A federal court has ruled that a conservative Christian woman cannot be barred from adopting because of her objection to LGBT ideology, with a 2-1 decision leaving her vindicated after she was previously legally required to “respect, accept, and support” an adopted child’s gender preferences and orientation.
For background, on July 25, 2025, press accounts confirmed that a federal appeals court had determined that Jessica Bates, a widow and mother of five, could not be barred from adopting a child after she refused to accept the state of Oregon’s conditions for adoption, which include the obligation to be supportive of a child regardless of their orientation and self-identified gender. Bates previously sued Oregon officials when they rejected her adoption application based on her stance on LGBT issues alone.
In the court’s decision, Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress, who President Trump appointed, wrote that the state of Oregon was in the wrong when it mandated that adoptive parents “respect, accept, and support” the gender identity and orientation of a child. On behalf of the majority, Judge Bress wrote, “We hold that Oregon’s policy violates the First Amendment as applied to Bates. We reverse the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief and direct that a preliminary injunction be entered.”
Furthermore, Judge Bress argued that the issue of adoption is not “a constitutional law dead zone,” adding that the situation “would be no different if the state had restricted parental speech favoring more ‘progressive’ views of sexuality and gender identity, while compelling speech along the lines of Bates’s more traditional understanding.”
However, Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, who was appointed by George W. Bush, wrote a dissenting opinion, making the case that the state “should not be powerless to protect children for whom it has parental responsibility and for whom it has decided respect should be given.” Judge Clifton continued, “No one should be able, as a matter of right, to require the state to turn over its wards and treat them in ways that are, in the state’s judgment, disrespectful and even dangerous.”
Moreover, Judge Clifton wrote that the state of Oregon had “determined that the ability to respect a child’s sexual orientation and gender identity is an important qualification for a foster parent.” He added, “It is not our job to quarrel with that determination.”
On the other hand, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Bates in her lawsuit against Oregon officials, celebrated the decision and praised Bates, with Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs saying, “Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa.”
Furthermore, Scruggs made the case that because parents like Bates “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.” He argued, “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.”
Featured image credit: Shutterstock