Jewish couple challenges law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption

Jewish couple challenges law after Christian agency’s
policy prevented adoption

By Kerry Breen
A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s
Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency
because they are Jewish.
Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram told TODAY that they first connected with the Holston United
Methodist Home for Children in January of 2021, when they were hoping to adopt a child from
Florida. Elizabeth Rutan-Ram said that state required the couple to have specific training —
including Tennessee-mandated foster parent training and a home-study certification — and after
reaching out to multiple agencies, the Holston United Methodist Home for Children was the only
agency she could find that offered that training for out-of-state adoptions.
Elizabeth told TODAY that she asked if her and Gabriel’s faith would be a problem for the
organization early in the process.
“I asked early on if it would be an issue and they said they didn’t think so, but that they would get
back to me, and in the meantime we kept working on everything,” Elizabeth said. “We had signed
up for the class. The class was supposed to start that day. I had a check in my hand that I was going
to drive out to them … And I got an email that very clearly said they could not work with us because
we didn’t match up with their values.”
‘Committed to Christian biblical principles’
The email that Elizabeth referenced was submitted in the couple’s lawsuit. TODAY was able to
review the document. While the Holston United Methodist Home for Children did offer to connect
the Rutan-Rams with another agency, it also said that “as a Christian organization,” the agency’s
executive team had “made the decision several years ago to only provide adoption services to
prospective adoptive families that share our belief system in order to avoid conflicts or delays with
future service delivery.”
“Everything Holston Home does is guided by our religious views. We seek to be a force for good,
living out the words of Christ to care for children.”
Brad Williams, CEO AND PRESIDENT, Holston United Methodist Home for Children
In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the
organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs.
“Since 1895, Holston United Methodist Home for Children has been committed to Christian biblical
principles in our calling to provide hope and healing for a brighter future by sharing the love of
Jesus with children and families struggling with life’s challenges,” said Williams, in part.
“Everything Holston Home does is guided by our religious views. We seek to be a force for good,
living out the words of Christ to care for children and ‘the least of these,’ and it is vital that Holston
Home, as a religious organization, remains free to continue placing at-risk children in loving,

Christian families, according to our deeply held beliefs. … Vulnerable children should not lose
access to Christian families who choose to become foster or adoptive parents. Holston Home places
children with families that agree with our statement of faith, and forcing Holston Home to violate
our beliefs and place children in homes that do not share our faith is wrong and contrary to a free
society.”
Tennessee House Bill 836
Gabriel Rutan-Ram said that he was shocked to have such a response from an agency that receives
state funding.
A recently passed Tennessee law, House Bill 836, “prohibits, to the extent allowed by federal law, a
private licensed child-placing agency from being required to … participate in any child placement
for foster care or adoption that would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions.”
“We were completely unaware of that bill,” Gabriel said. “I was like, ‘Something seems a little off
about this,’ and then I started looking into it a little bit, and then the other shoe dropped when I
found out about it. I was like, ‘Oh, OK, this is incredibly unfortunate.'”
The law, which passed in early 2020, is similar to bills in ten other states. In Alabama and
Michigan, the law does not include taxpayer-funded organizations, but in Kansas, Tennessee,
Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, agencies
that receive state funding can discriminate based on religious belief.
Suing the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services
Now, the Rutan-Rams are suing the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, with the
assistance of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a civil rights organization.
Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director at Americans United, said
that they are seeking a declaratory judgement, which is a legal declaration that the law violates the
Tennessee constitution. Luchenitser said that the ultimate goal of the judgement is to prevent
taxpayer-funded adoption and foster care agencies from discriminating against prospective parents
due to religious beliefs.
“The ultimate goal of this lawsuit is to prevent this type of discrimination ever happening to
Elizabeth and Gabe or to anyone else again,” said Luchenitser.
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services declined to comment, telling TODAY that they
could not discuss pending litigation.
The Holston United Methodist Home for Children does receive money annually from the state,
according to Luchenitser, who reviewed the agency’s financial reports. The agency did not respond
to a request for comment on the amount of state funding.
‘It was heartbreaking’
The Rutan-Rams said they were devastated to hear that they would not be able to proceed with the
adoption of the child in Florida. Elizabeth said she felt “awful” and heartbroken after receiving the
email from the Holston United Methodist Home for Children.
“We had already worked so hard to get to that point and I didn’t really know where it would go from

