Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 1 filed 04/15/19 PageID.
1 Page 1 of 52
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MELISSA BUCK; CHAD BUCK;

SHAMBER FLORE;
ST. VINCENT CATHOLIC
CHARITIES,
Civil No. _________
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
v.
ROBERT GORDON, in his official

capacity as the Director of the
Michigan Department of Health
and Human Services; HERMAN
MCCALL, in his official capacity
as the Executive Director of the
Michigan Children’s Services
Agency; DANA NESSEL, in her
official capacity as Attorney
General of Michigan; ALEX
AZAR, in his official capacity as
the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and
Human Services; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Defendants.
1
Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 1 filed 04/15/19 PageID.2 Page 2 of 52
INTRODUCTION
1. St. Vincent Catholic Charities (St. Vincent) is one of the oldest
and most effective foster care and adoption agencies in Michigan.
St. Vincent exists to serve those in need, and it wants to continue serving
foster and adoptive children in Michigan through its public adoption and
foster care programs. But despite a clear need for more foster and
adoptive homes, the State of Michigan has decided to force St. Vincent
and numerous other faith-based agencies like it—serving hundreds of
children across the State—to choose between following their faith and
closing down a vital ministry.
2. St. Vincent provides training, supervision, and on-going support
to each foster care and adoptive family with which it partners. For
adoptive parents like Chad and Melissa Buck, who have worked with
St. Vincent to foster and then adopt five children with challenging
medical needs and trauma from past abuse, St. Vincent has been a God-
send. To this day, St. Vincent continues to be a crucial source of support
for the Bucks. St. Vincent is also the only agency with institutional
knowledge of the Buck’s family situation, the challenges faced by their
special-needs children, and the difficult dynamics with their birth
2
parents. The Bucks give back to St. Vincent by helping to recruit, serve,
and support other foster and adoptive parents. Without St. Vincent, the
Bucks are likely to miss out on the opportunity to foster and adopt a
sibling of their five adopted children were he or she to enter the State’s
care.
3. St. Vincent helped Shamber Flore find a home and a loving family
after escaping a past filled with trauma and abuse. St. Vincent has
continued to help and support Shamber and her adoptive parents, and
now Shamber serves St. Vincent and its families by providing mentoring
and support for children and families recovering from past trauma.
4. Despite St. Vincent’s demonstrated record of excellent service to
the community, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
(MDHHS) and the Michigan Attorney General have threatened to take
action against St. Vincent solely because the agency abides by its
Catholic beliefs regarding marriage. The State has made clear that it will
no longer permit adoption and foster agencies to operate in accord with
their religious beliefs (as they have done successfully for decades), and
will penalize them if they refuse to provide written evaluations that
conflict with their religious beliefs. If the State ends these relationships,
3
St. Vincent and many other religious child welfare agencies will be
unable to continue providing foster care and adoption services in
Michigan. This means that adoptive parents will have fewer choices and
foster children will face longer waits to find permanent homes.
5. The State’s actions violate the First and the Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Enforcement of federal
regulations supporting the State’s actions likewise violates the
Constitution and federal law. For this reason, the Court should issue a
judgment declaring these actions unlawful and enjoining the State and
the federal government from violating Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
6. Plaintiff St. Vincent Catholic Charities is a Michigan nonprofit
corporation with charitable and religious purposes; St. Vincent is party
to foster and adoptive services contracts with MDHHS.
7. St. Vincent was originally incorporated by the Roman Catholic
Bishop of Lansing and remains affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of
Lansing and subject to the authority of the Bishop of Lansing, who
maintains certain reserved powers over St. Vincent. Because of its
4
affiliation to the Catholic Diocese of Lansing, St. Vincent is listed in the
Official Catholic Directory under the Catholic Diocese of Lansing.
8. St. Vincent Catholic Charities’ vision is to have “faith in God and
love for all,” as it “aspire[s] to create a healthier community.” St. Vincent
is dedicated to serving others in a spirit of humility and shares a genuine
concern for the well-being of its neighbors, affirming the God-given
dignity and worth of every human person. The mission of St. Vincent
Catholic Charities is the work of the Catholic Church, to share the love
of Christ by performing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. In this
way, those served by the Church and her members (including her
charitable agencies) encounter Christ, and the Church encounters Christ
in those served:
Then the King will say to those at his right hand, “Come, O
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you
gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a
stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed
me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you
came to me. . . Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the
least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”
Matthew 25:40. St. Vincent exercises its faith and carries out this
religious mission to “the least of these” through its foster care and
adoption ministries. Care for needy children and the provision of these
5
services is an integral, fundamental, and central part of St. Vincent’s
religious exercise. Providing these services in a manner consistent with
Catholic teaching is part of its religious character and affiliation.
9. Many of the children in St. Vincent’s care are minority children
(African American, Hispanic, or Native American), and St. Vincent excels
in providing extra support for families with special needs children.
10. Chad and Melissa Buck are adoptive parents and former foster
