COALITION INTELLIGENCE

The Government Is Picking Which Faiths Get Religious Liberty

The Government Is Picking Which Faiths Get Religious Liberty
By: VALOR Institute Published: April 7, 2026 Category: COALITION INTELLIGENCE

Executive Summary

America's faith communities — Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu — are facing the same constitutional pressures simultaneously. This week's coalition intelligence report identifies four high-value alignment opportunities where shared interests could become shared action.

1. Coalition Opportunities

A. The "Religious Liberty Commission" That Excludes Most Religions

The shared threat: The Trump Administration's Religious Liberty Commission — created by executive order and set to release its final report around May 1, 2026 — was composed almost entirely of evangelical and Catholic Christians, with one Orthodox Jewish member. No Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or other minority faith representatives were included. The Commission is cutting its work a full year and a half early.

Faith traditions affected: All non-majority traditions — Jewish (non-Orthodox), Sikh, Hindu, minority Protestant denominations, and Muslim communities.

Institutional actors: Interfaith Alliance (Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush), Muslims for Progressive Values, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Hindus for Human Rights — co-plaintiffs in Interfaith Alliance et al. v. Trump et al.

Constitutional principle: The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires advisory bodies to government to maintain "fairly balanced" membership. A commission tasked with defining religious liberty that excludes the religious communities most frequently targeted by government overreach is not merely procedurally deficient — it is constitutionally incoherent. A government-endorsed definition of religious liberty that reflects only one tradition's interests is precisely the establishment-clause problem the Founders sought to prevent.

Joint action possible: The case is active in the Southern District of New York. Orthodox Jewish organizations, evangelical institutions, and Baptist press have all noted concerns with the Commission's narrow composition — creating room for a broader amicus coalition that includes NAE, SBC, and USCCB alongside minority faith organizations to demand FACA compliance. The deadline is urgent: the report issues May 1.

B. Houses of Worship Under the Same Government Roof

The shared threat: When the Trump Administration rescinded the longstanding "sensitive locations" policy in January 2025, it gave individual ICE and Border Patrol agents discretion to conduct enforcement operations at churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction protecting approximately 1,400 listed houses of worship — but that protection is litigation-dependent and could be narrowed.

Faith traditions affected: Catholic parishes have been directly affected; evangelical churches have raised concerns; mosques face elevated risk given the community demographic; synagogues and temples are covered by the court order but face no guaranteed permanent protection.

Institutional actors: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sent a formal letter to Congress on February 24, 2026 — an unusually direct legislative intervention — asking lawmakers to codify sensitive-location protections for houses of worship into statute. Democracy Forward represents a coalition of religious plaintiffs in the active litigation blocking enforcement.

Constitutional principle: The First Amendment's free exercise guarantee includes the right to gather for worship without the chilling effect of potential government enforcement operations. A worshipper who fears arrest upon entering a sanctuary cannot freely exercise religion. The principle is identical whether the congregation is Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim.

Joint action possible: The USCCB letter to Congress is an opening. A joint letter co-signed by USCCB, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Islamic Society of North America urging statutory protection for all houses of worship would be one of the most powerful cross-faith statements in recent memory — and would make it politically impossible to characterize the issue as purely an "immigrant" or "Muslim" concern.

C. Texas School Choice: The Equal Treatment Test

The shared threat: Texas's Education Freedom Account (TEFA) program — the nation's largest school choice program by dollar volume — initially approved hundreds of Christian schools while rejecting every accredited Islamic school in the state. The stated reason: accreditation from an organization that had hosted CAIR events, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott had labeled a terrorist organization.

Faith traditions affected: Muslim families were the direct plaintiffs, but the legal principle is universal: if a state can exclude schools based on affiliations with organizations linked to one religious community's civil rights advocacy, it has created a religion-based classification that can apply to any faith.

Institutional actors: Multiple Texas Muslim families filed suit; a federal judge ordered Texas to include Islamic schools and extended the application window. Islamic schools have now been accepted into TEFA for 2026–27. The Educational Freedom Institute (EFI) has tracked the case closely.

Constitutional principle: Carson v. Makin (2022) established that when a state creates a school choice program, it cannot exclude religious schools from participation. Equal treatment is not optional. A state cannot run a "religious school choice" program that applies a religion-specific exclusion test — that is a straightforward Equal Protection and Free Exercise violation.

Joint action possible: Christian school advocacy organizations and Jewish day school coalitions (Torah Umesorah, RAVSAK, etc.) have strong standing to file amicus briefs in any appeal or future litigation, making explicit that the same legal theory used to admit Islamic schools is what protects Christian and Jewish schools from discriminatory exclusion in states with unfriendly governors.

D. The Counseling Conscience Case and Its Cross-Faith Reach

The shared threat: On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that a Colorado law banning "conversion therapy" for minors — as applied to a licensed Christian therapist providing faith-based counseling — violated her First Amendment speech rights. The ruling is narrow but significant: states cannot use professional licensing to selectively suppress faith-based counseling methods.

Faith traditions affected: Christian (primary litigant), but Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, and other traditional faith counselors face identical professional speech restrictions in blue-state licensing regimes.

