Court rules in favor of Christian ministry in contract dispute

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Christian ministry that cares for victims of sex trafficking, enabling the organization to contract with an Ohio county as its lawsuit alleging religious discrimination by exclusion from such contracts moves forward. 

In a ruling on Monday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio’s Western Division at Dayton granted the Christian ministry Gracehaven Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Montgomery County officials enjoining them from refusing to enter into a contract with and provide federal funding under the Title IV-E program to the ministry because it only employs individuals that align with its religious beliefs. Gracehaven ministers to the needs of young girls who are victims of sex trafficking. 

Monday’s preliminary injunction comes four months after Gracehaven filed a complaint alleging that the county refused to renew its contract because of its policy of only employing those who ascribe to its religious beliefs/ Gracehaven argues the county’s decision is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The preliminary injunction, which the ministry first requested in February, will provide Gracehaven with temporary relief as litigation continues. 

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

“Gracehaven will likely succeed on the merits of its claim that Montgomery County’s actions violated the Free Exercise Clause because it excluded Gracehaven from an otherwise available public benefit based on Gracehaven’s choice to employ those who share the same faith,” wrote Judge Michael Newman in his opinion Monday. Newman was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump. 

Newman cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Carson v. Makin decision multiple times in his opinion. He highlighted the ruling’s determinations that the First Amendment “protects against ‘indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions’” and that states violate the First Amendment by excluding “religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The religious freedom legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Gracehaven in the ongoing litigation, reacted to the development in a statement on Wednesday. “The government can’t deny public benefits to a Christian ministry that is caring for young survivors of sex trafficking solely because of its religious character and exercise,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jake Reed.

Reed characterized Gracehaven as “a force for good, providing comprehensive care, support, and a safe place to call home for the most vulnerable girls in Ohio.” He expressed gratitude that “the court agreed that the Constitution prohibits the county from punishing Gracehaven by excluding it from the foster care system and public funding simply because the ministry hires those who share its faith.”

Gracehaven Director Scott Arnold said his “team of Christian employees” were “paramount” to the mission of the organization that works to help young girls who were trafficked to “thrive with dignity in a renewed life.”

He added that it’s essential the organization has the “ability to hire like-minded people of faith” to carry out its mission of helping “girls work through their pain and trauma and move toward living healthy, fulfilling lives.” He thanked Alliance Defending Freedom for its “help in securing this victory.”

The lawsuit comes after Montgomery County had contracted with Gracehaven for nearly a decade, with the most recent contract running from April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2024. The contract enabled Gracehaven to provide “substitute care services,” specifically by placing children into foster care. Montgomery County has several “substitute care services” contracts with other providers. 

When Gracehaven sought to renew the contract for a term of one year, it reached an impasse with the county over its request to include a “non-discrimination provision,” stressing that the ministry had the ability to screen potential employees based on their religious beliefs. Montgomery County declined the request, insisting that it would use “the standard county non-discrimination provisions and not include the Gracehaven specific” one.

After Gracehaven continued to push for the inclusion of its own “non-discrimination provision,” the county informed the ministry that “Montgomery County Children Services will not move forward with the renewal of the substitute care contract with Gracehaven.” While Gracehaven agreed to renew the contract without the provision, the county still declined to do so because of its concerns about the ministry only hiring people who shared its religious beliefs.