there,” Elizabeth said. “I was disappointed in myself for being so upset. I thought I was prepared for
something like that, and then I wasn’t, so it was very emotional, and I felt like we’d already invested
so much time and so much into it, just emotionally, that it was heartbreaking.”
Gabriel said that the couple had already converted their guest room into a nursery, and made other
preparations like getting a car that would fit a carseat, when they got the news.
“Suddenly, all the wind was just taken out of the sails. And kind of just left this big empty feeling
inside,” Gabriel recalled.
Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United, said that the organization has handled
several similar cases, including that of a Catholic woman in South Carolina who was turned away
from a government-funded foster care agency operated by evangelical Protestants.
“Unfortunately, this sort of heartbreaking and unconstitutional activity is not unique to Gabe and
Liz,” Laser said. “Unfortunately, there are a lot of unconstitutional laws that pass in state
legislatures and even in Congress. And it’s up to brave citizens like Gabe and Liz to challenge them,
and stand up for their own rights and the rights of other Americans.”
117,000 children awaiting adoption
Daniele Gerard, a senior staff attorney for Children’s Rights, a social services organization, said that
laws like House Bill 836 make it harder for children to find stable homes.
“On any given day in the United States, there are about 400,000 kids in foster care and about
117,000 of them waiting to be adopted … What (this law) does is this reduces the safe, loving, stable
families,” Gerard said. “The decisions about whether or not to train and license foster families
should be done with the best interests of the child in mind, not the religious objections of adults.”
“The biggest barrier to placing children with families is a lack of qualified foster or adoptive
parents, and you don’t want to further shrink the pool based on anything other than a merit-based
reason,” Gerard added.
The Rutan-Rams said that although they could not adopt the child in Florida that they had wanted
to adopt, they are still pursuing adoption. The process for in-state foster-to-adopt is different, so
they don’t have to go through the agency that rejected them. They are currently fostering a child
who they hope to adopt.
“We’re still looking to add to our family,” Gabriel said.
Get the TODAY Parents Newsletter!
Join the family for weekly news and tips from TODAY Parents.

1

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, DAVIDSON COUNTY

ELIZABETH RUTAN-RAM; GABRIEL RUTAN-
RAM; REVEREND JEANNIE ALEXANDER;

REVEREND ELAINE BLANCHARD; DR.
LARRY BLANZ; REVEREND ALAINA COBB;
REVEREND DENISE GYAUCH; and
MIRABELLE STOEDTER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S
SERVICES; and COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES,
currently JENNIFER NICHOLS, in her official
capacity,
Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction

1. “Finding permanent, nurturing homes for children/youth in state custody creates
stability and normalcy while reducing the trauma of ‘not belonging.’”1

Elizabeth and Gabriel
Rutan-Ram, a Knox County married couple, sought to provide children with exactly this
stability, normalcy, and belonging by becoming foster and adoptive parents. After realizing that
they could not have biological children of their own, the Rutan-Rams began investigating the
process of fostering to adopt a child, and they identified a boy in Florida with a disability whom
they hoped to welcome into their family and provide with a loving and nurturing home. But to be

1
Tennessee Department of Children’s Services Annual Report State Fiscal Year July 2019–June
2020, at 12 (Jan. 2021), bit.ly/3HlXRIe.

E-FILED
1/19/2022 9:40 AM
CLERK & MASTER
DAVIDSON CO. CHANCERY CT.

2

eligible to have the child join their home, the Rutan-Rams first had to fulfill the Tennessee
Department of Children’s Services’ requirements that they complete a foster-parent-training
program and receive a home-study certification.
2. The Rutan-Rams sought these services from Holston United Methodist Home for
Children, a child-placing agency that receives state funds from the Department to provide
placement, training, and other services on the Department’s behalf to prospective and current
foster parents. Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would provide them with the training
and home-study services they needed. But the day that the Rutan-Rams were scheduled to begin
Holston’s foster-parent-training class, Holston told the Rutan-Rams that it would not serve them
because they are Jewish. Holston explained that it “only provide[s] adoption services to

prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” As a result, the Rutan-
Rams were not able to foster or adopt the child who they hoped could join their family, for no

other child-placing agency in the Knox County area was willing to provide them the services
they needed to complete the state requirements for adoption of an out-of-state child.
3. In January 2020, the Tennessee General Assembly expressly approved religious
discrimination like Holston’s, by enacting House Bill 836, codified as Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-
147. This statute authorizes child-placing agencies to deny child-placement services, based on
the agencies’ religious policies, even if state tax dollars fund the services.
4. So that they do not again suffer the humiliation and loss of opportunity that
Holston’s discrimination inflicted on them, and so that their tax payments do not fund similar
discrimination against anyone else in the future, the Rutan-Rams, joined by six other Tennessee
taxpayers, bring this action. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Tenn. Code Ann. §
36-1-147 facially violates the religious-freedom and equal-protection guarantees of the

