Michigan Threatens Catholic School Over Gender Ideology

For many parents, ensuring their children receive an education that aligns with their religious beliefs is a top priority.

Religious schools have the First Amendment right to operate according to their beliefs, and parents should be able to send their children to these schools with confidence about the education they will receive.

But a reinterpreted law in Michigan threatens the ability of religious schools to educate students according to their beliefs. For this reason, one Catholic school and two of its families are challenging the unconstitutional law in court.

What are Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish and Sacred Heart Academy?

Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish is a Catholic church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that was founded over a hundred years ago by Polish immigrants. Sacred Heart seeks to advance the Gospel by “instructing in the faith, bringing hope, and fostering charity.”

The parish operates a K-12 school called Sacred Heart Academy. The school originally opened in 1905 and was re-founded in 2013 to add a classical component to the Catholic education it provides.

Consistent with Catholic teaching, Sacred Heart Academy instructs its students that all people are created in the image of God, male or female. And that core belief doesn’t just guide school teaching; it also informs school policy. It’s important for Sacred Heart to be able to hire faculty and staff who share its Catholic beliefs. But the reinterpretation of Michigan’s non-discrimination law threatens the school’s ability to teach and operate according to its faith.

Michigan law threatens religious freedom and free speech

Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and penal code were intended to ban discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, such as sex. But in July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court redefined “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity, unilaterally expanding the act’s application without legislative involvement.

For Sacred Heart, this new interpretation threatens its ability to operate according to its Catholic faith. The school has always taught that God created people in His image, either male or female, and that sex cannot be changed. In addition, it teaches that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

These ideas are rooted in biblical truth, and they are deeply held beliefs within the Catholic faith. But Michigan’s reinterpreted law would force Sacred Heart Academy to deny these truths and violate its religious beliefs.

Michigan’s new interpretation of the law would also require teachers to deny scientific truths about human biology and violate their beliefs by referring to people with pronouns that are inconsistent with their sex.

Furthermore, the new interpretation would require Sacred Heart to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith.

Parents who send their children to Sacred Heart Academy do so because they seek an education for their children that aligns with the Catholic faith. And many families make sacrifices to send their children to the school.

One family, for example, moved to Michigan from Indiana to send their children to Sacred Heart. But if Michigan’s law stands as interpreted, families like this one will no longer be able to ensure the religious education they want for their children.

In December 2022, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish and Sacred Heart Academy, including two families at the school. After a federal district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, ADF attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. In September 2024, the 6th Circuit ruled that Sacred Heart faced a credible threat of enforcement, sending the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Then, in August 2026, the district court issued a split ruling. The court confirmed that Sacred Heart’s policies on pronouns, student admissions, restrooms, uniforms, and sports teams are protected by the First Amendment. But the court declined to extend those protections to Sacred Heart’s hiring practices for some positions, like its athletic coach and maintenance staff. ADF attorneys filed a notice of appeal, asking the 6th Circuit to review this ruling.

What’s at stake?

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious schools to operate according to their beliefs, and it guarantees the right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing. If the redefined law stands as is in Michigan, the government will be able to violate both of these freedoms and force schools to teach the government’s preferred ideas.

A win for Sacred Heart would allow religious schools in Michigan to express their beliefs freely without interference from the government.

Bottom line

Religious schools should be free to operate according to their beliefs without government interference.

Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel

• July 2022: The Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted Michigan’s non-discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. It did not provide exemptions for religious institutions seeking to operate according to their beliefs.
• December 2022: ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sacred Heart, including three families with children at the school.
• August 2023: ADF attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the 6th Circuit.
• September 2024: The 6th Circuit allowed Sacred Heart’s case to continue, remanding it to the lower court for further proceedings.
• November 2025: ADF attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Sacred Heart, asking the court to rule in the school’s favor without a jury trial. The state filed its own cross-motion in January 2026.
• August 2026: The district court issued a split ruling—confirming that Sacred Heart’s policies on pronouns, student admissions, restrooms, uniforms, and sports teams are protected under the First Amendment, but declining to extend those protections to the school’s hiring practices for some positions like its athletic coach and maintenance staff. The court granted the state’s motion and closed the case at the district level. ADF attorneys then filed a notice of appeal, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to review the district court’s ruling.