A church sued to prevent the state from forcing religious institutions to provide facilities to transgender individuals in violation of constitutional rights.
By ReligiousLiberty.TV • February 26, 2026 • U.S. Const. amend. I
Cite This Case
Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Iowa (D. 2016).
✓ Copied!Standard law review / practitioner format. Verify against current Bluebook edition (21st ed.).
⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.
Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Iowa (U.S. District Court, 2016). https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/fort-des-moines-church-of-christ-2/
✓ Copied!For legal scholarship in social science journals. Includes URL back to this case page.
⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.
Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Iowa [U.S. District Court, 2016] — A church sued to prevent the state from forcing religious institutions to provide facilities to transgender individuals in violation of constitutional rights. Source: ReligiousLiberty.TV (https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/fort-des-moines-church-of-christ-2/, accessed October 26, 2026).
✓ Copied!For general audiences, journalism, press releases, and non-legal writing.
⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.
Year: 2016 Court: U.S. District Court Outcome:Pending
Holding: A church sued to prevent the state from forcing religious institutions to provide facilities to transgender individuals in violation of constitutional rights.
Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.
Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Iowa is a Church & State case decided by the U.S. District Court in 2016. The court held that a church sued to prevent the state from forcing religious institutions to provide facilities to transgender individuals in violation of constitutional rights. The case resulted in a Pending outcome.