parents currently living in Holt, Michigan. The Bucks adopted five
special-needs children through St. Vincent. The Bucks see foster care and
adoption as a religious calling, and as a part of their sincere religious
exercise they serve and support other foster and adoptive parents.
11. The Bucks would struggle to provide the extensive care that their
children require without the support they receive from St. Vincent.
St. Vincent has provided the Bucks with training, resources, support, and
professional guidance as to how to best care for their children with special
needs. The Bucks have been able to call social workers at any hour and
receive an answer from someone they know and trust. These social
workers have become like family and have shown great love and care for
their children. The Bucks continue to rely on St. Vincent for support,
6
including through attending St. Vincent’s support group and
maintaining relationships with the agency workers who know their
family and their children. The Bucks also have a religious mission to
serve other foster families, and they do so by working with St. Vincent to
support foster and adoptive parents, including through a foster parent
support group that St. Vincent facilitates, which also enables them to
help support and recruit more foster parents. This group is the only foster
parent support group offered in the tri-county area and it is open to all
foster families, including same-sex couples.
12. Plaintiff Shamber Flore is a former foster child whose family
fostered and adopted her through St. Vincent. Ms. Flore exercises her
faith by encouraging and mentoring foster children and sharing her own
story of overcoming hardship and abuse to find love and joy. She relies
upon the relationships and trust she has built with St. Vincent to serve
other families working with St. Vincent.
13. Defendant Robert Gordon is the Director of MDHHS, the state
agency responsible for foster care and adoption services for children in
state custody. MDHHS contracts with private child placing agencies,
7
including St. Vincent Catholic Charities, to provide public foster care and
adoption services. Defendant Gordon is sued in his official capacity only.
14. Defendant Dr. Herman McCall is Executive Director of the
Children’s Services Agency (CSA), a sub-agency of MDHHS that, in
addition to having oversight over the work of all private child placing
agencies, is mandated by law to “[r]eview, investigate, evaluate, and
assess all programs within [MDHHS] related to services and programs
for children,” including by advising on policy related to “children’s
services and programs including, but not limited to, services for foster
children, juvenile justice, and homeless youth.” Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 400.227 (2015). Defendant McCall is sued in his official capacity only.
15. Defendant Dana Nessel, the Attorney General of the State of
Michigan, is charged with representing state agencies and enforcing
state law. Defendant Nessel has been instrumental in framing MDHHS’s
current policy regarding the enforcement of MDHHS contracts and state
law governing religious child welfare providers. Attorney General Nessel
is sued in her official capacity only.
16. Defendant Alex M. Azar is the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this capacity, he
8
has responsibility for the operation and management of HHS and is the
appointed official responsible for issuing and enforcing the challenged
federal regulations. Secretary Azar is sued in his official capacity only.
17. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human
Services is an executive agency of the United States government and is
responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the
challenged federal regulations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United
States. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1343, and 1361. This action arises under the Constitution and
laws of the United States.
19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because all
Defendants are located, domiciled, or otherwise are present and
conducting a continuous and systematic part of their general business
within the State.
20. The Court has authority to issue the declaratory and injunctive
relief sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
9
21. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). All
Plaintiffs reside in this district, as do Defendants Gordon, McCall, and
Nessel (“State Defendants”). Additionally, a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
Plaintiff St. Vincent Catholic Charities is headquartered and operates in
this district, and Plaintiffs Shamber Flore, Chad Buck, and Melissa Buck
live in this district and all would be harmed both by the State’s actions
and by application of the HHS regulations to its religious ministry. The
State Defendants reside in the state capital, also in this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Michigan’s Foster Care System
The State contracts with private child placing agencies
22. Over 12,000 children are currently in Michigan’s foster care
system, and the need for new foster parents far outstrips the number of
families seeking to care for these children. Indeed, approximately 3,000
Michigan foster children are available for adoption at any given time. Of
those children, nearly 300 do not have an identified adoptive family.1
1
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Adoption (2019)
https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/0,5885,7-339-73971 7116---,00.html
10
Because there are not enough families, more than 600 of these children
“age out” of foster care every year. 2 They exit the foster system at age 18
without any permanent family, and many lack the resources and skills
to successfully transition into adulthood. 3 These children are much less
likely to graduate high school, let alone college, and far more likely to end
up in poverty.4 Furthermore, Michigan therefore relies upon state-
licensed foster care and adoption agencies (“child placing agencies”) to
recruit, train, certify, and supervise foster families that will care for
children in the State’s custody.
23. The State therefore has contracts with over 90 different private
child placing agencies that operate throughout the State. By contracting
with the State, these agencies agree to provide foster and adoptive
services to children in need.
2Child Trends, Transition-Age Youth in Foster Care in Michigan, https://www.childtr