3

Tennessee Constitution by permitting state funding of child-placing agencies that discriminate in
state-funded services against prospective or current foster parents based on the religious beliefs
of the parents. The plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the
Department from continuing to fund or contract with Holston as long as Holston continues to
deny state-funded services to prospective or current foster parents based on the parents’ religious
beliefs.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. This Court has jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1-3-121, 4-5-225, 16-11-
101 et seq., 29-14-102, and 29-14-103.
6. This Court has authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide injunctive
relief under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1-3-121, 4-5-225, 16-11-101 et seq., 29-1-101 et seq., 29-14-
102, and 29-14-103 and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.01 et seq.
7. Venue is proper under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-4-104, 4-5-225, 20-4-101, and 20-
18-102.

Parties

8. Plaintiffs Elizabeth Rutan-Ram and Gabriel Rutan-Ram are a Jewish married
couple who reside in Knox County, Tennessee. They are unable to have biological children.
They wish to become adoptive parents and believe that they can provide children with a loving,
nurturing, and stable home. As a result of Holston’s decision to deny services to them because
they are not Christians, the Rutan-Rams felt shocked, hurt, frustrated, and disappointed, and they
were not able to adopt the child in Florida to whom they had hoped to give a home. But they did
not give up on fostering and adopting a child, and for the last several months they have
fostered—and are now in the process of adopting—a teenage girl. The Rutan-Rams plan to

4

continue growing their family by fostering and adopting at least one more child. To do so, they
may again seek the services of state-funded child-placing agencies. They would like to be able to
turn to those agencies without facing the risk of again being denied services based on their
religion and suffering harms similar to those inflicted on them by Holston’s refusal to serve
them.
9. The Rutan-Rams also pay sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle taxes to the State of
Tennessee. They object to the Department’s use of their tax payments to fund Holston or any
other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded programs or
services, because they believe that all Tennessee residents should have equal access to and equal
opportunity to benefit from state-funded services regardless of the residents’ religious beliefs,
and because they understandably do not want their own tax payments to be used to support
discrimination against them.
10. Plaintiff Reverend Jeannie Alexander is an ordained interfaith pastor who
served as a prison chaplain for several years and is now the executive director of a nonprofit
organization that advocates for the rights of people who are incarcerated. She is a resident of
Davidson County, Tennessee. She pays sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle taxes to the State of
Tennessee. She objects to use by the Department of her tax payments to fund Holston or any
other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded programs or
services, because she believes that state funding of religious discrimination violates the
separation of religion and government, is against the public interest, and is unlawful.
11. Plaintiff Reverend Elaine Blanchard is a minister, commissioned by the
Disciples of Christ, who serves as the lead pastor of a Disciples of Christ church in Tennessee.
She is a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. She pays sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle taxes

5

to the State of Tennessee. She objects to use by the Department of her tax payments to fund
Holston or any other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded
programs or services, because she believes that state funding of religious discrimination
undermines the religious plurality that is fundamental to American democracy and opens the
door to state support of other forms of invidious discrimination.
12. Plaintiff Dr. Larry Blanz is a retired psychologist with more than forty years of
professional experience that has included working with foster parents and children. He is a
resident of Davidson County, Tennessee. He pays sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle taxes to the
State of Tennessee. He objects to use by the Department of his tax payments to fund Holston or
any other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded programs or
services, because he has seen firsthand children’s need for stable, loving, and nurturing foster
and adoptive parents and believes that turning away good parents simply because of their faith
hurts children in need.
13. Plaintiff Reverend Alaina Cobb is an ordained Christian minister who directs an
interfaith justice ministry in Tennessee and has experience in serving adoptive families. She is a
resident of Davidson County, Tennessee. She pays sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle taxes to the
State of Tennessee. She objects to use by the Department of her tax payments to fund Holston or
any other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded programs or
services, because she believes that state funding of religious discrimination violates the
separation of religion and government that is vital to protecting Christianity and all other
religions and that such funding opens the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against any
person based on any difference in religious belief.

