passed in Idaho. Amici understand that girls’ athletic opportunities are some of the most formative and impactful times in a young girl’s or young women’s life, where experiences on the court or in the field foster enduring leadership qualities and character development. Amici believe all girls and women deserve that opportunity.
“Title IX changed my life. People need to understand that the opportunities that I had growing up were incredibly limited. I was eight years old when Title IX passed in 1972. But I kept my hope alive, continued to practice and ended up achieving my goal of both playing (Idaho State) and coaching Division I Women’s basketball at four fantastic institutions (UC Santa Barbara, BYU, Washington State and as the head coach at Cal State Fullerton). It is through these experiences that I worked hard to pave a better path forward for those who would follow. After years of work and witnessing huge growth for girls and woman in sports, it is devastating to watch us go backwards and, once again, have all of the female opportunities be based on what males need first. It began as what was best for men and we’re back to what’s best for men. This is terribly disappointing.” said Amicus Rep. Ehardt, former Division I NCAA basketball player and coach, and current coach for various clinics and travel teams for high-level high-school basketball prospects.
“Female athletes of all ages deserve a level playing field. Allowing men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports is hijacking more than podiums and scholarships. It’s taking away opportunities to learn valuable life lessons, develop character, and to build confidence, all of which are often the additional benefits of many female athletes,” said Renee Carlson, General Counsel for True North Legal and co-author of the brief.
“For over fifty years the nation has recognized the need for and celebrated the achievement of women in sports. There is broad consensus on this topic across ideological and political lines. Women deserve the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. These laws, like the ones passed in Idaho and Kansas, recognize the biological reality that embodied athletes play sports, not identities. These laws simply say that where biology makes a competitive difference, it should be respected. Courts must uphold these realities if we are going to continue to see the advancements that we are seeing today in women’s sports. We will continue to stand for women and girls,” said Brittany Jones, General Counsel for Kansas Family Foundation and co-author of the brief.
TheUpper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) and co-counselTrue North Legal (TNL) filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) officials’ abrupt cancellation of a Christian rehabilitation program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility – St. Cloud. The program, led by plaintiff Anthony Schmitt and his colleagues, has been an instrumental tool in facilitating successful transitions to the community for male prison inmates over the past decade.
The voluntary program, designed to instill principles of authentic manhood as per Christian teachings, saw remarkable success. More than a thousand inmates completed the program, reporting restored families, healed resentments, and transformative experiences. However, in July 2023, Schmitt received an email from DOC Assistant Commissioner and Defendant Jolene Rebertus, announcing the cancellation of the program, citing alleged conflicts with diversity and inclusion values.
Commissioner Rebertus’ email stated that the program “directly conflicts with the diversity, equity, and inclusivity values of the DOC by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a ‘real man looks like.’” Like a substantial number of professing Christians and Catholics in the United States, Schmitt simply believes what the Bible says about men and women and human sexuality. Schmitt vehemently disagrees with the DOC’s characterization of his views as discriminatory or biased, emphasizing instead the positive impact the program has had on rehabilitation.
This case draws parallels toFulton v. City of Philadelphia, where the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Philadelphia’s refusal to refer foster parents to a Catholic agency violated the First Amendment. The Court noted that such actions, driven by discrimination against religious beliefs, could not survive strict scrutiny.
UMLC and TNL argue that Commissioner Rebertus’ actions are not neutral or generally applicable, directly targeting Schmitt’s and the inmates’ religious beliefs. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that these actions violate Schmitt’s rights under the federal and Minnesota constitutions and demands the reinstatement of the program.
“This lawsuit is yet another example of the aggressive attack on people of faith in Minnesota. The state has not presented any evidence that the “Quest for Biblical Manhood” is harmful. In fact evidence in this case demonstrates quite the opposite! Even the DOC has in recent years praised the program for its results and impact on the lives of inmates,” said Renee Carlson, General Counsel for True North Legal.
“DOC officials canceled Anthony Schmitt’s “Quest for Authentic Manhood” program at the St. Cloud correctional facility because, as they said themselves, it is based on biblical Christianity and does not follow the State’s particular DEI religion,” said UMLC Senior Counsel James Dickey. “Both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the Constitution forbid this. We are committed to ensuring that Anthony Schmitt can continue to make a positive impact on the lives of those seeking rehabilitation.”
