Categories
Religious Freedom

True North Legal Files SCOTUS Brief to Protect Counseling Freedom & Religious Freedom

From True North Legal:

This amicus brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court  to reverse the Tenth Circuit’s decision upholding Colorado’s counseling restriction, a law that prohibits young people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from getting counseling that aligns with their self-selected counseling goals, like the counseling restriction law that passed in Minnesota a few years ago. The law is a speech muzzle on counselors who desire to help children and adolescents reconcile their hearts and minds with biological reality. True North Legal’s brief argues that the overly broad law violates the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and religious liberty by banning counseling that does not affirm state-sanctioned views about gender identity and sexual orientation.

As True North Legal explains in their May 16, 2025 blog post, the case “strikes at the heart of our freedoms” and presents a pivotal question:

“Can the state silence licensed professionals and prevent clients from pursuing their own counseling goals—particularly when those goals are informed by their deeply held religious beliefs?”

Amici represented in this brief include:

Erin Brewer, Ph.D., a former transgender-identified youth who overcame gender dysphoria through counseling after trauma, now a national advocate for alternatives to gender-affirming care.

Nate Oyloe, a Christian counselor and founder of Agape First Ministries, who experienced and overcame same-sex attraction and gender confusion through faith-based counseling.

CCFA (Christian Counselors Freedom Alliance), a Minnesota-based coalition of fifty-five licensed mental health professionals who assert that counseling restrictions like Minnesota’s and Colorado’s violate their constitutional rights and harm clients.

Renee Carlson, General Counsel, True North Legal:

“This brief makes clear that the First Amendment doesn’t end at the counseling room door. The government cannot dictate what counselors say to their clients—especially when the speech is guided by the clients’ own personal goals and beliefs. While the law targets licensed mental health professionals, they are not the only victims. Under these counseling restrictions, children and adolescents struggling with severe mental health challenges are left to go it alone.”

Doug Wardlow, Director of Litigation, True North Legal:

“Our Constitution protects both free speech and free exercise of religion. Counseling restrictions like Colorado’s and Minnesota’s are blatant viewpoint-based censorship. They harm not only counselors but also the very young people they claim to protect. The First Amendment does not permit the state to dictate what views counselors may discuss with their clients, let alone prohibit counseling that aligns with biblical principles.”

Learn More:

Agape First Ministries (Nate Oyloe)

Erin Brewer

Supreme Court docket for Chiles v. Salazar (No. 24-539)

TNL testimony on Minnesota counseling ban

Categories
Religious Freedom

If You Care About Religious Freedom, Read This

Dear friends,

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.

Renee Carlson

General Counsel, True North Legal

Categories
Religious Freedom

Bringing Clarity: The Status of Exemptions for Religious Organizations in Minnesota

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!

Categories
Family Life Religious Freedom

Washington Stand Features Renee Carlson

Washington Stand writes: “Renee Carlson, general counsel for True North Legal, an initiative of the Minnesota Family Council, criticized the bill’s promotion of abortion and gender identity ideology. ‘Based on elusive claims about access to abortion and with insufficient public notice or debate, the Minnesota legislature and Walz administration created one of the most extreme abortion regimes in the country. Minnesota’s newly elected Democratic trifecta created a fundamental right to abortion by repealing, and thus removing, nearly all health and safety protections in civil and criminal law regulating abortion, impacting women and young girls.’

She continued, ‘Other provisions in the bill reflect an aggressive push by the newly elected majorities in the House and Senate, in concert with Governor Walz and his administration, to force aggressive gender ideology and gender policies on all Minnesotans.'”

Read full article: https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/minnesota-lawmakers-push-abortion-and-gender-ideology-with-passage-of-800page-omnibus

Categories
Family Life Religious Freedom

Renee Carlson on Upper Midwest Law Center Podcast

Renee Carlson joined James Dickey of Upper Midwest Law Center to discuss the rapid pace of policy change in Minnesota.

Click here or on the thumbnail above to watch the full episode.

Categories
Religious Freedom

True North Legal Testifies on Dangerous Counseling Censorship Bill

Watch Renee’s testimony on SF 23 above, or read the full text below.

Madam chair and members,

My name is Renee Carlson. I serve as General Counsel for TNL.

Life isn’t easy. We know this from the testimonies heard today.

Because every person’s story is different, access to trusted counselors is critical for all Minnesotans.

Moreover, counselors and clients should direct the conversations about a client’s counseling experience, not the government. 

But SF 23 doesn’t allow either. It stifles personal counseling goals by censoring constitutionally protected speech of licensed counselors, clients, and many others, which is likely to result in a vacuum of care, leaving patients who voluntarily seek counseling without any options.