Institutional actors: First Liberty Institute represented the plaintiff; ACLJ filed in support. No Muslim or Jewish organizations appear to have engaged — a gap worth filling given the identical exposure of Orthodox Jewish and traditionally-minded Muslim mental health professionals in the same jurisdictions.

Constitutional principle: Government cannot use licensing requirements to force faith-based professionals to abandon the counseling approaches their tradition endorses. The principle applies with equal force to a Southern Baptist therapist in Colorado, a haredi Jewish counselor in New York, or a Muslim counselor in California.

Joint action possible: A joint statement from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim professional associations affirming the cross-faith stakes of professional speech and conscience protections would demonstrate that Chiles v. Salazar is not a "culture war" victory for one tradition but a constitutional protection for every faith counselor in America.

2. Cross-Faith Litigation Watch

Interfaith Alliance et al. v. Trump et al. (S.D.N.Y.) — Coalition of Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, and interfaith organizations seeks to block publication of the Religious Liberty Commission's final report pending FACA compliance. Final report expected ~May 1, 2026. Hearing date TBD. Status: Active, injunction motion pending.

Houses of Worship Sensitive Locations Litigation (D. Md.) — Court has blocked ICE enforcement at approximately 1,400 listed houses of worship. USCCB and other Catholic organizations are among the most prominent institutional voices calling for codified legislative protection. Status: Preliminary injunction in place; appeal expected.

Texas TEFA Islamic School Litigation — Federal court ordered Texas to admit Islamic schools; schools are participating in the 2026-27 program. Status: Immediate dispute resolved; precedent set but not yet codified.

Chiles v. Salazar (U.S. Supreme Court) — Decided March 31, 2026. Christian therapist prevailed on First Amendment professional speech grounds. Status: Decided; downstream cases pending.

Religious Charter School Litigation — New proposed religious charter schools in Tennessee (Christian), Colorado (Christian), and Oklahoma (Jewish virtual charter) are being structured as test cases for a Supreme Court return. Previous case deadlocked 4-4 with Justice Barrett recused. Status: Pre-litigation positioning; expected SCOTUS petition 2026-2027 term.

3. Joint Statement Tracker

USCCB to Congress (February 24, 2026): The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops formally wrote to Congress requesting statutory protections for houses of worship from immigration enforcement, and for religious access for all immigration detainees — the most significant institutional call for cross-faith house-of-worship protection since sensitive locations guidance was rescinded.

Interfaith Alliance Motion to Block Religious Liberty Commission Report (April 2026): Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values, SALDEF, and Hindus for Human Rights jointly filed to block the Commission's report — an active multi-faith coalition, though it does not yet include evangelical or Catholic partners.

Gap identified: No joint statement from USCCB + NAE + SBC + ISNA exists on either the Commission's composition or the houses of worship enforcement issue. This is the highest-value joint statement not yet produced.

4. The Constitutional Logic

The government cannot pick religious winners. This is not a political preference — it is the structural logic of the First Amendment. The Founders did not simply ban a state church; they established that government has no competence to evaluate, rank, or differentiate between religious traditions.

Every precedent allowing differential treatment of one faith is a precedent available against every faith. A Texas accreditation rule that excludes Islamic schools can be reconstructed to exclude schools of any faith whose advocacy organizations are disfavored. A commission that defines religious liberty without minority faith voices can be used to produce definitions that marginalize majority traditions. These are not hypotheticals — they are the historical consequence of allowing government discretion over religious classification.

Religious liberty is indivisible. The right question is not "is Judeo-Christian expression protected?" but "is ALL sincere religious exercise protected from government burden?" When America's faith communities answer that question together, the answer has always been unambiguous.

5. Strategic Recommendations

This Week:

1. Organize a joint letter on the Religious Liberty Commission. The Commission's final report issues May 1 — less than four weeks away. A joint letter co-signed by Interfaith Alliance, First Liberty Institute, USCCB, and an SBC entity demanding FACA-compliant balanced membership before publication would reframe the story from "minority faiths object" to "all of America's faith traditions demand an honest process." Deadline: before April 13.

2. Build a joint amicus brief coalition for the houses of worship appeal. The preliminary injunction will eventually be tested on appeal. The USCCB's February letter to Congress demonstrates Catholic institutional engagement. A coordinated amicus brief from USCCB, NAE, Orthodox Union, ISNA, and SBC — covering every major American faith family — would be among the most powerful First Amendment filings in recent memory. Pre-brief coordination should begin now.

3. Commission a cross-faith professional speech statement on Chiles v. Salazar. Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, and evangelical counseling associations should jointly affirm that the Court's ruling protects faith-based counseling across traditions. A Southern Baptist ethics officer, an Orthodox Jewish therapist, and a Muslim counselor co-authoring a single op-ed on why Chiles matters for every faith community would shift the narrative from "Christian exemption" to "universal liberty."

VALOR Institute Interfaith Coalition Intelligence is produced weekly. All litigation updates reflect publicly available court records and institutional statements. For coalition coordination inquiries, contact the VALOR Institute directly.