Plaintiff Anthony Schmitt said: “Through the Quest for Authentic Manhood program at St. Cloud, we have had incredible success over the last decade, with more than 1,000 inmates graduating and moving on to a restored life in the community. I have seen countless powerful testimonies and tears shed over the last decade because of the tremendous positive impact this program has had on inmates’ lives. I was shocked and dismayed when the DOC suddenly canceled us, and I just want to be able to minister to these men, who so desperately need support and rehabilitation.”
Just this week, we sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking to reinstate the Quest program.
As Alexandra Howell who argued the case on Wednesday made clear, “Tony taught a highly successful, and voluntary, rehabilitation program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Saint Cloud for over a decade. He was suddenly kicked out of the prison because the Department of Corrections disapproved of the “biblical lens” through which Tony taught the class. This action was blatant religious discrimination. A preliminary injunction is necessary so Tony can get back to his important work as soon as possible, and so inmates can have access to this transformative programming.”
We will continue to update you on this case as it progresses. Please keep our client, Anthony Schmitt, in your prayers as well as the legal team engaged in this fight to protect and defend religious freedom, not just for Mr. Schmitt, but for the inmates who deserve foundational and successful programs that restore inmates and put them on a path to healing and true recovery.
forces emergency room doctors to perform abortions and overrides state laws like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. Yet there is no reference to abortion in EMTALA, and no implications that providing medical treatment also mandates hospitals provide abortions, while the term “unborn child” is included in the EMTALA statute. Moreover, the Court’s clear precedent in Dobbs is that the legality of abortion is now left to the states to decide.
I also had the privilege of being in the Court watching oral arguments and can attest firsthand to the Biden administration’s reliance on novel legal theories about EMTALA, conflating unfettered access to elective abortion on demand with treatment for pregnancy-related emergency medical conditions such as ectopic pregnancies. This false and confusing narrative is consistent with the fearmongering of national and local abortion activists and Planned Parenthood, including in Minnesota. Here, local activists and legislators proffered the same misinformation about the necessity of abortion hoping that fearmongering would win the day, in a failed effort by many legislators in the Democratic party to pass a so-called state Equal Rights Amendment, which would add abortion up until birth to the Minnesota Constitution.
Ultimately, the Court did not address the merits of the case, and sent it back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration. In other words, this case is not over and we can have hope in that outcome. As Idaho’s Chief of Constitutional Litigation and Policy Josh Turner, who argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, aptly remarked about the decision, “…We forced the Biden administration to make major concessions before the Supreme Court that it did not want to make, and those concessions are going to save many unborn lives. The people of Idaho should not be fooled by the misleading headlines in the media. Instead, I encourage everyone to read the court’s opinions for themselves. The court may have decided to ‘punt’ today on the merits given the Biden administration’s ‘important’ and ‘critical’ concessions, but I have zero doubt after reading the decision, after standing before the justices and answering their questions, and after listening to the DOJ’s best arguments to defend the Biden administration’s legally untenable position, that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is not preempted by EMTALA and will be vindicated in full.”
While much is left to be decided in State of Idaho v. United States of America, we can celebrate the Court’s unquestionable affirmation of conscience protections for doctors in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, stating “EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections…” In other words, a physician cannot be compelled to abandon their oath to do no harm or be forced to violate their conscience by performing an abortion.
Please continue to pray for this significant case and the other legal battles in our state and across the country in the continued fight to protect life. We can assure you that at True North Legal we will unapologetically continue to support life and defend justice for women and preborn children in Minnesota by educating the public, and advocating for them in the legislature and in the courts. As I shared with you last week, the prolife movement is bigger than one day at the U.S. Supreme Court—we have the long view in mind.
Just yesterday in a unanimous decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine which includes pro-life doctors and other pro-life organizations lacked Article III standing, the legal requisite necessary for the Court to decide the case on the merits — the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) unlawful regulatory actions regarding the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone. Thus, at least for now, the FDA will not be held accountable for unlawfully removing many common sense health and safety standards for high-risk abortion drugs such as: simply requiring an in person doctor visit for prescribing this dangerous abortion drug, reporting requirements, and making the high-risk abortion drug available for women and girls via tele-health. So perilous chemical abortions will remain available under the FDA’s expanded access to mifepristone without many common sense guardrails for the abortion drug.
