Oregon Mother Free To Adopt Children Without Supporting Gender Ideology

The settlement, which bars the state from enforcing the rule against Bates only, stipulates the state may not exclude her from adoption consideration because of her sincerely held religious beliefs. In the court order, the state also agreed that Bates is the “prevailing party” and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

In 2023, Bates sued the Oregon Department of Human Services on First Amendment grounds after she was disqualified from adopting for refusing to say she would use opposite-sex pronouns, take children to “pride” parades, or give them puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

“As a widowed mom of five, I was surprised to feel God nudging me to adopt. I never dreamt it would lead to a years-long lawsuit when Oregon excluded me just because of my religious convictions about gender,” said Bates.

Initially, a federal district judge ruled against Bates in favor of the state’s adoption policy by admitting that the rule does compel speech but does so to protect a child’s rights. However, in July 2025 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision in a 2-1 ruling that handed down a preliminary injunction blocking the state from applying the rule to Bates. The appeals court ruled Bates proved a “likelihood of success on the merits” of her free speech and religious freedom claims.

The Ninth Circuit majority emphasized that constitutional protections do not disappear during adoption.

“Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone,” the 2025 ruling reads. “And a state’s general conception of the child’s best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights.”

The appeals court specifically identified free speech and religious liberty as “vital” constitutional rights in which the state cannot condition their surrender for state benefits.

“Fundamental as basic freedoms, these rights spring from a common constitutional principle: that the government may not insist upon our adherence to state-favored orthodoxies, whether of a religious or political variety,” states the ruling. Oregon’s policy “is not neutral” toward religion, the court concluded.

The settlement makes the Ninth Circuit’s preliminary ruling freeing Bates to pursue adoption permanent.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The settlement based on the Ninth Circuit’s decision acknowledges that the government cannot require citizens to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs as the price to adopting children in need. A state forcing parents to embrace radical gender ideology in order to adopt children is offensive to the First Amendment. Gender rules cannot override the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious exercise. Since the settlement and the Ninth Circuit decision are narrow applying only to Jessica Bates, Oregon and every state must work to make these protections in foster and adoption services statewide.”