Court allows nondiscrimination rules for state-funded youth work but blocks enforcement on unfunded initiatives. Analysis below.
On August 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision in Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams, a case testing the boundaries between government grant rules and religious freedom .
Youth 71Five Ministries is a nonprofit in southern Oregon that runs programs for at-risk youth. It offers mentoring, job training, and outdoor activities, but its main mission is to share the Christian faith. To carry that out, it requires staff and volunteers to agree with a Statement of Faith and participate in a local church .
In 2023, Oregon’s Youth Development Division introduced a new requirement: groups seeking youth program grants had to promise not to discriminate in employment, services, or contracts based on religion and other characteristics. 71Five applied for grants worth more than $400,000 and was conditionally approved. But when state officials confirmed the ministry’s faith-based hiring rules after receiving a complaint, they revoked the award.
71Five sued, arguing that the rule violated its First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free association. The ministry also asked for an injunction to restore its grant funding. A federal judge in Oregon denied the request and dismissed all claims, saying the state officials were shielded by qualified immunity.
The Ninth Circuit partly disagreed. In a detailed opinion by Judge Anthony Johnstone, the court said Oregon can enforce its nondiscrimination rule for projects that actually receive state funds. Because the rule applies equally to religious and nonreligious groups, and because it serves the goal of making state-funded programs open to everyone, the judges said it is likely constitutional .
But the court also ruled that Oregon went too far when it applied the rule to every aspect of 71Five’s operations, including privately funded programs. Forcing the ministry to follow the hiring rule in those areas, the court said, would likely infringe its right to choose messengers who share its religious message. The judges ordered the lower court to block enforcement of the rule against 71Five’s unfunded initiatives .
The panel also revived 71Five’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, saying qualified immunity does not bar those remedies. However, it agreed that the ministry cannot recover damages because no clearly established rights had been violated .
Judge Johnnie Rawlinson wrote separately, saying she only went along with the outcome because of the limited standard of review. She added that in her view, Oregon’s approach likely violated 71Five’s right to free exercise of religion .
The case now returns to the U.S. District Court in Oregon, where the scope of the injunction and the future of 71Five’s claims will be sorted out.
Opinion Sidebar
Youth 71Five and the “Have Your Cake and Eat It Too” Problem
Youth 71Five Ministries wants to accept money from the State of Oregon while refusing to follow the state’s rules about nondiscrimination. That puts them in a difficult position. On the one hand, they insist they have a constitutional right to require their staff and volunteers to share their religious beliefs. On the other hand, they also want taxpayers, many of whom do not share those beliefs, to pay for their programs. The court essentially told them: you can choose one, but not both.
This is the “cake and eat it too” problem. No one questions the right of a religious ministry to operate on its own terms with private funds. If Youth 71Five wants only Christians to serve in leadership roles, it can do that. But once the ministry asks for public dollars, the state has every reason to ensure that those programs remain open to all, regardless of religion. Public money carries public obligations.
The Ninth Circuit drew the line in a way that makes sense. It said Oregon can enforce nondiscrimination rules when state money is being used, but it cannot tell the ministry how to run programs that receive no government funding. That balance respects both the state’s interest in equality and the ministry’s right to religious expression. It prevents the state from using grants as a back door to regulate religious life, while also preventing religious groups from using tax dollars to enforce exclusionary policies.
So the ministry got a partial win, but not the full victory it wanted. It cannot claim an unlimited right to run taxpayer-funded programs in a way that excludes people on religious grounds. And it cannot demand government support while ignoring the terms attached to that support. In short, the court recognized that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from the consequences of accepting public money.
Link to ruling: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/18/24-4101.pdf