A federal district court ruled Wednesday that a Washington state licensing rule requiring foster parents to socially “transition” foster children plausibly violates the First Amendment.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of Shane and Jennifer DeGross. Washington state officials declined to issue a standard foster-care license to the couple because of their religious objections to socially or medically “transitioning” children. In its decision, the court denied state officials’ request to dismiss the case, allowing the DeGrosses to continue their lawsuit.
“When children are sleeping on cots in child-welfare offices for lack of loving homes, states like Washington should be doing everything they can to bring in more qualified foster parents,” said ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse. “But Washington state is putting its own ideological agenda ahead of children’s needs, even though a federal court already enjoined a similarly unconstitutional policy in 2021. Washington should take the hint: it needs to end its unconstitutional and discriminatory policy.”
The DeGrosses served as loving foster parents for years in Washington state until state officials refused to renew the couple’s foster-care license in 2022 under a rule requiring them to use a child’s chosen pronouns. After the DeGrosses lost their license, they sued state officials in 2024 for religious discrimination, and Washington subsequently allowed the DeGrosses to re-apply for their license.
But after an onerous renewal process, officials declined to issue the DeGrosses a standard license just because of their beliefs on the sanctity of the human body. Instead, the state prohibited them from foster-care placements for any child over five years old unless they agreed to abandon their religious convictions.
It its decision in DeGross v. Hunter, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that, similar to a policy which ADF attorneys challenged in Bates v. Pakseresht, Washington’s rule “restricts certain speech by prospective parents on the topic of [Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression], while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective. ‘The situation would be no different if the state had restricted parental speech favoring more “progressive” views of sexuality and gender identity, while compelling speech along the lines of [the DeGrosses’] more traditional understanding.’”
“In essence, the Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE, and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions,” the court wrote.
Washington Civil & Disability Advocate Founder and Head Attorney Conrad Reynoldson, one of more than 5,200 attorneys in the ADF Attorney Network, is serving as local counsel on behalf of the DeGross family.