6

14. Plaintiff Reverend Denise Gyauch is an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister
who serves as the lead minister of a Unitarian Universalist church in Tennessee. She is a resident
of Davidson County, Tennessee. She pays sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle taxes to the State of
Tennessee. She objects to use by the Department of her tax payments to fund Holston or any
other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded programs or
services, because she believes that state taxes paid by people of diverse faiths should be used to
serve all Tennesseans equally regardless of their religion and that it is a misuse of religion to
keep children who need loving homes away from parents who are willing to provide those
homes.
15. Plaintiff Mirabelle Stoedter is the treasurer of the Tennessee chapter of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She is a resident of Davidson County,
Tennessee. She identifies as an atheist and a Jew. She pays sales, gasoline, and motor-vehicle
taxes to the State of Tennessee. She objects to use by the Department of her tax payments to fund
Holston or any other child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion in state-funded
programs or services, because she believes that public funds should never be used to support
discrimination and that such use of public funds violates the separation of religion and
government and could result in the use of her own tax payments to support discrimination
against people with beliefs like hers.
16. Defendant Tennessee Department of Children’s Services is a department of
Tennessee state government.
17. Defendant Commissioner of the Department of Children’s Services, currently
Jennifer Nichols, is sued in her official capacity.

7

18. The Commissioner heads the Department and has broad authority over its
operations.2

19. The Department is responsible for licensing, approving, and supervising child-
placing agencies.3

20. The Department, through the Commissioner, has authority to receive, administer,
allocate, disburse, and supervise grants and funds to child-placing agencies.4
21. Under Tennessee law, a child-placing agency is “any entity or person that places
children in foster boarding homes or foster homes for temporary care or for adoption or any other
entity or person or group of persons who are engaged in providing adoption studies or foster care
studies or placement services as defined by the rules of the department.”5

General Allegations

Tennessee’s Authorization of Religious Discrimination by Child-Placing Agencies
22. In January 2020, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted House Bill No. 836,
which was signed into law the same month by Governor Bill Lee and codified as Tenn. Code
Ann. § 36-1-147.
23. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147 states:

(a) To the extent allowed by federal law, no private licensed child-placing
agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent
to, refer, or participate in any placement of a child for foster care or
adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency’s written
religious or moral convictions or policies.
(b) To the extent allowed by federal law, the department of children’s
services shall not deny an application for an initial license or renewal of a
license or revoke the license of a private child-placing agency because of

2 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-105.
3
Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-109(1).
4 See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-5-105, 37-5-111.
5
Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-501(b)(7).

8

the agency’s objection to performing, assisting, counseling,
recommending, consenting to, referring, or participating in a placement
that violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or
policies.
(c) To the extent allowed by federal law, a state or local government entity
shall not deny to a private licensed child-placing agency any grant,
contract, or participation in a government program because of the
agency’s objection to performing, assisting, counseling, recommending,
consenting to, referring, or participating in a placement that violates the
agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.
(d) Refusal of a private licensed child-placing agency to perform, assist,
counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in a placement that
violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies
shall not form the basis of a civil action for either damages or injunctive
relief.

24. House Bill 836 became law despite public outcry over its discriminatory purpose
and effect.

25. For example, Dr. Allison Padilla-Goodman, the Vice President of the Anti-
Defamation League’s Southern Division, stated publicly that “[i]t is shocking that the state of

Tennessee has passed a bill that openly sanctions discrimination against Jews, LGBTQ people
and others. Allowing a taxpayer-funded child placement agency to discriminate is outrageous.
No child should be denied a loving foster or adoptive home simply because of a prospective
parent’s religion, sexual orientation or identity. We therefore call on Governor Lee to veto this
shameful legislation.”6
26. Reverend Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, the Executive Director of the Campaign for
Southern Equality, said, “We strongly oppose Gov. Lee’s decision [to sign the Bill] and urge him
to deeply and prayerfully consider the damage and harm of this bill, which could do a colossal

6 ADL Deeply Troubled by Passage of Discriminatory Tennessee Adoption Bill, ANTI-
DEFAMATION LEAGUE (Jan. 16, 2020), bit.ly/3z8lHUY.

