Court Cases We Are Monitoring
Overview
The Council is committed to helping our members stay informed about litigation that may have an impact on the philanthropic sector. This resource is designed to be a guide to cases that could impact the operations of foundations and other grantmaking organizations. For a more comprehensive overview of cases targeting DEI initiatives broadly, we recommend consulting this DEI litigation tracker published by The Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University School of Law.
This webpage was last updated on October 27, 2025.
Cases
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin
The Supreme Court of the United States
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin arose from a subpoena issued by New Jersey’s Attorney General, which demanded production of a broad list of documents and records, including the names of most of First Choice’s donors. First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy center, challenged the subpoena in federal court, arguing that compelled disclosure would violate their First Amendment rights to speech, association, and privacy. At the same time, the Attorney General sought to enforce the subpoena in state court. The federal district court dismissed First Choice’s claims as “not ripe” meaning not yet at a stage where the federal court can hear the case, because the state court had not yet ordered First Choice to comply with the subpoena. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Current Status: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case during its 2025-2026 term. The key question before the Court is procedural: when a state action creates a credible chilling effect on constitutional rights, must the target wait for state enforcement before raising federal constitutional claims, or can it seek federal court relief in advance? A ruling for the state could mean that organizations whose protected speech is chilled by state investigations or similar action would have to wait until the state has taken all necessary steps to enforce those actions before they could be challenged in federal court.
State of Tennessee v. United States Department of Education
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Tennessee, joined by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon. The case challenges the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) program under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act. At issue is a requirement that at least 25% of a school’s enrollment be Hispanic in order to qualify for certain federal grants. State leaders and SFFA argue that this threshold leaves out colleges and universities in Tennessee that meet every other eligibility measure. They contend the rule amounts to race-based discrimination, puts federal funding out of reach for many schools, and pressures institutions to alter their student demographics in ways that conflict with anti-discrimination laws. The National Association of Scholars, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences and Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities and the Department of Education’s have already filed motions to intervene and the DOE's response is expected in early October.
National Religious Broadcasters vs. Werfel
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
The National Religious Broadcasters, an association of conservative broadcasters, Intercessors for America, a conservative prayer advocacy group, and two Baptist churches in Texas filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claiming their right to speak freely about political candidates and issues was being “improperly chilled” by the Johnson Amendment. They are asking the court to declare the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional.
The Johnson Amendment refers to language introduced by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954, which prohibits non-profit organizations exempt from tax under § 501(c)(3) from “directly or indirectly” participating in political campaigns, specifically in endorsing or opposing political candidates.
The plaintiff churches and the IRS have jointly submitted a request for the court to approve an order settling the parties' dispute, which centers on whether the plaintiffs can engage in political speech during religious services without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. Under the proposed order now before the court, "speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith" will not be considered to fall under the Johnson Amendment's prohibition on participation or intervention in political campaigns. Although the order would only directly apply to the plaintiff organizations, it potentially opens the door for further challenges to IRS enforcement of the Johnson Amendment on First Amendment grounds.
Current Status: The plaintiff churches and the IRS have jointly submitted a request for the court to approve an order settling the parties' dispute, which centers on whether the plaintiffs can engage in political speech during religious services without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. Under the proposed order now before the court, "speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith" will not be considered to fall under the Johnson Amendment's prohibition on participation or intervention in political campaigns. Although the order would only directly apply to the plaintiff organizations, it potentially opens the door for further challenges to IRS enforcement of the Johnson Amendment on First Amendment grounds.
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Comm’n
The Supreme Court of the United States
On June 5, 2025, The United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Wisconsin violated the Constitution by “imposing a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices.” Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities’ ministry to the poor and needy was not “typical” religious activity because it served everyone, not just those who were Catholic. This meant that Catholic Charities could not join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s unemployment compensation program but was stuck paying into the state’s less efficient and more costly plan.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching effects on the treatment of religious organizations under state laws, particularly concerning tax exemptions and the newly expanded definition of religious activities.
American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Pritzker
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), a nonprofit member organization, filed suit against Illinois Governor Jay Robert Pritzker and the Chairman of the Illinois Student Assistance Commission alleging that the state program's race-based criteria violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. AAER alleges that the state-run Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program, which provides up to $7,500 per year to minority students pursuing teaching careers, is unconstitutional and discriminatory because it excludes non-minority students. AAER argues that Illinois cannot disqualify students from competing for a taxpayer-funded college scholarship because of their race, and race-based discrimination is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Current Status: Pritzker's motion to dismiss the case was denied. Pritzker's response was due in early September but Pritzker has filed an extention for more time.
Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, Inc. v. Steve Walker
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) filed a lawsuit alleging a homeownership program operated by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission violates the Equal Protection Clause. FAIR claims that the program, which offers financial assistance to first-time homebuyers, limits eligibility to certain racial and ethnic groups and is therefore discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Current Status: Parties are still litigating; however, the case is on hold for now except for the briefing on the preliminary injunction. Once the preliminary injunction is decided, discovery and responding to the complaint will resume.
Parents Defending Education vs. District of Columbia Public Schools in Washington
A parents' rights group asked the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ORC) to open an investigation into an "Empowerment Club" in District of Columbia Public School (DCPS). PDE alleges discrimination on the basis of race in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance in violation of both Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. PDE is a third-party organization with members who are parents of school children throughout the country. PDE asks for an investigation because the DCPS have affinity group programming that is not open to all students. The District allows only some students to participate in affinity group programming and participation is based on their race.
American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Kwame Raoul, James Bennett, and Alexi Giannoulias
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) challenged Illinois' Senate Bill 2930, which mandates nonprofits to collect and publicly disclose demographic data about their staff, including race, gender, and sexual orientation. The law requires nonprofits to use state-defined demographic classifications, which the Alliance argues are irrational and offensive. AAER claims that SB 2930 violated the First Amendment by compelling speech and the Fourteenth Amendment by promoting state-ordered racial discrimination.
Current Status: In August 2025, the federal district court rejected the Alliance’s request to block the law and allowed parts of the state’s defense to move forward. The Alliance and the U.S. government have both appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. While the appeal is underway, the lower court has paused all activity in the case and temporarily stopped Illinois from enforcing the law against two of the Alliance’s members. The appeal is still pending, and no decision has been issued yet.
