Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel

The Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted the prohibition on sex discrimination in Michigan’s Civil Rights Act and penal code to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That change requires Grand Rapids-based Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. Additionally, by preventing Sacred Heart from operating its school consistent with its beliefs, state officials are violating the rights of parents who specifically chose to send their children to Sacred Heart Academy because the school aligns with their values and religious beliefs.

Case Timeline

• 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.