ends.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Transition-Age-Youth Michigan.pdf; Kristi
Tanner, More than 900 Michigan foster care youth age out, Detroit Free Press (Jan.
31, 2015) https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/raw-
data/2015/01/31/michigan-foster-care-youth/22621127/.
3 Children’s Rights, Aging Out, http://www.childrensrights.org/ newsroom/fact-
sheets/aging-out/.
4 Mark E. Courtney, Amy Dworsky, Adam Brown, Colleen Cary, Kara Love &
Vanessa Vorhies, Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth:
Outcomes at age 26 (2011); Erick Eckholm, Offering Help for Former Foster Care
Youths, The New York Times (Jan. 27, 2007) http://www.nytimes.com/2
007/01/27/us/27foster.html.
11
24. The State encourages potential foster and adoptive parents to
reach out to multiple agencies and to find an agency that will be a good
fit for them, telling prospective parents that it is “important that you feel
comfortable sharing personal and private information” with the agency
you choose. 5 The State has also created numerous support services by
which prospective foster or adoptive parents can meet with experienced
“Navigators” who will help guide them through the process of finding an
agency that is a good fit. 6
25. The State benefits from, and permits, private child placing
agencies to develop specializations and to focus on serving certain
populations—like children with disabilities or children with a specific
ethnic background. And agencies will often seek to specifically recruit
foster parents that can serve those unique needs. 7 When a child placing
agency is unable to work with a prospective foster or adoptive family,
that agency will refer the prospective family to another agency that might
5 Ex. A, page 3.
6 Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange, Adoption Navigators, https://mare.org/For-
Families/Adoption-Navigators.
7 The Wayne Center, a state contracted child placing agency, advertises that it is
specifically seeking “foster parents with previous experience with persons who have
a developmental disability and/or expertise in related areas, e.g., medical,
educational, social work, psychological, etc.” Wayne Center, Written Needs Statement,
http://www.waynecenter.org/services/foster-care.
12
better suit their needs. This happens routinely for numerous reasons. For
example, agencies can refer applicants elsewhere if a family lives too far
away from the agency, making home visits impractical, if the agency has
a wait list, if the family has not been satisfied with the agency’s services,
or if the family is looking for a specific type of child not currently in the
agency’s care, just to name a few.
26. As Steve Yager, Executive Direct of the Children’s Services
Agency within MDHHS, previously stated: “[W]e work with agencies
based on a contract, not on their belief system, stated or otherwise. We
do not compel agencies to accept referrals—never have; rather, we create
through contracts a vast array of providers to meet the very diverse needs
of the children and families we serve.” 8
27. In Michigan, foster care placements and public adoptions can only
be performed by agencies that contract with MDHHS to perform these
services. St. Vincent would not be able to provide its foster care or
adoption ministry without a license and contract from the State, as the
State is the sole source of public foster care and adoption referrals.
Without new referrals, St. Vincent would quickly lose the ability to
8 Ex. B.
13
continue providing foster care and adoptive services and would have to
shut down both programs.
The Home Studies and Certification Process
28. There is no shortage of opportunities for same-sex couples to foster
or adopt in Michigan.
29. DHHS welcomes and encourages same-sex couples to foster and
adopt, and no same-sex couple has been prevented from fostering or
adopting a child by St. Vincent.
30. If St. Vincent is unable to work with a couple due to its religious
beliefs, it provides the couple with a list of other area agencies who do
not share St. Vincent’s religious beliefs and could assist them in
becoming foster or adoptive parents.
31. In fact, through the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange
(M.A.R.E) (the State’s central adoption portal), any foster family,
including a same-sex or unmarried couple, can be connected to a private
child placing agency, become a certified pre-adoptive home, and then
adopt a child that is currently placed in a foster home serviced by a
different agency, including St. Vincent.
14
32. In other words, parents interested in adopting a child in
St. Vincent’s care need not work directly with St. Vincent to adopt that
child, but may work with another agency.
33. In this way, LGBTQ individuals have been able to adopt a child in
St. Vincent’s care.
34. As part of the certification process, a prospective foster or adoptive
parent must work with either MDHHS or a private agency to complete a
“home study” before they can be approved by the State to adopt or foster
a child.
35. As part of the home study, a social worker will visit the applicant’s
home in person and meet with all of the individuals living in that home.
36. This in-person meeting is a necessary component of the home
study because it allows the social worker to asses both the home and the
individuals living in it.
37. During this in person meeting, the social worker will ask the
applicant very specific, personal, and difficult questions to gauge whether
it would be appropriate to place a foster child in need in their home.
15
38. These questions are necessary to allow the agency to assess
whether the applicant’s home is appropriate and suitable for the
placement of foster or adoptive children.
39. Often, these children have been subject to past abuse or other
traumatic events, so careful evaluation of the family’s living situation is
necessary to avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful conflicts.
40. In addition, MDHHS’s foster/adoption home evaluation form
specifically requires agencies to assess the “[s]trengths and weaknesses”
of the parents and the “[s]trengths of the relationship” between the
couple, including “level of satisfaction” and “stability” of the relationship.
41. Regarding home studies for LGBTQ individuals, the Human
Rights Campaign (HRC) has recognized that a social worker may ask “all
kinds of questions about [the applicant’s] childhood and upbringing,
including questions about puberty, sex and sexuality.” 9 HRC stated that
the “homestudy serves as an evaluation tool that allows you to determine
if a prospective resource parent has that capability to provide a child with
9Perry, J.R., Promising Practices for Serving Transgender & Non-Binary Foster and
Adoptive Parents, Human Rights Campaign Foundation 41-42 (2017),
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC ACAF Promising Practices Se
rving Transgender Non-Binary Parents.pdf
16
a safe and nurturing home” and should be based on a “thorough
evaluation.” 10 A home study also requires an agency to ask very personal
questions regarding an LGBT individual’s past and sensitive questions
about their relationships, family, and love life.11 In short, a home study
is not a mere box to be checked.
42. Home studies are very invasive, thorough, and in-depth
investigations that take into account every aspect of an applicant’s family
life and are part of the process by which an agency and the applicant
determine if they are the right fit for each other. As Michigan recognizes,
it is crucial that applicants “trust [their] instincts” and “[c]hoose an
agency [they] are compatible with.”12
10 Id. at 44.
11 HRC created a list of sample questions for social workers to ask during an LGBT
home study. This sample list includes numerous questions that are deeply personal
and even intimate: “In the past, have you ever been “outed” by someone? How did you
handle it?”; “What has been the attitude of your extended family to your partner?”;
“How have homo/bi/transphobia and/or heterosexism or cissexism affected your life
and how have you dealt with this?”; and “Where are you in the process of grieving
any feelings of loss you may have around not having biological children?” Sample
LGBTQ Affirming Homestudy Questions & Rationale, Human Rights Campaign
Foundation, https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC ACAF LGBTQ Aff
irming Homestudy Questions And Rationale.pdf.
12 Foster Care Agency Checklist, Department of Human Services,
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/FosterCareAgencyChecklist Comm4-
12 381389 7.pdf.
17
43. Only after a home study and assessment by a social worker is
complete will the agency refer the application to the State with a
recommendation that the State provide final approval and licensing.
44. As part of this licensing recommendation, an agency must prepare
a report and licensing recommendation for MDHHS. That report
analyzes the relationships in the home and provides a recommendation
regarding placing children in that home. That report is—and St. Vincent
understands that report to be—a written approval of the relationships in
the home and confirmation that the agency has determined the home is
suitable for the placement of children.
45. HRC and other LGBTQ-advocacy organizations believe that
agencies should not place children with families that would not be
affirming of LGBTQ children, including for religious reasons. 13 HRC
13 HRC, All Children All Families and Non-Affirming Potential Foster Families
(Oct. 3, 2018), https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/4180979117481006082 (free
registration required to view) (describing a foster family’s reaction to a child’s
identification as a member of the LGBTQ community as the “all-important
discussion” that if not handled correctly can “harm” the child). HRC also describes
New York City’s approach as a “best practice.” New York City policies state, “If the
parent displays negative attitudes about LGBTQ people, even when deeply rooted in
religious beliefs and cultural values, and the alleged abused and/or maltreatment are
related to the youth’s perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identity, or
gender expression, the staff must determine whether those attitudes are impacting
the youth’s immediate safety as well as whether those attitudes may put the youth
at risk for future physical or emotional harm.” New York City Government,
18
provides a “Seal of Recognition” to agencies that are leaders in serving
LGBTQ foster families and children.14 In Michigan, the following
agencies have received the Seal of Recognition: Fostering Futures, Hands
Across the Water, and Judson Center - Foster Care & Adoption.
46. Upon information and belief, the State does not take the position
that it would be a violation of state law or policy for an agency to refuse
to place a child with a religious foster family if the agency determined
that the family would not be affirming of LGBTQ children.
47. Upon information and belief, the State does not take the position
that it would be a violation of state law or policy for an agency to refuse
to recommend for certification a foster family if the agency determined
that the family would not be affirming of LGBTQ children.
48. Upon information and belief, the State has never investigated or
penalized an agency for refusing to recommend for certification a foster
Respectfully Asking Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Questions,

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs/pdf/lgbtq/Respectfully Asking SOGI Questions.pdf
; see also Child Welfare League of America & Lambda Legal, Getting Down to Basics:
Tools to Support LGBTQ Youth in Care, 25-26 (2012),
http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/gdtb 2013 complete.pdf (“If these
personal religious beliefs might prevent offering nonjudgmental care to an LGBTQ
young person, the practitioner or foster parent should seek outside support and make
alternative care arrangements. They must put the needs of young people above their
own personal beliefs.”).
14 All Children - All Families: Tiers of Recognition, HRC,
https://www.hrc.org/resources/all-children-all-families-tiers-of-recognition.
19
family if the agency determined that the family would not be affirming of
LGBTQ children.
penalized the Sault Tribe Binogii Placement Agency, a State-licensed
child placing agency, for only placing children with Native American
foster or adoptive parents.
penalized the Wayne Center, a State-licensed child placing agency, for
seeking only parents with prior experience caring for developmentally
disabled children.
penalized Homes for Black Children, a former State-licensed child
placing agency, for specializing in providing care for Black children.
Placing a child in a certified foster or adoptive home
52. When a child must be removed from their home and placed in a
foster home, DHHS’s goal is to place that child in a home within 24 hours.
In order to do this, the State will reach out to one or more of the child
placing agencies with which it has contracted to see if that agency has a
family ready and willing to take in that child. The child placing agency
20
will then be given one hour by MDHHS to contact one or more families
and see if it can find a placement for that child. If the first agency
MDHHS contacts cannot find an available family, MDHHS contacts
additional agencies. Sometimes, MDHHS will contact multiple agencies
at the same time when the situation is urgent.
53. Once a certified family is “matched” with the child in need,
MDHHS will transfer that child into the foster family and the private
child placing agency with whom that family was certified will oversee the
placement, providing ongoing support and training to the foster family.
54. As discussed above, families certified through one foster agencies
may still adopt children under the supervision of a different agency
through M.A.R.E.
55. Michigan relies upon state and federal funds, including federal
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants, to
administer its foster care and adoption programs. As a condition of
receiving these funds, the Department of Health and Human Services is
required by 45 CFR § 75.300(a) to “communicate to the non-Federal
entity [here, MDHHS] all relevant public policy requirements . . . and
incorporate them either directly or by reference in the terms and
21
conditions of the Federal award.” Id. One such public policy requirement
imposed by these same regulation is that “no person otherwise eligible
will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected
to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services
based on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color,
national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation.” 45 CFR
§ 75.300(c). Through contracts with private child placing agencies,
Michigan provides foster parents and the agencies that supervise them
per diem payments from a combination of federal and state funds. That
funding is provided to child placing agencies only after an agency has
accepted the referral of a child and is supervising that placement with a
certified foster family.
56. Through contracts with private child placing agencies, Michigan
also provides specified funding to adoptive parents and the agencies that
supervise them from a combination of federal and state funds.
57. Upon information and belief, MDHHS and Attorney General
Nessel have interpreted 45 CFR § 75.300(a) to apply to St. Vincent
Catholic Charities and operate to require the State to force St. Vincent to
22
violate its sincere religious beliefs by providing home studies for same-
sex relationships.
58. Were St. Vincent to fail to comply with this regulation, MDHHS
will cut St. Vincent’s funding and refuse to continue contracting with the
agency.
State law protects the religious exercise of child placing agencies
59. State law expressly protects the ability of child placing agencies
to decline to perform a home study or make a licensing recommendation.
See Mich. Comp. Laws 722.124e(h) (2015). This law, passed in 2015,
prohibits the State from declining to contract, declining to renew a
contract, or taking any other adverse action against a child placing
agency based on its decision to refer same-sex or unmarried couples to
other agencies for religious reasons. Id.
60. When this law was passed, Michigan explained that “[h]aving as
many possible qualified adoption and foster parent agencies in this state
is a substantial benefit to the children of this state who are in need of
these placement services.” Mich. Comp. Laws 722.124e(c) (2015).
Michigan also found that it crucial to “ensur[e] that faith-based child
placing agencies can continue to provide adoption and foster care
23
services” because their work “benefit[s] the children and families who
receive publicly funded services.” Mich. Comp. Laws 722.124e(g) (2015).
Accordingly, Michigan chose to protect faith-based agencies by
permitting them to refer prospective applicants to another agency if
serving that applicant would conflict with the agency’s sincerely held
religious beliefs. Michigan concluded that this was in the public interest
and in the interest of serving the most families and children in need. Id.
61. Soon after the law was passed, MDHHS interpreted the statute to
mean that it could not penalize or terminate contracts with religious child
welfare agencies if those agencies declined to perform home studies for
same-sex or unmarried couples.
62. MDHHS determined that the state law might not apply in some
cases involving child-specific adoption contracts, but even in those cases,
MDHHS granted case-by-case exemptions which permitted child welfare
agencies to continue operating according to their religious beliefs.
63. In response to this new law, MDHHS also updated its individual
child adoption forms and contracts.
24
St. Vincent’s Adoption and Foster Care Program
64. St. Vincent shares Michigan’s goal of working to fill the shortage
of safe foster homes for these vulnerable kids. St. Vincent is able to
recruit prospective families who would not otherwise feel able to foster or
adopt children based on its religious character and mission.
65. St. Vincent provides public foster care and adoption services. It
performs home studies and makes licensing recommendations to the
state, oversees foster and adoptive placements, and also provides ongoing
training and support for the foster or adoptive family and works with
case workers to coordinate services to the foster family, birth family and
child in order to achieve a positive outcome.
66. St. Vincent serves and places children regardless of their race,
color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin,
ancestry, age, disability, source of income, familial status, genetic
information, or sexual violence victim status.
67. St. Vincent shares the religious beliefs and teachings of the
Catholic Church regarding same-sex marriage. But St. Vincent would
never stop a family who wants to foster or adopt from having the
opportunity to complete the application and home study process. If
25
St. Vincent were ever unable to perform in-depth home assessments and
make reports and written certifications to the State for any reason,
including based on St. Vincent’s own religious beliefs, then it would refer
the applicants to another agency that could better serve their needs.
68. According to M.A.R.E., there are 16 other agencies that also serve
Ingham County, which is where St. Vincent is located. 15
69. For over 50 years, St. Vincent has provided foster care and
adoption services in Michigan pursuant to regularly renewed contracts.
In reliance upon these contracts, St. Vincent currently employs 18 staff
members who work exclusively on these contracts, has budgeted and
raised funds designed to supplement state funding on that contract, and
has taken other concrete steps in expectation that it will continue to
receive referrals and be able to perform its duties under these contracts.
70. St. Vincent provides training, supervision, and on-going support
to each foster care and adoptive family with which it partners. For
adoptive parents like Chad and Melissa Buck, who have worked with
St. Vincent to foster and then adopt five children with challenging
15Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange, Agency Map, https://mare.org/Agency-Map

(under “Filter by County” select “Ingham” for map and list of all 17 agencies).
26
medical needs and trauma from past abuse, St. Vincent has been a God-
send. To this day, St. Vincent continues to be a crucial source of support
for the Bucks, and they in turn provide support and assistance to other
families fostering and adopting through St. Vincent. For the Bucks,
serving as adoptive parents and serving other adoptive parents is a
religious calling. St. Vincent facilitates ongoing services to families that
have adopted, like a monthly support group—the only such group open
to any foster or adoptive parents in the region.
71. St. Vincent helped Shamber Flore to find a home and a loving
family after past filled with trauma and abuse. St. Vincent has continued
to help and support Shamber and her adoptive parents, and now
Shamber serves St. Vincent and its families by providing mentoring and
support for children and families recovering from past trauma.
72. In the foster care context, the home study assessment process
allows St. Vincent to prepare families to accept a child into their home;
only after a child is placed in the certified family’s home do St. Vincent
and the family begin to receive funding from the State.
73. In some exceptional cases, the State might use a different
payment structure pursuant to a separate, child-specific contract to
27
directly pay for home study services for foster children being placed with
relatives. St. Vincent has never been a party to such a contract for the
provision of home study services for an LGBTQ couple.
74. Unless the State specifically contracts for a home study
assessment in this exceptional circumstance, home studies are not paid
for with state funds under St. Vincent’s ordinary foster care or adoption
contracts with the State.
75. Outside of this exceptional circumstance for placement with
relatives, foster care and adoption home studies are not specifically listed
as a “service” under St. Vincent’s contracts with the State.
76. Outside of this exceptional circumstance, St. Vincent pays for
home studies, assessments, and its general recruitment with private
funds in a cost center that is kept separate from the funding provided by
the State for other child welfare activities.
77. St. Vincent offers a significant subsidy to Michigan by recruiting
new foster parents using its own private funds and supplementing State
funds with private donations and volunteer hours to cover costs that state
funding cannot.
28
78. For example, last fiscal year both St. Vincent’s foster program and
adoption programs operated at a significant loss based on the state
funding alone, and these programs would not have been able to operate
without St. Vincent’s private subsidies.
79. Michigan has been aware of St. Vincent’ religious beliefs for years.
MDHHS Targets St. Vincent
The ACLU’s Lawsuit
80. On September 20, 2017, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against
MDHHS on behalf of two LGBT couples. The lawsuit alleged that these
couples had approached Bethany Christian Services and St. Vincent
Catholic Charities seeking to adopt a child, but were referred to another
agency based on their sexual orientation. The ACLU claimed that the
state’s decision to continue contracting with these private agencies
violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. Complaint at
¶¶ 75-81, Dumont v. Lyon, No. 17-cv-13080 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2017),
ECF No. 1.
81. Plaintiffs St. Vincent Catholic Charities, Melissa Buck, Chad
Buck, and Shamber Flore moved to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the
ACLU, arguing that the State’s decision to contract with St. Vincent and
29
other faith-based agencies did not violate the Constitution and was
protected under state and federal law. Motion to Intervene at 19-21,
Dumont v. Lyon, No. 17-cv-13080 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2017), ECF No. 18.
82. On October 1, 2017, and in light of the ACLU’s lawsuit filed
against the State of Michigan, Stacie Bladen, the Deputy Director of the
Children’s Services Agency within MDHHS, submitted three official
“contract compliance complaints” with MDHHS licensing staff against
St. Vincent Catholic Charities, Bethany of East Lansing, and Bethany of
Madison Heights for allegedly referring a same-sex couple to another
child placing agency. 16 Ms. Bladen claimed that the actions of these
agencies violated their contracts by referring same-sex couples to other
adoption agencies based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.
83. Soon after Ms. Bladen lodged her complaint, MDHHS opened
investigations into all three of these agencies solely because they
exercised their rights under state law and the First Amendment.17
84. These investigations were inconsistent with MDHHS’s prior
statements and policies regarding compliance with state law.
16Ex. C.
17 State Defendant’s Response to Intervenor Defendant’s Amended First Set of
Interrogatories at 6–7, Dumont v. Lyon, No. 17-cv-13080 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2018),
Ex. D.
30
85. As Stacie Bladen, speaking on behalf of MDHHS, stated earlier on
September 23, 2016, “[i]f the child placing agency declines to accept a
referral, whether for foster care case management or adoption services,
based on sincerely held religious beliefs, the Department cannot take
‘adverse action’ (as defined in the act) against the agency.” 18
86. Bladen’s earlier position was also consistent with MDHHS
guidance outlined in a policy document regarding “foster and adoptive
parent recruitment, licensing, and retention.” 19
87. In this document, the agency made clear that faith-based agencies
could continue contracting with the State and making referrals in accord
with their religious beliefs: “[b]efore accepting a referral, the child-
placing agency has the sole discretion to decide whether to engage in
activities and perform services related to that referral.”20
88. The document further notes that “[i]f MDHHS makes a referral to
a child-placing agency for foster care case management or adoption
services pursuant to a contract, the child-placing agency must accept or
decline the referral.” 21
18 Ex. E.
19 Ex. F.
20 Id. at 8 (emphasis added).
21 Id. at 9 (emphasis added).
31
89. Then, after months of discovery—and just days before depositions
were set to begin—the State of Michigan and the ACLU announced on
January 23, 2019 that they had entered into settlement talks, giving
intervening defendants one hour’s notice to determine whether they
would agree to or oppose a stay and refusing to share any details of the
settlement discussions. On March 22, 2019, the State and the ACLU then
announced that they had entered into a settlement and agreed to the
dismissal of the ACLU’s claims.
90. The intervenors did not join that settlement. The settlement was
not shown to them prior to filing. In its motion to dismiss the case, the
ACLU and State Defendants jointly moved for a stipulated dismissal of
the case, noting that “Intervenor Defendants, who have asserted no
claims and against whom no claims have been asserted, are not party to
the Settlement Agreement.” Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with
Prejudice at 3–4, Dumont v. Lyon, No. 17-cv-13080 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22,
2019), ECF No. 82. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss the
case, but declining to address or incorporate the terms of the settlement
in its order.
32
91. In a statement accompanying the settlement, Defendant Nessel
announced that after reviewing the ACLU’s claims, she “determined that
MDHHS may be subject to liability on Plaintiffs’ claims,” and thus
directed MDHHS to change its internal policy regarding permitting
private child placing agencies to refer couples to other agencies. 22 Nessel
claimed that this new policy was actually “consistent with the law and
existing agency contracts,” and would now be enforced against agencies
like St. Vincent.
92. In prior public statements, Defendant Nessel has explained to the
press that she believes “there’s ‘no viable defense’ to the 2015 law,” and
that the law’s “only purpose is discriminatory animus.”23
93. Defendant Nessel had previously made similar disparaging
statements regarding those who share St. Vincent’s religious beliefs, and
had publicly stated that she would not enforce the state law protecting
religious child welfare agencies.
22 State Settles Same-Sex Adoption Case, Department of Attorney General, https:

//www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-82927-492743--,00.html; Summary of
Settlement, https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/03.22.19 FINAL Dumont set
tlement summary 650097 7.pdf.
23 Ed White, Dem AG candidate: Adoption law discriminates against gays, Associated
Press News (Sept. 27, 2018) https://apnews.com/a1fc021e8e2e4b3b829586ba56ad

s9c07.
33
94. In justifying this decision, Nessel relied on both State policies and
federal regulations which she interpreted to require the State to deny
agencies like St. Vincent religious exemptions from allegedly applicable
anti-discrimination laws.
95. As Nessel explained, Michigan receives “a significant portion” of
its funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, a child welfare
grant program administered through the HHS.
96. In fact, MDHHS alone receives over 3.8 billion dollars annually
from the federal government through Title IV-E, TANF, and other
similar programs. 24
97. According to Nessel, “[a]s a condition of receiving these federal
funds, the United States Department of Health and Human Services
requires that states’ Title IV-E-funded programs prohibit discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
98. The State is also bound by other federal regulations, which
require it to respect the religious character of social service providers who
receive federal funds. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. § 87.3(a) (“Neither the HHS
24 Budget Briefing: HHS Human Services, House Fiscal Agency,

https://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/PDF/Briefings/HHS HS BudgetBriefing fy18-19.pdf
(last visited Apr. 15, 2019).
34
awarding agency, nor any State or local government and other pass-
through entity receiving funds under any HHS awarding agency program
shall, in the selection of service providers, discriminate for or against an
organization on the basis of the organization’s religious character or
affiliation.”).
99. Nessel therefore directed MDHHS to, “[i]n compliance with this
federal requirement,” prevent faith-based agencies from, among other
things:
a. “[R]eferring to another contracted agency an otherwise

potentially qualified LGBTQ individual or same-sex couple
that may be a suitable foster or adoptive family for any child
accepted by the agency for contracted services,” and
b. “[R]efusing to perform a home study or process a foster care

licensing application or an adoption application for an
otherwise potentially qualified LGBTQ individual or same-
sex couple that may be a suitable foster or adoptive family for
any child accepted by the CPA for contracted services.” 25
100. Per the Attorney General’s statement and the terms of the
settlement, any private agency which refuses to comply with these
requirements “within a reasonable time after notification by the
25 Summary of Settlement, https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag

/03.22.19 FINAL Dumont settlement summary 650097 7.pdf (last visited Apr. 15,
2019).
35
Department of a Contract Violation” will have its contracts
“terminate[d].” 26
101. MDHHS also stated it will “initiate an investigation when
made of aware of an alleged Contract Violation,” and will terminate the
agency’s contracts if it “fails to demonstrate compliance after a
reasonable opportunity to implement the approved corrective action
plan.”27
102. The State has already begun taking steps to enforce this
policy, including requiring that child welfare agencies complete training
on this new policy.
103. Upon information and belief, the State has also
communicated to state employees that they must desist a prior practice
of sending referrals of same-sex couples to other agencies instead of
agencies like St. Vincent.
104. St. Vincent continues to provide services to foster and
adoptive families under its state contracts.
26 Settlement Agreement, Dumont et al. v. Gordon et al., USDC EDMI Case No.
2:17-cv-13080-PDB-EAS, https://www.michigan. gov/documents/ag/Settlement Agre
ement with Sig Pages - FINAL 650100 7.pdf.
27 Id.
36
105. St. Vincent’s adoption contract is up for renewal in October
2019, and St. Vincent reasonably fears that the State will refuse to renew
the contract on the basis of St. Vincent’s religious beliefs and practices.
Based upon the newly announced policy that would prohibit St. Vincent
from providing adoption services consistent with its religious beliefs,
St. Vincent believes that adverse action from the State Defendants is
certainly impending.
Referrals to accommodate sincere religious beliefs denied
106. Michigan has also treated St. Vincent’s request for referrals
based on its sincere religious beliefs differently from referrals for other
reason. The State has admitted that “child placing agencies may refer a
prospective foster or adoptive family to another child placing agency”
under certain circumstances, but they have decided to deny St. Vincent
the ability to make referrals for religious reasons.
107. The State has admitted that child placing agencies in
Michigan are allowed to refer families to other agencies for geographic
reasons, if they have a long wait list, or if they are unable to accommodate
the families’ preferences. 28 State law also permits, and indeed requires,
28 Ex. G, page 7.
37
agencies to decline to work with parents for various reasons, including
Native American ancestry.
108. And agencies can still seek to specifically recruit foster
parents that can serve specific needs of children, including children with
disabilities or mental health issues.29
109. Under the State’s new policy, however, the only justification
for a referral that is now impermissible is a religious objection to same-
sex marriage.
110. On information and belief, MDHHS also treated St. Vincent
differently from other religious foster care agencies in 2017 and 2018.
111. Following two prior incidents in which a private child placing
agency had to transfer a case for religious reasons, MDHHS told another
faith-based foster care agency that child placing agencies are permitted
to decline to accept a referral for foster care case management or adoption
services based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and that MDHHS
cannot take adverse action against the agency based on this decision.
29The Wayne Center, a state contracted child placing agency, advertises that it is
specifically seeking “foster parents with previous experience with persons who have
a developmental disability and/or expertise in related areas, e.g., medical,
educational, social work, psychological, etc.” Wayne Center, Written Needs
Statement, http://www.waynecenter.org/services/foster-care (last visited Apr. 15,
2019).
38
112. On information and belief, MDHHS has taken positions
contrary to its current position that once an agency accepts a child for
case from MDHHS it is no longer protected by state law. This is
inconsistent with prior interpretations by the State in which it explained
that the law permitted faith-based child placing agencies to accept or
decline a DHHS referral at any time based on their sincerely held
religious beliefs.
113. MDHHS has changed its position on this issue solely to target
agencies like St. Vincent Catholic Charities for their religious beliefs that
do not allow them to endorse same-sex relationships.
Michigan’s Unlawful Actions Harm St. Vincent and the Children

