Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Federal Court Settles Application of Michigan’s Civil Rights Act to Catholic Institutions

By Howard Friedman on September 2, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In two lengthy opinions issued last month, a Michigan federal district court granted summary judgment to the state, dismissing pre-enforcement civil rights actions, one brought by a Catholic parish-run school and school parents, and the second brought by a Christian medical services ministry. Both suits allege that Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) violates plaintiffs’ 1st and 14th Amendment rights by interfering with their faith-based employment policies and other policies reflecting their religious views. In 2025, the parties agreed to the application of the ELCRA to a number of situations. The recent decisions dismissing the complaints settle a number of remaining issues.

In Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, August 5, 2026), the court said in part:

In summary, the ELCRA survives the challenges posed in this case. Sacred Heart has not demonstrated that either the “co-religionist doctrine” or the right to expressive association protect its employment choices. Conversely, the ELCRA, via § 403 and the First Amendment, adequately protects Sacred Heart, including its policies regarding admissions, pronouns, sexual orientation, restrooms, uniforms, and sports teams. Consequently, the relief Plaintiffs seek is not warranted. Defendants, in contrast, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these issues.

In Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (WD MI, August 5, 2026), the court said in part:

In summary, the ELCRA survives CHC’s challenges. CHC has not demonstrated that the “co-religionist doctrine,” the right to expressive association, or the right to assembly protect its employment choices. Conversely, the ELCRA, via the First Amendment, provides that CHC can hire whomever it chooses for its Biblical Counsel and Physician positions and can maintain its pronoun policies and gender-affirming care policies that are grounded in sincere religious beliefs. Consequently, the declaratory and injunctive relief CHC seeks is not warranted. Defendants, in contrast, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these issues.

Photo of Howard Friedman Howard Friedman

Author of the Religion Clause blog, highlighting church-state and religious liberty developments

EmailHoward's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor, Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    Religion Clause
  • Organization:
    Howard M. Friedman
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo