Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the largest and most powerful anti-LGBTQ groups in the nation. The legal powerhouse raked in more than $50 million in revenue in 2016 and has what it refers to as a “powerful global network” of over 3,200 “allied attorneys.” ADF’s influence is widespread. It has played a role in dozens of Supreme Court cases, including ones regarding abortion, religion, tuition tax credits, and LGBTQ issues; it has special consultative status at the United Nations; and at least 55 of its affiliated lawyers, fellows, and former staff served in influential government positions at the state and federal levels in 2017. ADF is leading the fight against transgender student equality by attempting to sway, often successfully, local school policy across the country that affects basic protections for trans students, including their access to restroom facilities that align with their gender identity. The group actively works against nationwide efforts across the country to protect LGBTQ youth from the harmful and discredited practice of conversion therapy. It is also working to prevent LGBTQ people from adopting children by advocating for measures that would allow child welfare agencies to discriminate against prospective LGBTQ parents, among others. It has even targeted protections for transgender prisoners, who are at the highest risk for incidents of sexual violence in prisons and jails. ADF works closely with other influential and extreme anti-LGBTQ groups such as Family Research Council and Liberty Counsel.
Here is a list of areas that ADF has impacted with its work and actions, including positions it has taken and extreme rhetoric it has used:
-
Former ADF Global Executive Director Benjamin Bull applauded a 2013 decision in India to restore a criminalization statute that could punish sodomy with up to 10 years in prison, saying, “The Indian Court did the right thing.” India’s Supreme Court agreed to revisit the decision in 2018. [One News Now, 12/12/13; The Washington Post, 12/11/13; The Guardian, 1/8/18]
-
In 2012, ADF officials spoke at a conference in Jamaica focused on the idea that LGBTQ advocacy in the country, including a legal challenge to Jamaica’s anti-sodomy law, threatens “human dignity.” An ADF senior legal counsel addressed the conference, saying that “retention of the legislation prohibiting sodomy is the bulwark against” the so-called LGBTQ agenda. Jamaica’s law is still in effect and can punish LGBTQ people with “10 years of imprisonment with hard labor.” [Catholic Commission for Social Justice, 12/8/12; Human Rights First, 2015; Washington Blade, 7/24/17]
-
In 2013, ADF reportedly provided “advice, legal assistance and strategy” to efforts to defend a law in Belize that criminalized sodomy, punishing those involved in “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal” with imprisonment for up to 10 years. Belize’s Supreme Court struck down the law in 2016. [7 News Belize, 7/29/13; Belize Criminal Code, 12/31/00; The Advocate, 8/10/16]
-
In 2011, ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing in support of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that forced gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to hide their sexuality in order to serve in the military. The brief claimed that having gay people in the military would impede “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.” In an associated press release, ADF litigation staff counsel Daniel Blomberg argued, “Once the military is compelled to affirm homosexual and bisexual behavior, it will become an unwilling participant in the efforts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.” Blomberg also claimed that the troops’ “religious liberties are in unprecedented jeopardy because the government has caved in to pressure from small groups of activists to impose homosexual and bisexual behavior on our military.” In 2010, ADF also sent letters to Congress, President Barack Obama, and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in opposition to the policy. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 3/4/11, 7/22/11, 5/27/10, 4/28/10]
-
In 2008, ADF funded a friend-of-the-court brief on “don’t ask, don’t tell” in which ADF-allied attorney Steven W. Fitschen wrote, “When lawmakers have to decide between a military that can most effectively defend our nation and one that becomes a forum for social experimentation, the choice is clear: our nation’s security comes first.” Fitschen continued, “The military has certain obvious dynamics that make the inclusion of people who openly engage in homosexual behavior impractical.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 6/9/08]
-
In 2017, ADF argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Jack Phillips -- a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious beliefs -- in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. In 2018, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of ADF’s client based on the particulars of the case. The high court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “hostility” toward Phillips' religious beliefs when one commissioner made “inappropriate and dismissive comments.” The ruling thus left “the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently,” according to The New York Times. Religious exemptions cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop could have broad repercussions for LGBTQ people and could legalize discrimination against them in the marketplace by allowing businesses to deny services and goods to LGBTQ people. [The New York Times, 9/16/17; 6/4/18]
