Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Judge dismisses challenge to Trump Religious Liberty Commission, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

A federal court cleared a major legal hurdle for President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, rejecting claims that the panel’s membership and disclosure practices violated federal law.

A federal judge in New York has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission was improperly structured and failed to comply with federal transparency requirements, clearing the way for the panel to complete and publish its work on religious liberty issues.

In an opinion issued July 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan ruled that a group of religious advocacy organizations failed to state valid claims under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, commonly known as FACA, and that one individual plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The ruling ends a case brought by Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Hindus for Human Rights, and Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Paul Raushenbush.

Religious advisory commission and report. The lawsuit challenged the Religious Liberty Commission, an advisory body created by Trump through a May 2025 executive order, Exec. Order No. 14,291, 90 Fed. Reg. 19,417 (May 7, 2025). That order instructed that the Commission would produce a report.

Specifically, it instructed:

“The Commission shall produce a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America's peaceful religious pluralism. Specific topics to be considered by the Commission under these categories shall include the following areas: the First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers; attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions; debanking of religious entities; the First Amendment rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees; conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates; parents' authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, including the right to choose a religious education; permitting time for voluntary prayer and religious instruction at public schools; Government displays with religious imagery; and the right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or Government censorship or retaliation.”

Appointees named. Trump appointed 13 voting members to the panel, including Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Bishop Robert Barron, Pastor Franklin Graham, Pastor Paula White, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, commentator Eric Metaxas, television personality Dr. Phil McGraw, former Miss California USA (and Miss USA first runner-up) Carrie Prejean Boller, and several other members from legal, religious, and public-policy backgrounds. The commission also included three ex officio members from the federal government.

Lawsuit alleges imbalance. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the commission violated FACA's requirement that advisory committees be "fairly balanced." According to the complaint, the commission contained no representatives of non-Christian or non-Jewish faith traditions and was dominated by members who shared similar views on religion in public life, church-state issues, and conflicts between religious-liberty claims and civil-rights protections.

The organizations, represented by Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also alleged that the commission had failed to disclose witness materials, agendas, transcripts, minutes, and other records as required by federal law. They sought a preliminary injunction that would have blocked publication of the commission's report until those alleged violations were remedied.

Judge Cronan rejected those claims.

Standing. The judge first concluded that the four organizational plaintiffs had standing to challenge the commission's membership because they engage in advocacy on religious-liberty and church-state issues and alleged that recommendations from an improperly balanced commission could interfere with their missions. However, he ruled that Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Paul Raushenbush lacked standing because he had not shown a personal, concrete injury.

Raushenbush had argued that he was harmed when the commission failed to fairly consider his request to be appointed as a member. The judge noted that the request was sent months after the commission's members had already been selected and after several meetings had already occurred. He further found that the alleged failure to consider Raushenbush for membership was not itself a violation of FACA's balanced-membership requirement.

On the merits. On the merits, Cronan ruled that the organizations had not plausibly shown the commission was unfairly balanced.

No definition. The opinion emphasized that FACA does not define what constitutes a "fair balance" of viewpoints and that courts traditionally give substantial deference to the officials responsible for creating advisory committees. According to the judge, courts generally intervene only in extreme situations where an advisory body excludes nearly all viewpoints except one.

Cronan wrote that the Religious Liberty Commission includes members from various professional and social backgrounds, including government officials, attorneys, nonprofit leaders, media figures, and clergy. He also noted that the commission includes adherents from multiple religious traditions within Christianity and Judaism.

Absence of certain religions. The judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the absence of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or other non-Christian and non-Jewish representatives rendered the commission unlawfully imbalanced. He said FACA requires a fair balance of viewpoints relevant to the committee's functions, not representation of every religious tradition. He further questioned the premise that Christianity and Judaism constitute a single, unified viewpoint, noting the diversity of beliefs within those faith traditions.

Not extreme imbalance. Cronan also rejected allegations that the commission was dominated by members sharing a common position on church-state relations or conflicts between religious liberty and civil-rights protections. He found that many of the plaintiffs' allegations relied on isolated statements from individual members and did not establish the sort of extreme imbalance that might violate FACA.

President’s call. The judge identified another obstacle for the plaintiffs' balanced-membership claims: responsibility for appointing commissioners rests with the president. Because the executive order explicitly provides that commission members are appointed by Trump, Cronan concluded that claims against the Department of Justice and the attorney general could not establish the necessary causation or redressability required for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court likewise rejected the plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief against Trump and other defendants, finding they had not demonstrated a clear and indisputable legal duty that would justify such an extraordinary remedy.

The court also dismissed the transparency-related claims.

Records and documents. Although the plaintiffs alleged that meeting materials, agendas, transcripts, and other records had not been disclosed, the opinion noted that the government made substantial disclosures during the course of the litigation and later published additional documents after plaintiffs identified materials they believed were missing.

Sidebar. It is worth noting that Democracy Forward, which helped represent the plaintiffs, nevertheless considers the provision of some of those documents a partial, but significant victory in the litigation.

The legal organization explained:

“In a major milestone on April 28, government disclosures in the lawsuit revealed many of the documents the unlawful and secretive commission had been hiding from the public. In a late-night filing just before a court deadline, the government notified the court that it had finally publicly posted many of the Religious Liberty Commission’s transcripts, meeting minutes, witness testimonies, run of show, hearing summaries, and hearing recommendations. Those documents are available here. The long overdue publication of these documents was a resounding concession by the government and a significant victory for the coalition that demonstrated the necessity of challenging the administration’s unlawful actions.”

No specific deadline under FACA. Going back to the court’s decision, Judge Cronan found that FACA's disclosure provision does not impose a specific deadline for when advisory committee materials must be released. Because the commission had not yet completed its work and because many of the requested materials had since been posted publicly, the judge concluded that the complaint no longer plausibly alleged the nondisclosures originally identified by the plaintiffs.

The judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs believed further records might still exist, but he said the complaint did not contain factual allegations identifying specific remaining violations. Without such allegations, he concluded, the disclosure claims could not survive dismissal.

As a result, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. Raushenbush's claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, while the organizational plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The ruling also rendered moot the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction blocking release of the commission's report.

The decision removes a significant legal challenge facing the Religious Liberty Commission as it moves toward finalizing its report, which the commission released in draft form for public comment in June and is expected to finalize following review of submitted comments. However, it remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will appeal. Language in Democracy Forward’s announcement of the court decision appears to indicate a possibility of appeal, stating that “Today’s order ends the case for now in the district court, after crucial documents have been released.” (emphasis added).

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York; the case is No. 1:26-cv-01075-JPC.

News: LitigationNewsTrends ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Procedure WhiteHouseNews GCNNews