2025 was a significant year for the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center (MLLC). Just one year after its launch, MLLC is now serving as counsel in ten active cases, each of which presents the potential to meaningfully reshape Massachusetts law in key areas such as parental rights, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life. Below are brief summaries of several of these cases and their current procedural posture.
Jones v. Mahaniah: In September, together with our partners at Alliance Defending Freedom and First and Fourteenth PLLC, we filed a federal lawsuit against officials at the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families on behalf of two Christian foster families. These families were denied the ability to continue fostering solely because of their religious beliefs regarding gender and sexuality. We are currently celebrating an important development in this case. As announced earlier this week, DCF has issued emergency revisions to its policies, removing language that expressly required foster parents to affirm a child’s claimed gender identity or sexual orientation. While this reversal represents a significant victory, the case remains ongoing. We will continue to litigate until DCF provides a clear and binding commitment that such unconstitutional discrimination will not recur.
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee: This case originated in 2022, when MFI filed suit on behalf of parents against public school officials in Ludlow, Massachusetts. The parents alleged violations of their parental rights after they learned that school staff had been hiding information from them about their children’s “transgender identities.” Following several adverse rulings in the lower courts, and in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom and Child and Parental Rights Campaign, we have appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. We are currently awaiting a decision on whether the Court will grant our petition for certiorari and place the case on its docket.
Your Options Medical v. Healey: In August 2024, in partnership with the American Center for Law and Justice, we filed a federal lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the state’s unconstitutional and ideologically driven campaign to target and silence pro-life pregnancy resource centers. The complaint alleges that state officials engaged in viewpoint discrimination and misuse of government authority to discredit these organizations. The case is currently awaiting a hearing scheduled for January 29, 2026. We ask for continued prayers as we seek to defend the life-saving work of pregnancy resource centers in the year ahead.
Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools: In late October, together with attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice, we filed suit against Lexington Public Schools on behalf of a Christian father whose kindergarten-aged child was exposed to LGBTQ-themed storybooks despite the father’s explicit religious opt out request. The complaint alleges violations of the father’s rights to religious liberty and due process under both the federal and Massachusetts constitutions. This case follows the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which affirmed that parents have a First Amendment right to notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of public school curricular materials that substantially burden their religious beliefs. A hearing has been held on our motion for a preliminary injunction and we anticipate a ruling in early 2026.
Bethlehem House v. Reproductive Equity Now: In January 2025, we filed a first-of-its-kind defamation lawsuit on behalf of Bethlehem House, a pregnancy resource center in Easthampton. The suit seeks damages and injunctive relief against Reproductive Equity Now, an activist organization that allegedly collaborated with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a coordinated campaign to discredit pro-life pregnancy resource centers. The complaint alleges that Reproductive Equity Now knowingly published false and defamatory statements about Bethlehem House and other centers to undermine their mission of serving pregnant and parenting women. The case is currently in the discovery phase, and we remain committed to pursuing accountability and justice for this vital ministry.
Estabrook v. The Ivy League Council of Presidents: MLLC is serving as local counsel in a groundbreaking federal lawsuit brought by former University of Pennsylvania women’s swimmers Grace Estabrook, Margot Kaczorowski, and Ellen Holmquist. The plaintiffs have sued the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, the NCAA, and the Ivy League following their experience competing against and being required to share locker room facilities with a male athlete during the 2021 to 2022 women’s swimming season. The complaint alleges harassment, abuse, and violations of federal law, asserting that governing bodies fostered a culture of intimidation and compelled female athletes to deny biological realities at the expense of their privacy, safety, and athletic opportunities. Proceedings in this case are currently stayed pending the resolution of related litigation in Georgia.
Rufo v. Middlesex Community College and Dos Santos v. Genzyme Therapeutics LP: In these cases, we represent former employees who were terminated by their employers after requesting a religious accommodation to the COVID-19 vaccine. We allege in our complaint that, even though these employees’ sincere beliefs could have been accommodated by allowing them to work remotely or use precautions like masking and testing, their employers fired them anyway. This violated their rights, and we are seeking justice for them. These cases are in discovery.
In addition to its formal litigation docket, the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center achieved several consequential non-litigation victories in 2025 that materially advanced religious liberty and parental rights across the Commonwealth.
Most notably, MLLC played a key role in securing a landmark decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirming that parents do not forfeit their constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children simply because those children are involved with the child welfare system. The Court made clear that state interference with parental religious decision-making is subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, reinforcing long-standing protections under both the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the First Amendment.
MLLC also successfully intervened on behalf of a first-grade student whose public school unlawfully prohibited him from bringing and sharing Christian books with classmates. After MLLC’s advocacy, the school reversed course and formally acknowledged that students may engage in religious expression on the same terms as secular expression, consistent with clearly established constitutional law.
In another matter, MLLC halted an unconstitutional effort by the Salem Public School Committee to bar churches and religious organizations from renting school facilities. Following a detailed legal demand outlining the policy’s violations of the First Amendment and Massachusetts law, the Committee withdrew the proposal and returned it for revision, preventing viewpoint discrimination and preserving equal access to public facilities.
Together, these outcomes demonstrate MLLC’s ability to secure swift, meaningful constitutional victories through strategic legal advocacy, often without the need for prolonged litigation.
As we look ahead to 2026, the stakes could not be higher. With a growing docket of major cases poised to shape the future of parental rights and religious liberty in Massachusetts, this will be a defining year for our work. We ask you to stand with the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center now, helping equip us to press forward decisively and ensure these critical constitutional battles are fought and won in the year ahead.