-
In 2017, ADF advised Attorney General Jeff Sessions to write a sweeping Department of Justice memo on religious exemptions, which makes it easier for people and businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people, among others, under the guise of “religious freedom.” [Vice News, 10/9/17; Media Matters, 10/6/17]
-
ADF has been involved in writing, supporting, and defending religious exemption bills in Indiana, Arizona, Georgia, Arkansas, Colorado, South Dakota, and West Virginia. These laws give religious organizations, businesses, and individuals broad license to discriminate against LGBTQ people. [Media Matters, 10/11/17]
-
In Mississippi, ADF helped write, justify, and defend a religious exemptions law that has been called the “most sweeping and devastating state law to be enacted against LGBTQ people in the country.” According to the Human Rights Campaign, the law could allow faith-based organizations to “refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for provision of critical services including emergency shelter; deny children in need of loving homes placement with LGBTQ families including the child’s own family member; and refuse to sell or rent a for-profit home to an LGBTQ person.” In addition, Lambda Legal said the law allows “medical and social service agencies to discriminate against Mississippians based on so-called 'moral' objections.” [Human Rights Campaign, 10/3/17; The Washington Post, 7/21/16; Media Matters, 10/11/17; Lambda Legal, 12/16/16]
-
ADF represented a client in Michigan who fired an employee for coming out as transgender. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled against ADF’s client, ADF senior counsel Gary McCaleb said, “American business owners, especially those serving the grieving and the vulnerable, should be free to live and work consistently with their faith.” ADF’s news release on the case repeatedly misgendered the transgender employee. [The Associated Press, 3/7/18; Alliance Defending Freedom, 3/7/18]
-
ADF submitted public comment asking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rescind several LGBTQ-inclusive protections that it categorized as infringing upon religious organizations’ and other medical providers’ “religious freedom.” The comment, which denounced asking for medical providers to “treat as valid the marriage of same-sex couples,” came before HHS announced a new “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” in January, which makes it easier for health care providers to discriminate against and deny medically necessary services to LGBTQ people. ADF praised HHS after it announced the creation of the division. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 11/23/17, 1/18/18; NBC News, 1/20/18]
-
ADF represented the owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Hawaii who denied a room to a lesbian couple based on her religious beliefs. On its website, ADF claimed that the owner of the accomodations has the “right not to promote behavior her faith teaches is immoral” and is protected from associating “with people who are unwilling to respect her deeply held religious beliefs.” [The Associated Press, 2/26/18; Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 5/10/18]
-
In 2017, ADF asked the Supreme Court to take up a case regarding its client Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of a flower shop in Washington state who declined to provide floral arrangements for a gay marriage. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 2/25/18, Tri-City Herald, 7/14/17]
-
In 2018, ADF presented oral arguments to the Arizona Court of Appeals on behalf of the owners of a calligraphy studio, Brush & Nib, in Phoenix who filed a lawsuit in 2016 against the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance “that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 4/23/18; The Associated Press, 10/27/17]
-
In 2018, ADF filed a brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court on behalf of the owner of a promotional apparel printer in the state who refused to print shirts promoting the Lexington Pride Festival. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 4/11/18]
-
In 2017, ADF filed an appeal on behalf of the owners of a video production company who had sued Minnesota in 2016 “arguing that a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act unconstitutionally prohibited them from refusing service to homosexual couples,” according to the St. Cloud Times. [St. Cloud Times, 10/20/17]
-
In 2018, ADF filed an appeal for a graphic designer who had unsuccessfully challenged Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act because she wanted to refuse services to same-sex couples and weddings. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 2/15/18]
-
For more examples, go here.