One practical implication of the abortion industry’s reckless disregard for safety is the lack of screening for prior complications like ectopic pregnancy and other pregnancy related conditions which puts women in danger and serious risk of medical complications. This is not hyperbole. When I spoke at the U.S. Supreme Court back in March of this year in support of the plaintiffs and pro-life doctors in this case, I heard heart wrenching stories of women and girls taking these drugs — left alone to perform their own abortions on a cold chilled bathroom floor. Some women shared that the emotional distress of being left along while losing a child was even more damaging than the physical suffering induced by medical complications of abortion drugs.
To be clear, abortion is not healthcare! Our amicus brief inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade, catalogues the lies and harms that the abortion industry has perpetrated against women and girls for nearly half a century. To that point, yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision does not change the fact that according to the FDA’s own label, one in twenty-five women who choose to take dangerous abortion drugs like mifepristone will end up in the emergency room due to medical complications. The abortion industry must come clean for its culpability of harming women and girls by refusing to be transparent about the risks of taking abortion drugs. It should not take a U.S. Supreme Court decision to compel their honesty.
However, the Court was very clear that “federal conscience laws definitely protect doctors from being required to perform abortions or to provide other treatment that violates their consciences.” (emphasis added). Thus implying conscience protections beyond the abortion context. Even more specifically, the Court stated that “EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections…” In other words, a physician cannot be compelled to abandon their oath to do no harm or be forced to violate their conscience. Based on this statement we have much hope as we anticipate another significant U.S. Supreme Court decision by the end of June in Idaho v. United States. (True North Legal and Kansas Family Foundation submitted an amicus brief in this case, read it here.) In this case, Idaho passed the Defense of Life Act, making nearly all elective abortions illegal in the state of Idaho. In applying a novel interpretation of a federal law that has been on the books for forty years, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), the Biden administration now claims this law forces emergency room doctors to perform abortions and overrides state laws like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. This, despite the Court’s clear precedent in Dobbs that abortion decisions are now left to the states to decide.
Despite our disappointment in this decision, I am just as encouraged if not more so about the pro-life movement than I was the on March 24, 2024, when I spoke about our pro-life movement at the U.S. Supreme Court. As I shared in my rally speech, our movement is bigger than one day at the U.S.Supreme Court. Across the nation and in Minnesota, I know that the abortion industry will never outmatch our our love, our courage, and our support for women, girls, and preborn children. All hope is not lost! In the words of the great prophet Jeremiah, “The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him.” Lamentations 3:25. Let us be people that seek the Lord and in turn point others to healing and hope in Christ, like women and girls who have been duped by the abortion industry.
Today, Renee Carlson of True North Legal is attending oral arguments at the Supreme Court of the United States for Idaho v. United States, a case which will likely determine whether the federal government will be allowed to use EMTALA, a federal law guaranteeing emergency medical care, to force states to perform abortions. Watch Renee Carlson discuss the case base below, then read the Amicus brief we filed with allies in this case.
As your voice in the legislature and the courts, True North Legal and Minnesota Family Council want to be sure you are equipped with information to engage on critical issues regarding life, family, and religious freedom.
Many of you have been following recent changes to the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which is not only consequential to Christians, but people of all faiths in Minnesota. This issue is of critical and urgent concern for all of us who believe in religious freedom in Minnesota. I’d like to provide you with more information on these changes from the perspective of a religious freedom attorney, and also ask you to take a moment to tell your legislators to protect religious freedom by clicking this link or the button below to go to Minnesota Family Council’s action alert.
In short, last year the legislature amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) by adding explicit legal protections for people based on “gender identity”. Previously protections extended to “sexual orientation” and were interpreted to apply to gender identity. The MHRA also included protections for religious organizations via a religious exemption established in 1993 when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected groups in the MHRA. This exemption prohibited the state from forcing religious organizations to comply with the anti-discrimination law provisions with respect to protected categories like sexual orientation when those provisions are inconsistent with a religious organization’s sincerely held beliefs. (See Minn. Stat. 363A.20, 363A.26).
The religious exemption statute was not amended last year to make clear that the legislature intended to maintain protections for religious organizations. The words “gender identity” should have been included in the exemption as well. While we had hoped it was an oversight, last month the House Judiciary Chair stated on the record that the omission of those words was intentional. A discussion ensued during the committee where Democratic legislators not only refused to accept an amendment to protect religious organizations, but also called the amendment to protect religious organizations “disturbing” and “disgusting.” This despite hearing reasoned testimony from members of different faith communities, including Christians, Catholics, and Muslims.
