A widowed Christian mom-of-five scored a major legal victory after a federal appeals court ruled that the state of Oregon violated her constitutional rights by barring her from adopting foster children because of her refusal to support gender transitions.
Jessica Bates, who says her faith prevents her from using preferred pronouns or facilitating hormone treatments, was blocked by the state after she said she could not affirm an LGBTQ+ child’s identity.
She sued – and now, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with her, calling the state’s policy a violation of her free speech and religious freedom.
‘This is a win not just for me, but for people of faith who want to help kids without compromising their beliefs,’ Bates said after the ruling.
In a 2-1 decision issued on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) policy that effectively barred Bates from becoming a foster parent.
Bates was refusing to comply with the state’s requirement to ‘respect, accept and support’ a foster child’s gender identity and sexual orientation.
‘We hold that Oregon’s policy violates the First Amendment as applied to Bates,’ wrote Judge Daniel Bress in the court’s majority opinion, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
The court ordered a preliminary injunction blocking the state from using its current policy to prevent Bates from moving forward with the adoption process.
Jessica Bates, from Oregon, a widowed Christian mom of five scored a major legal victory after a federal appeals court ruled that the state violated her constitutional rights by barring her from adopting foster children because of her refusal to support gender transitions
The Christian mom-of-five wanted the option to adopt after losing her husband. She said she felt ‘called by God’ to care for additional children
Bates, who lives in Malheur County, said she felt ‘called by God’ to care for additional children after losing her husband. The five children she already has are her biological kids.
She had hoped to adopt two siblings under the age of nine but was disqualified after refusing to sign a commitment to fully affirm an LGBTQ+ child’s identity, including using chosen names and pronouns or providing access to gender-related medical treatments.
‘I believe God gives us our gender/sex and it’s not something we get to choose,’ Bates wrote in her application.
‘I have no problem loving them and accepting them as they are, but I would not encourage them in this behavior.’
The state of Oregon argued that its policy is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in its custody. But the appeals court disagreed, finding the regulation was overly broad and imposed an unconstitutional burden on Bates’ free speech and religious liberty.
‘It is not narrowly tailored to impose on Bates an extreme and blanket rule that she may adopt no child at all based on her religious faith,’ Bress wrote.
The court emphasized that the state could simply avoid placing LGBTQ+ children with Bates while still allowing her to foster or adopt.
The lone dissent came from Judge Richard Clifton, who warned that Bates was seeking to foster ‘only on her terms,’ and that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting children from potential rejection or harm.
Jessica says it was her faith that encouraged her to adopt more children following the loss of her husband, David, pictured
‘Parents would not be expected to entrust their children to caregivers who volunteer that they will not respect the child’s self-determined gender identity,’ Clifton wrote.
The case has drawn national attention and praise from conservative groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented Bates.
‘Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents,’ said ADF senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs.
‘That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state’s ideological crusade.’
In an interview with KGW8, Bates reiterated her commitment to loving all children in her care, but said she would not affirm an LGBTQ+ identity or allow permanent medical interventions like hormone therapy.
‘I’m still gonna love them deeply,’ she said. ‘But just like my biologicals, I probably will not allow them to do any, like, permanent… hormone injections, anything that’s going to rob them of their God-given body.’
Bates said she would not use a child’s chosen name or pronouns and would instead steer the conversation toward her Christian faith.
‘God makes our identity,’ she said. ‘It might not feel like a gift right now… but that’s something actually really special, and you are beautiful and perfect, just how you are right now.’
Asked whether she would reject an LGBTQ+ child, Bates said she would never kick a child out – except in cases of ‘sexually aberrant’ behavior.
‘The Christian sex ethic is very narrow and simple… any of the sexual activity that’s outside of God’s defined institution of marriage is something I would not be OK with in my house,’ she added.
The court’s decision now sends the case back to a lower court in Oregon, where Bates’ constitutional claims will be reconsidered under strict scrutiny – the most rigorous standard in constitutional law. Historically, policies that fail this test are rarely upheld.
ODHS has not yet said whether it plans to appeal the decision, but a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice acknowledged the setback. ‘We are disappointed in the ruling but are reviewing to determine next steps,’ said Jenny Hansson.
Meanwhile, Bates says she intends to continue the foster care certification process – and insists that her position is about faith, not hatred.
‘I would hope that we would have open communication,’ she said. ‘But I would probably, you know, remind them of Christ, my Christian faith that… God makes our identity, and that’s something sacred and holy.’
The ruling is expected to have wide ramifications for how states balance nondiscrimination policies with religious freedom in the child welfare system and is already being hailed by Christian conservatives as a landmark win in the culture wars.