-
In 2015, ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the state of Alabama in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made marriage equality the law of the land, arguing that the court should not rule in favor of same-sex marriage and calling “marriage between a man and a woman … a universal good.” Regarding the brief, then-ADF legal counsel Doug Wardlow said, “The Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on all the states.” Wardlow continued, “The states should be free to affirm the essential role that marriage has always played in linking children to both of their biological parents. Maintaining these essential links surely constitutes a legitimate government interest, particularly in a time of increasing fatherlessness and broken homes.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 4/17/15, 4/6/15]
-
ADF wrote or advised on language for same-sex marriage bans in Idaho, Colorado, and South Carolina. [Human Rights Campaign, accessed 2/13/18]
-
In 2017, ADF fought against marriage equality in multinational courts in both Latin America and Europe. [Media Matters, 1/19/18]
-
In 2016, ADF submitted a legal opinion supporting a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in Romania. [Politico, 10/6/17; Alliance Defending Freedom, 4/25/17]
-
ADF sent its model “Physical Privacy Policy” to public school districts across the country in August 2017. The policy advocated that transgender students use “restrooms, locker rooms, showers, similar school facilities, and school-related overnight accommodations” that match the “sex as listed on the person’s original birth certificate.” In addition, ADF sent letters to specific school districts and all districts in the state of Minnesota that often included veiled threats of litigation. [Media Matters, 11/27/17]
-
ADF and its allied attorneys have directly inserted themselves into numerous lawsuits involving schools and school districts across the country, either filing briefs in support of schools that implemented discriminatory policies or suing school districts in order to overturn trans-inclusive restroom policies. [Media Matters, 4/4/17, 11/27/17; The Pathway, 3/28/18]
-
ADF lawyers and allied attorneys have testified in or advised during several school board meetings against trans-inclusive policies in states including Georgia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia. [Media Matters, 4/4/17, 11/27/17]
-
An analysis by Media Matters found that at least 10 of 28 anti-trans so-called “bathroom bills” introduced or active in 2017 had language resembling ADF’s model anti-trans policy. In one example, the introduced bill -- Arkansas Physical Privacy And Safety Act -- was nearly identical to ADF’s model policy. Montana's ballot Initiative 183, a “proposed 2018 ballot initiative that would force transgender people to use only those restrooms or locker rooms that match their biological sex as listed on their original birth certificate,” also mirrored language from ADF's policy. At least two school district policies also had language mirroring ADF’s. [Media Matters, 4/4/17, 11/27/17]
-
On its website, ADF claims that “adults who grew up with LGBT parents” have “one thing in common -- as children they craved the love and presence of their missing mother or father.” However, according to a review of research published in the Medical Journal of Australia, “Children raised in same-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as children raised by heterosexual-couple parents.” Likewise, researchers who completed a review of data from National Health Interview surveys found that “children raised in these [LGB] families have comparable psychological well-being compared with children raised by heterosexual parents." Another study also found that children of same-sex couples “fare better than their peers when it comes to physical health and social well-being.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 5/16/18; The Australian, 10/23/17; Newsweek, 11/8/17; Metro, 2/14/18]
-
In 2015, ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case arguing that biological parents are “best suited to provide optimal care for their children,” later citing flawed research by D. Paul Sullins that claims children with same-sex parents have emotional problems. According to The Atlantic, “many, many more studies reached opposite conclusions” to Sullins’ research. Additionally, in a press release about the brief, ADF cited extreme anti-LGBTQ group the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) claiming that studies “find that children with same-sex parents suffer substantially reduced well-being.” ACPeds is a small organization whose name is meant to be confused with the legitimate medical organization the American Academy of Pediatrics that regularly pushes myths about LGBTQ people, including parents. Psychology Today wrote that ACPeds was formed in 2002 because of a few physicians’ belief that “gay parents are bad parents” and that the organization has “ignored key literature and issued a non-peer-reviewed report” on the matter, making it seemingly “the only group of physicians holding this stance.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 4/7/15, 4/3/15; The Atlantic, 2/19/15; Psychology Today, 5/8/17]
-
On its website, ADF falsely claims that children with a lesbian parent are four times more likely to be raped than are those with straight parents and that children with a gay father are three times more likely to be raped. This claim comes from a flawed study by anti-LGBTQ researcher Mark Regnerus that has been debunked because he misclassified approximately one-third of respondents as having lived with same-sex parents when those children either “never lived with their same-sex parents or lived with them very briefly.” According to The Washington Post, “based on a re-evaluation of the data” used by Regnerus, “there are minimal differences in outcome for children raised by same-sex parents and married opposite-sex parents.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 4/11/18; NBC News, 4/8/17; The Washington Post, 5/10/15]
-
ADF lawyers and allied attorneys worked in Georgia, South Dakota, Texas, Michigan, Mississippi, and Colorado to pass and defend legislation that allows child welfare agencies to discriminate against prospective parents who do not align with their religious beliefs, including LGBTQ people, interfaith couples, single parents, and others. [Media Matters, 3/2/18; Colorado Times Recorder, 4/25/18; Human Rights Campaign, 6/15/17]
-
In a 2009 case, ADF argued against a West Virginia lesbian couple that sought to adopt a baby they fostered. According to The Nation, “ADF noted that the couple had insisted that the court be ‘forced to treat their home as just as good as any other.’ But, ADF wrote, ‘this cannot be.’” The Nation also reported that “in another parenting case” in 2010, ADF “used the fact that the couple could not marry as an argument against allowing them to adopt,” arguing, “It is logical to prevent children’s exposure to the illicit sexual conduct and revolving-door of adult sexual partners that often accompany cohabitation.” [The Nation, 11/28/17]
-
ADF’s website says that attacks on “family values” include efforts to “allow those engaging in homosexual behavior to have preference to adopt children and be foster parents.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 5/30/18]