9

disservice to the many children in Tennessee waiting to be adopted by safe and loving families.
It opens the door to taxpayer-funded adoption agencies turning away potential parents just
because of who they are.”7
27. During debate on the Bill in the Tennessee House of Representatives,
Representative Mitchell raised concerns that the Bill would allow an agency to refuse to serve
Jewish prospective foster parents because of their faith.8
28. During debate on the Bill in the Tennessee Senate, Senator Dickerson asked
whether the Bill would allow an Episcopalian group to refuse to serve a Muslim family.9
29. The discriminatory purpose and likely effect of the Bill were well understood at
the time of its passage.

Holston’s Religious Discrimination Against the Rutan-Rams
30. In Tennessee, prospective adoptive parents must first become foster parents.
31. After becoming foster parents, prospective adoptive parents may adopt the foster
child in their care if that child becomes available for adoption.
32. The Rutan-Rams learned about this process and began their efforts to adopt a
child in earnest in January 2021. The couple identified a boy in Florida with a disability whom
they wanted to adopt. In their eyes, he appeared resilient, upbeat, and adorable.
33. After identifying the child, the Rutan-Rams contacted the Florida Department of
Children and Families to begin the foster-to-adopt process. The Florida Department informed

7
Adam Polaski, Tennessee Governor Signs Discriminatory Adoption Law, in Sharp Contrast to
Momentum for LGBTQ Equality in Southern States, CAMPAIGN FOR SOUTHERN EQUALITY (Jan.
24, 2020), bit.ly/3z7R2aj.
8 House Floor Session, 111 Gen. Assemb., 1:49:20 (Apr. 1, 2019), bit.ly/3d556Hf.
9 Senate Session, 111 Gen. Assemb., 34:20 (Jan. 14, 2020), bit.ly/31bwOQo.

10

them that, as an out-of-state family, they first had to receive Tennessee certification to begin the
foster-to-adopt process.
34. Under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, prospective
Tennessee adoptive parents seeking to care for a child in the custody or guardianship of another
state’s public child-welfare agency must first receive a home study in Tennessee.
35. In Tennessee, prospective foster or adoptive parents must work with a private
Tennessee-licensed child-placing agency to complete the home study. As part of this process,
they must complete a TN KEY foster-parent-training class.10
36. After obtaining this information, the Rutan-Rams began searching for private
Tennessee-licensed agencies to provide the necessary home study and training class. Several
agencies informed the Rutan-Rams that they would not be able to provide these services for the
adoption of an out-of-state child. One of these agencies referred the Rutan-Rams to Holston.
37. Holston is a child-placing agency licensed by the Department.
38. Holston provides TN KEY foster-parent-training classes and home-study
certifications to families wishing to foster-to-adopt an out-of-state child.
39. Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would be able to provide the services
that the Rutan-Rams needed to be able to adopt the boy in Florida whom they hoped to welcome
into their home.
40. The Rutan-Rams signed up for Holston’s TN KEY foster-parent-training class
and home-study certification process.

10 See Training for Potential Foster Parents, TN DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES,
bit.ly/3I0Rx96 (last visited Jan. 12, 2021).

11

41. They understood that once they completed the class and received the certification,
Tennessee would present the certification to Florida. Florida would then transfer to Tennessee
the guardianship of the child whom the Rutan-Rams wished to adopt, and the Rutan-Rams would
then be eligible to foster the child in their home for six months and then begin the adoption
process.
42. On January 21, 2021, the same day that they were scheduled to begin the TN
KEY foster-parent-training class with Holston, Melissa Russell, a Holston employee, emailed
Ms. Rutan-Ram to inform her that Holston would not serve the Rutan-Rams because of the
couple’s Jewish faith.
43. Ms. Russell’s e-mail, attached as Exhibit A, stated that “as a Christian
organization, our executive team made the decision several years ago to only provide adoption
services to prospective adoptive families that share our belief system in order to avoid conflicts
or delays with future service delivery.”