of Michigan
114. Michigan’s unlawful actions harm St. Vincent and the
children and families it serves. If St. Vincent is unable to receive referrals
from or contract with the State, it will be forced to close its foster care
and adoption programs, ending a decades-old religious ministry and
reducing the number of agencies available to serve families and children
in need.
115. Across Michigan, the State’s actions affect untold thousands
of families and children in need, and would force numerous agencies—
39
and all of the Catholic Charities agencies across the State—to close their
foster and adoption programs. This would impact hundreds of children
statewide, as these agencies are some of the most successful in the State
at finding loving homes for children in need.
116. If the State refuses to work with St. Vincent, then the families
currently licensed by St. Vincent would face the difficult choice of either
trying to find a new agency that will work with and endorse them as
foster parents—and having to start back at square one with a new agency
that doesn’t know anything about the specific needs of their families or
the kids they are serving—or choosing to stop providing foster care
services. Upon information and belief, many of St. Vincent’s licensed
foster parents would stop providing foster care if forced into that choice.
117. If the State refuses to work with St. Vincent, then the families
currently in the home study process, or awaiting adoption placements,
would be forced to either begin the process anew with a different agency
or go through the process of transferring their licenses to a new agency,
losing the relationships they have built in the process. This change would
lead to delays in the adoption process for both the parents and for
40
children might be matched with them and are currently awaiting loving
homes.
118. If the State refuses to work with St. Vincent, the Bucks will
lose the relationships and support they have depended upon to serve
their children and their ongoing needs. The Bucks would also be
restricted and burdened in their religious exercise of providing support
to other foster and adoptive parents. Should another biological sibling of
their adopted children enter the child welfare system, the Bucks would
likely miss the opportunity to foster and adopt that child and keep the
siblings together.
119. If the State refuses to work with St. Vincent, Ms. Flore would
be unable to volunteer at the agency to support and mentor foster and
adoptive children, and would be restricted and burdened in her religious
exercise of serving children who share the same struggles she
experienced.
120. The State’s actions substantially burden, denigrate, and
discriminate against St. Vincent, the Bucks, Shamber Flore, and others
who share their religious beliefs.
41
121. St. Vincent remains willing and able to continue its ministry
serving children in Michigan. It wants to help alleviate the foster care
crisis in Michigan, and it has not and will not prevent any qualified
family from becoming a foster parent, be it through St. Vincent or a
referral to another agency. But because of Michigan’s actions,
St. Vincent’s over 70-year-old ministry to at-risk children is in jeopardy.
CLAIMS
Count I
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Free Exercise Clause
Not Neutral
122. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
123. “[A] law targeting religious beliefs as such is never
permissible.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S.
Ct. 2012, 2024 n.4 (2017) (quoting Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc.
v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993)).
124. By adopting a policy requiring the State to discriminate
against child placing agencies with religious objections to same-sex
marriage, Defendants have targeted St. Vincent’s religious beliefs and
practices.
42
125. The statements of Defendants and their officials demonstrate
that hostility toward Plaintiffs and their religious beliefs was a
motivation for Defendants’ actions.
126. Defendants’ laws and policies have not been evenly enforced,
demonstrating that the current attempt at enforcement is designed to
target particular religious beliefs and practices.
127. Defendants do not have a compelling reason for their actions,
and Defendants have not selected the means least restrictive of religious
exercise in order to further their interests.
128. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants,
Plaintiffs will suffer imminent and irreparable harm.
Count II
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Not Generally Applicable
130. “[L]aws burdening religious practice must be of general
applicability.” Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542.
43
131. Defendants’ laws and policies have not been evenly enforced,
demonstrating that the current attempt at enforcement is designed to
target particular religious beliefs and practices.
132. Defendants have never enforced their laws, policies, and
contract provisions in the manner they are currently being enforced
against Plaintiffs.
133. The public statements of Defendants and their officials
demonstrate that hostility toward Plaintiffs and their religious beliefs
was a motivation for Defendants’ actions.
134. Defendants have made exceptions to their policies in some
instances.
Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed.
44
Count III
42 U.S.C. § 1983
System of Individualized Exemptions
138. An “exception-ridden policy,” or one that permits
discretionary “individualized exemptions” is “the antithesis of a neutral
and generally applicable policy” and therefore “must run the gauntlet of
strict scrutiny.” Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 740 (6th Cir. 2012).
139. Michigan engages in the individualized assessment of alleged
contract violations by agencies and exercised a great deal of discretion in
creating corrective action plans and permitting exceptions. Defendants
are therefore engaging in individualized, discretionary assessments of
St. Vincent’s conduct.
140. State law and MDHHS contracts permits individualized
exemptions from child placing agency requirements.
141. Pursuant to the referral provisions of the foster care and
adoption contracts entered into between St. Vincent Catholic Charities
and MDHHS, MDHHS is permitted to grant individualized exemptions
45
from its policy of prohibiting contractors from transferring cases back to
MDHHS.
142. The Defendants’ actions against Plaintiffs are the product of
a system of individualized exemptions and burden Plaintiffs’ religious
exercise.
Plaintiffs are and will continue to be irreparably harmed.
Count IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Free Speech Clause
Compelled Speech
146. Defendants are seeking to compel St. Vincent to make
affirmative statements that contradict St. Vincent’s religious beliefs.
147. Michigan is conditioning St. Vincent’s license, its contracts
with MDHHS, and the ongoing ability to engage in the religious exercise
46
of helping children in need, on Plaintiffs’ willingness to make such
statements.
148. Such compulsion amounts to compelled speech in violation of
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
St. Vincent is and will continue to be irreparably harmed.
Count V
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses
Retaliation for Protected Speech and Religious Exercise
151. Statements made by and on behalf of Plaintiffs about their
religious beliefs and practices are both religious exercise and protected
speech.
152. Defendants’ contract investigation and impending
termination, and their threats of additional adverse action, would be
sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or
her constitutional rights.
47
153. A causal link exists between Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and
protected speech and Defendants’ adverse actions against Plaintiffs.
154. Such actions are retaliation for religious exercise and
protected speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
155. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against defendants,
Plaintiffs are and will continue to be irreparably harmed.
Count VI
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses
Denominational Preference and Discrimination
157. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses prohibit
government from officially preferring one denomination over another or
discriminating against a religious group for its religious beliefs and
practices. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982) (“The clearest
command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination
cannot be officially preferred over another.”).
158. Defendants are applying their laws in a manner which
penalizes St. Vincent for its religious beliefs. Defendants’ actions also
48
alienate, communicate disapproval to, and impose concrete harms on
foster families such as the Bucks and volunteers such as Ms. Flore, who
share St. Vincent’s Christian religious beliefs.
159. Defendants have not penalized other religious groups for their
religious beliefs.
160. Defendants’ preference for some religious beliefs and
practices and discrimination against Plaintiffs’ beliefs and practices
violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be irreparably harmed.
Count VII
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Equal Protection
164. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination on the
basis of religion.
49
165. Defendants’ likely impending contract termination and other
adverse actions penalizes Plaintiffs because of their religious beliefs.
166. Contractors that espouse religious beliefs contrary to those
espoused by Plaintiffs are allowed to maintain their contractual
relationships with the State.
167. Defendants’ preference for one set of religious beliefs and
against Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs violates the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
168. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs have been
and will continue to be irreparably harmed.
Count VII
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
170. RFRA prohibits the enforcement of federal law when such
enforcement substantially burdens religious exercise.
171. The State Defendants have claimed that enforcement of
federal law will require them to take adverse action against St. Vincent.
50
172. Terminating the States’ contracts with St. Vincent or taking
other adverse action against St. Vincent would impose a substantial
burden on Plaintiffs’ sincere religious exercise.
173. That burden would not be justified by any compelling
government interest, and contract termination or adverse action against
St. Vincent would not be the least restrictive means of furthering such
interests.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court:
a. Declare that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution require Defendants to cease discriminating against
Plaintiffs and to cease their ongoing investigation and impending adverse
actions on the basis of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, speech, and practices;
b. Declare that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits
Defendants from using federal regulations or the enforcement of federal
law to substantially burden Plaintiffs’ religious exercise;
c. Order Defendants to continue performance of the Contract;
d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
Defendants from taking retaliatory action against Plaintiffs, including
51
cancellation or non-renewal of the foster care and/or adoption contracts,
or from otherwise penalizing Plaintiffs for their religious belief, speech,
and practices regarding marriage;
e. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages for the loss of their rights as
protected by law;
g. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s
fees; and
h. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable
and just.
Dated: April 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

