Michigan Law Is Threatening a Christian Medical Nonprofit for Following Its Christian Beliefs

Choosing a doctor is about more than just location and convenience. Many people want to find a provider who shares their beliefs, who will take time to understand their situation, and who will consider not just their physical health, but their emotional and even spiritual needs, as well.

For many Michigan residents, Christian Healthcare Centers fits the bill. Based in the western part of the state, Christian Healthcare is a faith-based organization that focuses on serving the community, including those who cannot afford medical care.

But now, due to a Michigan state law, Christian Healthcare’s ability to fully operate as a faith-based medical organization is in jeopardy.

What is Christian Healthcare Centers?

Christian Healthcare was founded to provide a distinctly Christian approach to primary care.

Christian Healthcare isn’t just for Christians. Its patients come from many faiths, or no faith at all. But Christian Healthcare does operate according to the dictates of the Christian faith. That’s exactly why it provides subsidized medical care to the needy so that they can obtain care they normally cannot afford. As a public religious ministry, Christian Healthcare’s beliefs shape its purpose, mission, and activities.

At the ministry, the focus is always on the patients. Doctors there regularly spend over half an hour with patients during appointments—double the time of the average consultation in traditional practices.

The ministry serves everyone regardless of characteristics like sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, Christian Healthcare has served patients who identify as transgender.

But while Christian Healthcare offers care to anyone, it cannot speak or provide treatment that conflicts with its religious beliefs to anyone. That means Christian Healthcare cannot prescribe cross-sex hormones to facilitate efforts to change someone’s sex, and it cannot refer to patients using pronouns that do not match their biological sex. To do so would be to violate its belief that God made human beings male and female. Christian Healthcare also requires its employees to affirm and abide by its religious beliefs—a standard practice among religious ministries that federal law and many states protect. But Michigan’s civil-rights law has put that practice under threat.

And those facts—Christian Healthcare’s beliefs, its expression, and its hiring practices—are what put it at odds with the state of Michigan.

The civil-rights law in the state of Michigan prohibits discrimination because of sex—a standard stipulation that should not be controversial. But in 2018, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission reinterpreted “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the years following, two state court rulings affirmed the commission’s redefinition of sex. In 2020, a state court held that “sex” includes gender identity but not sexual orientation. Then, in July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court expanded the definition further, ruling that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves discrimination because of sex.” And in 2023, the Michigan legislature explicitly added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of characteristics protected by the state law.

When Christian Healthcare began to learn about these court decisions, it realized that its ability to serve the community and employ fellow Christians consistent with its religious beliefs about biology and other topics would be threatened.

That may sound abstract, but the implications are concrete: Christian Healthcare needs to hire people who agree with its mission. It regularly has job openings that it should be able to post and publicize to encourage applications. The ministry needs to address its patients and the public in a way that doesn’t contradict its core religious convictions. And it should be able to operate without worrying about investigations, prosecutions, and steep penalties. 

Christian Healthcare Centers stands for religious freedom

When Christian Healthcare Centers filed suit against Michigan in August 2022, the federal district court initially threw the case out entirely—ruling that the ministry had no grounds to challenge the law. ADF attorneys appealed, and in September 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the ruling because Christian Healthcare faced a credible enough threat of enforcement to have its day in court. The case went back to the district court, and while it proceeded, the state agreed not to investigate or take any enforcement action against the ministry.

Both sides then filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case without a jury trial. On August 5, 2026, the district court issued a split ruling. The good news: the court agreed that Michigan cannot force Christian Healthcare to use pronouns inconsistent with a patient’s biological sex, cannot require it to provide gender-transition treatments, and cannot strip the ministry’s right to hire only believers for its Biblical Counselor and physician roles. But the court also held that Christian Healthcare’s other staff positions—like medical assistants and receptionists—don’t receive that same protection under current law.

ADF attorneys filed a notice of appeal on August 18, 2026, returning the case to the 6th Circuit. The fight for Christian Healthcare’s right to fully operate as a religious ministry continues.

What’s at stake?

Christian Healthcare Centers is fighting for the right of religious ministries to staff their organizations with people who share their faith—not just for roles a court deems “ministerial,” but for every position that carries out their mission.

The August 2026 ruling affirmed that Christian Healthcare can maintain its pronoun policy, decline to provide gender-transition treatments, and hire only believers for its Biblical Counselor and physician roles. But the court stopped short of extending those protections to other staff, leaving Christian Healthcare exposed on its broader hiring practices while it appeals.

Michigan law could still subject Christian Healthcare to steep penalties, including fines of $50,000, loss of medical license, and even possible jail time for employees.

The bottom line

Ministries like Christian Healthcare should not have to choose between helping the hurting and following their faith. Religious organizations should be free to operate and serve the community according to their beliefs.

Christian Healthcare Centers v. Nessel

• July 2022: The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves discrimination because of sex.” A lower state court had already ruled that “sex” includes gender identity.
• August 2022: ADF attorneys representing Christian Healthcare Centers filed a lawsuit against Michigan.
• March 2023: A federal court ruled that Christian Healthcare Centers lacked standing to challenge Michigan’s law.
• May 2023: Michigan governor signed legislation codifying the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to Michigan civil rights law.
• August 2023: ADF attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
• September 2024: The 6th Circuit allowed Christian Healthcare Centers’ case to continue, remanding it to the lower court for further proceedings.
• December 2024: With the case returned to the district court, the state agreed not to investigate or take any enforcement action against Christian Healthcare Centers while the case proceeded.
• November 2025: ADF attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Christian Healthcare Centers, asking the court to rule in the ministry’s favor without a trial. The state filed its own cross-motion in January 2026.
• August 2026: The district court issued a split ruling—agreeing that Michigan cannot force Christian Healthcare to violate its beliefs on pronouns, gender-transition efforts, or hiring for its Biblical Counselor and physician roles, but declining to extend those protections to the ministry’s other staff positions. The court granted the state’s motion and closed the case at the district level. ADF attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.