44. Ms. Rutan-Ram was deeply hurt and shocked when she received Ms. Russell’s e-
mail. Holston’s refusal to serve her felt like a punch in the gut or a slap in the face. Ms. Rutan-
Ram did not expect that a state-funded agency would reject a loving family simply because the

family did not share the agency’s preferred religious beliefs. She felt sad that Holston would not
help her provide a loving home to the child whom she and her husband had hoped to welcome
into their family.
45. Mr. Rutan-Ram similarly was hurt, frustrated, and disappointed to learn that his
family had been discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.
46. Before January 21, 2021, Holston had not communicated to the Rutan-Rams that
Holston does not serve Jews.

12

47. After Holston refused to serve them, the Rutan-Rams continued to search for an
agency that would provide the services they needed to adopt the child in Florida to whom they
intended to give a loving home and family. But they were not able to find another agency in the
Knox County area that was willing to provide them the services that Tennessee required for them
to be eligible to adopt an out-of-state child. As a result, they were not able to foster or adopt the
child from Florida.

The Department’s Funding of Holston

48. The Department provides state funds to Holston for placement, training, and other
services that Holston provides to prospective and current foster parents.
49. The Department enters into contracts with Holston, which are signed by the
Commissioner, to engage and pay Holston to provide those services on the Department’s behalf.
50. The most recent of these contracts in the possession of the plaintiffs, together with
Attachment 1 thereto, is attached as Exhibit B.
51. On June 15, 2020, Commissioner Nichols signed an amendment to this contract,
which extended the contract. The amendment is attached as Exhibit C.
52. On November 3, 2021, on behalf of the Rutan-Rams, the plaintiffs’ counsel sent
the letter attached as Exhibit D to Commissioner Nichols, to the Department’s General Counsel
and Assistant General Counsel, and to Holston’s President/CEO.
53. The November 3 letter explained that the Department’s funding of Holston
violates the Tennessee Constitution and requested that the Department stop contracting with and
funding Holston unless Holston stops discriminating based on religion in its provision of
programming funded with public dollars.
54. The letter further explained that the Rutan-Rams were making this request “both
as individuals who have suffered discrimination at the hands of Holston and as Tennessee

13

taxpayers whose tax payments to the State have funded and continue to fund Holston’s
discriminatory practices.”
55. The November 3 letter warned that failure to respond to the letter by December 3,
2021, or “to end religious discrimination by Holston in state-funded programming by then will
be treated as a denial of this request,” in which case the Rutan-Rams, joined by other Tennessee
taxpayers who also object to the Department’s funding of Holston’s discrimination, would file a
lawsuit against the Department.
56. Neither the Department nor Holston ever provided a substantive response to the
November 3 letter.
57. An attorney for Holston did send a letter to the plaintiffs’ counsel on December 2,
2021, identifying himself as counsel for Holston with respect to the matter.
58. On the same day, Holston filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee challenging a federal regulation that prohibits discrimination on
the basis of age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, and sexual
orientation in programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
59. In the complaint initiating its federal suit, which is attached as Exhibit E, Holston
confirmed that it refuses to serve prospective foster or adoptive parents who do not subscribe to
Holston’s understanding of Christianity, as reflected in Holston’s statement of faith.
60. Exhibit F is Holston’s statement of faith.
61. The understanding of Christianity set forth in Holston’s statement of faith is not
universally held by all Christians. A substantial proportion of Christians likely would not agree
with Holston’s statement of faith.

14

62. On December 3, 2021, the plaintiffs’ counsel spoke to the Department’s General
Counsel, who stated that he had passed on the November 3 letter to someone in the Tennessee
Attorney General’s office and recommended that the plaintiffs’ counsel contact the Attorney
General’s office directly.
63. Later the same day, via the e-mail attached as Exhibit G, the plaintiffs’ counsel
forwarded the November 3 letter to Tennessee’s Attorney General and Chief Deputy Attorney
General.
64. On December 7, 2021, on behalf of all the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ counsel sent
the letter attached as Exhibit H to the Department’s General Counsel and Assistant General
Counsel, to the Attorney General and Chief Deputy Attorney General, and to Holston’s counsel.
65. The December 7 letter stated that plaintiffs Rev. Alexander, Rev. Blanchard, Dr.
Blanz, Rev. Cobb, Rev. Gyauch, and Ms. Stoedter are Tennessee taxpayers who object to the
Department’s use of their tax payments to fund Holston’s discriminatory programming, and that
they were joining and reiterating the Rutan-Rams’ request that the Department stop contracting
with and funding Holston unless Holston stops discriminating based on religion in its provision
of programs funded with public dollars.
66. The December 7 letter warned that failure to respond by January 6, 2022, or “to
end religious discrimination by Holston in state-funded services by then will be deemed to be a
denial of this request,” in which case the plaintiffs would file a lawsuit against the Department
shortly thereafter.
67. Neither the Department nor Holston ever responded to the December 7 letter.