William R. Bloomfield (P68515)
Catholic Diocese of Lansing
Lansing, Michigan 48933-1122
(517) 342-2522
wbloomfield@dioceseoflansing.org
Mark Rienzi*
Lori Windham
Nicholas Reaves*
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
1200 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Suite
700
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-0095
Facsimile: (202) 955-0090
Counsel for Plaintiff

*Admission pending
52

Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 1 filed 04/15/19 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MELISSA BUCK; CHAD BUCK;

ROBERT GORDON, in his official

1. St. Vincent Catholic Charities (St. Vincent) is one of the oldest

and most effective foster care and adoption agencies in Michigan.

and numerous other faith-based agencies like it—serving hundreds of

closing down a vital ministry.

2. St. Vincent provides training, supervision, and on-going support

send. To this day, St. Vincent continues to be a crucial source of support

knowledge of the Buck’s family situation, the challenges faced by their

special-needs children, and the difficult dynamics with their birth

4. Despite St. Vincent’s demonstrated record of excellent service to

the community, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

(MDHHS) and the Michigan Attorney General have threatened to take

no longer permit adoption and foster agencies to operate in accord with

will penalize them if they refuse to provide written evaluations that

unable to continue providing foster care and adoption services in

foster children will face longer waits to find permanent homes.

5. The State’s actions violate the First and the Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Enforcement of federal

regulations supporting the State’s actions likewise violates the

the federal government from violating Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth

6. Plaintiff St. Vincent Catholic Charities is a Michigan nonprofit

corporation with charitable and religious purposes; St. Vincent is party

to foster and adoptive services contracts with MDHHS.

7. St. Vincent was originally incorporated by the Roman Catholic

Bishop of Lansing and remains affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of

Lansing and subject to the authority of the Bishop of Lansing, who

maintains certain reserved powers over St. Vincent. Because of its

affiliation to the Catholic Diocese of Lansing, St. Vincent is listed in the

Official Catholic Directory under the Catholic Diocese of Lansing.

8. St. Vincent Catholic Charities’ vision is to have “faith in God and

love for all,” as it “aspire[s] to create a healthier community.” St. Vincent

is dedicated to serving others in a spirit of humility and shares a genuine

concern for the well-being of its neighbors, affirming the God-given

of Christ by performing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. In this

charitable agencies) encounter Christ, and the Church encounters Christ

services is an integral, fundamental, and central part of St. Vincent’s

religious exercise. Providing these services in a manner consistent with

Catholic teaching is part of its religious character and affiliation.

9. Many of the children in St. Vincent’s care are minority children

(African American, Hispanic, or Native American), and St. Vincent excels

in providing extra support for families with special needs children.

parents currently living in Holt, Michigan. The Bucks adopted five

adoption as a religious calling, and as a part of their sincere religious

including through attending St. Vincent’s support group and

maintaining relationships with the agency workers who know their

support foster and adoptive parents, including through a foster parent

foster families, including same-sex couples.

12. Plaintiff Shamber Flore is a former foster child whose family

other families working with St. Vincent.

13. Defendant Robert Gordon is the Director of MDHHS, the state

state custody. MDHHS contracts with private child placing agencies,

adoption services. Defendant Gordon is sued in his official capacity only.

14. Defendant Dr. Herman McCall is Executive Director of the

Children’s Services Agency (CSA), a sub-agency of MDHHS that, in

agencies, is mandated by law to “[r]eview, investigate, evaluate, and

assess all programs within [MDHHS] related to services and programs