SF 23’s unconstitutional discrimination based on content and viewpoint permits speech that helps a person change his or her gender identity or embrace same-sex attractions. Yet bans speech, that helps a person address unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has “long protected the First Amendment rights of professionals”—such as therapist and counselors, and signaled that counseling censorship laws such as SF 23 violate these rights and principles regarding free speech.

And, just a few years ago, the 11th circuit court of appeals struck down a FL law with similar yet even narrower language than SF 23, holding it was an infringement on constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, stating ““People have intense moral, religious, and spiritual views about [counseling related to sexuality and identity]…. And that is exactly why the First

Amendment does not allow communities to determine how their neighbors

may be counseled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.”

Our own 8th Circuit has been clear that speech is not conduct simply because the government says it is.

SF 23’s consumer fraud provision makes this bill the most expansive counseling censorship bill in the country. The bills vague and overly broad language leave counselors, clients, and all others expected to comply with the prohibitions confused about what is actually prohibited.

However, under the proposed bill, faith-based organizations engaging in faith-driven activities could be subjected to severe legal consequences and ruinous lawsuits. 

Minnesotans of diverse faith backgrounds will be caught between liability under the law and strong moral convictions. 

Further, these provisions are unnecessary, as current Minnesota law already holds licensed professionals accountable.

There is no justification for legislation that violates Minnesotan’s freedom of speech in a very private setting, while imposing severe legal consequences for Minnesotans who simply want to live consistent with their deeply held beliefs.

Categories
Religious Freedom

ICYMI: Vice President Pence Praises True North Legal

From June 2022: Vice President Pence praised the work of True North Legal in a video released by Minnesota Family Council.

True North Legal worked with Vice President Pence’s organization, Advancing American Freedom, to submit an Amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson, urging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Categories
Religious Freedom

303 Creative Case is Crucial Test of Religious Freedom

On December 5, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in graphic designer Lorie Smith’s case, 303 Creative v. Elenis. At stake is whether artists—indeed all Americans—will be free to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. Lorie’s case has become even more important after the Senate’s shameful vote last week on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill which demonstrates that officials at the highest level of government are increasing hostile to free speech and religious liberty. No one should be forced to say something they don’t believe, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of speech of all Americans in 303 Creative

True North LegalReason for Life, and Iowa’s Family Leader filed an amicus brief in support of 303 Creative, which you can read HEREIn this short video, hear True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson discuss the case with Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Matt Sharp.

Categories
Religious Freedom

POST Board Threatens Religious Freedom for Peace Officers

Some of you probably saw recent headlines about the Peace Officer Licensing Standards and Training (POST) Board’s proposed revisions to its rules relating to peace officer education and licensing. Unfortunately, it is clear that these proposed revisions to the rules significantly infringe on religious freedom as well as other rights protected under United States and Minnesota constitutions.

In the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), the POST Board claims these rules are necessary in order tostop the “…continued erosion of the public’s trust of law enforcement officers and agencies because [of] officers’ discriminatory conduct, and officer participation in hate groups..” However, if passed these rules will do the just the opposite. In its current draft form, the POST Board’s new revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing of peace officers will create serious legal and policy implications affecting numerous peace officers across the state.

That’s why True North Legal (TNL), a legal initiative associated with Minnesota Family Council, along with other allied organizations, took the first step to oppose these egregious rules. We submitted a comment and request for a contested case rulemaking proceeding consistent with Minnesota law, and we are asking you to do the same. As further discussed, and referenced in the legal analysis provided in our comment, these rule as drafted are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.

Read our comments now:

Categories
Religious Freedom

Template for Comments to Minnesota POST Board

July 19, 2022

Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training 

1600 University Avenue West Suite 200 

St. Paul, MN 55104 

Email: POSTrules.POST@state.mn.us

RE: POST Board’s Revisions to the Rules Relating to Education and Licensing of Peace Officers

Dear Members of the POST Board,

As [insert member of the public, organization, or name,] I object to the POST Board’s proposed revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing for peace officers. More specifically, I am concerned about the proposed revisions defining discriminatory conduct and related behavior. 

To be clear, [I/we] have a common understanding that no one, including peace officers, should engage in unlawful discrimination. However, these proposed revisions are extremely broad and offer no clear guidance to the many officers across the state that will be impacted by these proposed changes to the rules.

In fact, as currently drafted, the rules are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. It is for these reasons that [I/we] request a contested case rulemaking proceeding on the proposed revisions to the rule consistent with Minnesota law.

[name and address]