The Minnesota Senate also took up the MHRA bill providing another opportunity to testify and request that the Senate amend the bill and restore protections for religious organizations. We had around 24 hours’ notice from Sunday to Monday to prepare for this hearing. I arrived at 6:00 pm on Monday and testified at 12:30 am on Tuesday morning. You can watch my testimony here on Instagram or here on YouTube. Testifiers were only given two minutes for remarks on this significant issue and the committee Chairman stated his intent to wrap up any discussion on the MHRA bill in 20 minutes.
The time for solidarity for religious freedom and from religious people is now! You can click on this link to ask your legislators to stand up for religious freedom. We align on this issue with many faith communities in Minnesota. To be clear, our ecumenical partnerships are not a departure from our strong Christian convictions and beliefs. Our partnership is a reflection of our understanding that if we want religious freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others. And, in this freedom we have the great opportunity, and duty, to share the gospel!
Having worked with ministries and churches for quite a few years while also being involved in ministry and married to a pastor, the Lord has uniquely prepared me to be on the frontlines of this issue. He does not waste anything in my life experiences or yours!
True North Legal will continue in the work to restore our legal protections under Minnesota law. It is a joy to co-labor with all of you.
By Renee K. Carlson, General Counsel, True North Legal
UPDATE: This bill was pulled from the committee schedule in advance of its expected second hearing (March 7, 2024). The bill may continue to move forward in the Legislature, and no fix to the concerning language threatening religious freedom has yet been adopted.
Last week, the public learned that the statutory exemptions for religious organizations under the Minnesota Human Rights Act are under threat. Many groups from diverse faith communities, including Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Christian, and Catholic, signed a letter bringing attention to what appeared to be a legislative oversight due to statutory changes–namely, explicitly including “gender identity” as a protected category under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The letter asked legislators to make clear that the legislature did not intend to eliminate protections for religious organizations, religious schools, and religious nonprofits by omitting explicit statutory language that protects them.
On February 29th, 2024, the legislature heard a bill in the House Judiciary Committee (link to view it here starting at 13:00) amending various sections of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but the exemption for religious organizations remained in question. Rep. Harry Niska offered an amendment which would have amended the statute to make clear that the legislature indeed intends to honor religious freedom and religious autonomy of religious organizations and nonprofits. Notably, at this hearing, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Commissioner Lucero, also testified about the bill and did not offer to amend or change the language when given an opportunity. The Committee Chair, Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn stated that the omission was in fact intentional.
After hearing from testifiers representing diverse faith groups from across Minnesota, a heated discussion ensued where members of the “Queer Caucus,” including Rep. Leigh Finke and Rep. Brion Curran, expressed feelings of disturbance and “disgust” towards people of faith whose beliefs about gender and human sexuality are driven by their sincerely held religious beliefs. Another legislator, Rep. Frederick, a professing Catholic, stated it was “hard to listen to” some of the testifiers, who were simply asking that the State ensure that protections for religious groups under the Minnesota Human Rights Act are consistent with religious freedom protections afforded by the Minnesota Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
It was striking to see leaders of the Islamic, Catholic and ACSI (association of Christian Schools) testify in favor of the amendment in a dignified way, ensuring Committee members heard that the amendment was not about exclusion, but about protecting religious freedom. The hostile response from progressive legislators was shocking to witness, and Minnesotans have reacted with astonishment to this professed hostility toward religious freedom. To be clear, the religious exemption isn’t just about protecting one particular religious group; this applies to EVERY RELIGIOUS AND FAITH GROUP IN MINNESOTA!
Late last Friday, the Senate posted its schedule for this week, which included the companion bill in question, to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6th at 12:30 pm. Anyone who wanted to submit written or oral testimony was required to do so by 10:00 am on March 4th. On Monday, an email was sent to all of those who signed up to testify by 10:00 am stating that due to the number of testifiers and interest, a random selection process would determine who gets to testify. So, some people will be precluded from testifying and religious leaders in particular who may have influence in their communities would not be guaranteed the opportunity to have their voice heard. Not to mention there is little to no lead time for discussion or public debate on an issue of significant importance. To ensure religious protections are protected for all religious organizations in Minnesota the religious exemption must be included in legislation moving forward. This is the time to pray!
True North Legal’s General Counsel Renee Carlson welcomes Vice President Mike Pence to Minneapolis to speak about a parental rights case being heard in the 8th Circuit in St. Paul today. Vice President Pence gives remarks on parents’ rights and the role of families in the restoration of our nation. University of St. Thomas law professor Teresa Collett closes by emphasizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on parents’ fundamental rights to bring up and educate their children. Watch here.