15
Claims for Relief
First Cause of Action:

Violation of Article I, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution
68. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as
if fully set forth here.
69. Article I, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “That all men have a
natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own
conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of
worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any
case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever
be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.”
70. Article I, Section 3 “guarantees freedom of worship and separation of church and
state.”11
71. Article I, Section 3 prohibits the State of Tennessee from providing state funds to
organizations that discriminate based on religion in the programs or services that are funded by
the State.
72. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147 facially violates Article I, Section 3 by permitting
state funding of child-placing agencies that discriminate in state-funded programs or services
against prospective or current foster parents based on the religious beliefs of the parents.
73. The defendants are violating Article I, Section 3 by funding and contracting with
Holston, because Holston refuses to provide state-funded services and programs to prospective

11 City of Nashville v. State Bd. of Equalization, 360 S.W.2d 458, 469 n.5 (Tenn. 1962).

16

and current foster parents who do not subscribe to the religious beliefs set forth in Holston’s
statement of faith.

Second Cause of Action:

Violation of Article I, Section 8 and Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution
74. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as
if fully set forth here.
75. Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “That no man shall be
taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or
in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his
peers, or the law of the land.”
76. Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “The Legislature
shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor
to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor
to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals, rights, privileges, immunitie[s], or
exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law extended to any member of the
community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law. No corporation
shall be created or its powers increased or diminished by special laws but the General Assembly
shall provide by general laws for the organization of all corporations, hereafter created, which
laws may, at any time, be altered or repealed, and no such alteration or repeal shall interfere with
or divest rights which have become vested.”
77. Together, Article I, Section 8 and Article XI, Section 8 “guarantee equal
privileges and immunities for all those similarly situated.”12

12 Tenn. Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139, 152 (Tenn. 1993).

17

78. Article I, Section 8 and Article XI, Section 8 prohibit the State of Tennessee from
providing state funds to organizations that discriminate based on religion in the programs or
services that are funded by the State.
79. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147 facially violates Article I, Section 8 and Article XI,
Section 8 by permitting state funding of child-placing agencies that discriminate in state-funded
programs or services against prospective or current foster parents based on the religious beliefs
of the parents.
80. The defendants are violating Article I, Section 8 and Article XI, Section 8 by
funding and contracting with Holston, because Holston refuses to provide state-funded services
and programs to prospective and current foster parents who do not subscribe to the religious
beliefs set forth in Holston’s statement of faith.

Request for Relief

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1. Declare that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147 facially violates Article I, Section 3, Article
I, Section 8, and Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution by permitting
state funding of child-placing agencies that discriminate in state-funded programs or
services against prospective or current foster parents based on the religious beliefs of
the parents.
2. Declare that the defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Article I,
Section 3, Article I, Section 8, and Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee
Constitution by funding and contracting with Holston, because Holston discriminates,
in services and programs funded by the Department, based on the religious beliefs of
prospective or current foster parents.

18

3. Enjoin the defendants from continuing to fund or contract with Holston as long as
Holston continues to discriminate, in services or programs funded by the Department,
based on the religious beliefs of prospective or current foster parents.
4. Grant the plaintiffs attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs to the extent authorized by
law.
5. Grant any other relief that the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: January 19, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Scott Kramer
Scott Kramer (BPR No. 019462)
The Kramer Law Center
P.O. Box 240461
Memphis, TN 38124
Phone: (901) 896-8933
thekramerlawcenter@gmail.com
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar. No. 474250)*
Alex J. Luchenitser (D.C. Bar No. 473393)*
Gabriela Hybel (D.C. Bar No. 1672249)*
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
1310 L St. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 466-7306
Fax: (202) 466-3353
katskee@au.org
luchenitser@au.org
hybel@au.org
*Pro hac vice motions to follow
Counsel for Plaintiffs

What constitutional arguments can you raise in defense and what will be the probable outcome?

What legal advice would you give the agency to eliminate future litigation of this nature?