Christian Physician Assistant’s Victory is a Win
for All Medical Professionals
by Jorge Gomez, Director of Content Strategy
After being fired over her religious beliefs, physician assistant Valerie Kloosterman can finally look forward to starting a new chapter in life.
We recently reached a favorable resolution with Valerie’s former employer, University of Michigan Health-West. Her stellar record as a medical professional is vindicated. Plus, she’ll receive a significant settlement to compensate for the discrimination she faced.
The settlement requires the company to create a religious accommodation policy, notify and train all its employees, and grant reasonable accommodations without retaliation.
First Liberty Senior Counsel Stephanie Taub appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins to discuss why this is a win for all medical professionals at UMHW and across the state of Michigan.
Watch below:
Thank you for supporting Valerie and First Liberty. You played a big part in making this resolution happen. This victory is going to impact people of faith working in the healthcare system today—and for many years to come.
Even with this victory, the fight for religious freedom is far from over.
First Liberty is in the midst of intense legal battles to stop workplace discrimination—including ongoing cases for:
Your support makes a tremendous difference for our clients. A timely gift today can make a big difference. Join the fight for faith and help us deliver freedom for those who are still fighting to have their rights restored.
Please donate to First Liberty today.
Recommended Reading:
Did America Have a Christian Founding?
In his latest book, Mark David Hall—Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy—tackles one of the most important questions in our nation’s history.
With a thoughtful and thorough approach, Did America Have a Christian Founding? Separating Modern Myth from Historical Truth debunks the assertion that America’s Founders were deists who desired the strict separation of church and state.
Dr. Hall argues that the Founders were strongly influenced by distinctly Christian views and, as a result, that America undeniably had a Christian Founding.
According to Hall, it is crucial for Americans to acknowledge this past, particularly the principles that led to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. After all, the ideals and values set forth in those documents weren’t just intended to protect the rights and liberties of Christians, but for Americans of all faiths, as well as those who are not religious at all.
Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices are Unconstitutional
by First Liberty Institute
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island recently reintroduced a bill that would end life tenure for U.S. Supreme Court justices. The legislation would limit each justice’s tenure to 18 years and give the President the power to select a new justice every two years.
While this “reform” at first may appear benign, it’s nothing more than an attempt to cancel justices. It’s simply the Supreme Court Coup by a different name.
Americans must understand that term limits for Supreme Court justices defy the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
As designed by the Framers, life tenure for Supreme Court justices has worked well for more than 230 years and is an essential component to ensure judicial independence. Judicial term limits would destroy one of the hallmark features built into our system of government.
Term limits violate the text found in Article III of the Constitution. The “good behavior” clause found in Article III—stipulating that justices “hold their offices during good behavior”—is rightly understood under English common law as an appointment for life. The term says what it means and means what it says. Judges may serve so long as they are properly carrying out their duties and behaving in good fashion.
When calling for judicial term limits, the far Left and their politicians do what they frequently do: play fast and loose with the text of the Constitution. Virtually every time they do not like what the Constitution or one of the Court’s opinions says, they try to change the rules and disguise extreme changes as “reform.”
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton penned one of the most eloquent defenses for lifetime judicial tenure. He wrote that judicial independence “can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission.”
Hamilton described a judiciary that serves with life tenure under good behavior as “certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government.” According to Hamilton, we want judges serving with life tenure, because this is “the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”
Hillsdale College Professor Adam Carrington explained:
“People may not always think right in the short term. They may have prejudices against a person under trial or one seeking justice. To be sure, history is rife with examples of public pressure causing congressmen and presidents to cave when their principles told them better…With essentially life tenure, the justices—at least partially—are insulated from this pressure. They can discharge their duties and apply the law equally to popular and unpopular litigants.”
Federalist 78 also includes a warning: Taking away life tenure and allowing judges to be influenced by public pressure—what Hamilton refers to as the “occasional ill humors in the society”—would quickly upend the rule of law. Doing so would destabilize the separation of powers and possibly destroy our precious constitutional system.
Some on the political Left argue we should pass term limits legislation because Americans support it. Polls suggest most voters favor term limits for elected politicians. But Americans would be wise not to fall for the idea that term limits are good across the board. What works in legislative races does not work so well when applied to federal judges.
The Executive Branch is already limited to two terms for each president. And many have made the argument that the Legislative Branch might benefit from limiting the terms of senators and representatives. Professor Carrington makes the case:
“Congress writes the laws, and the executive signs or vetoes them. Because of this setup, the legislative and executive branches are and should be elected. They are and should, then, have a limit on each term of office before the elected representative must receive approval or rejection by the people.”
But Carrington goes on to argue that the function of the Judicial Branch is different:
“Yet as they take no part in making the law, the courts do not have the same relationship with it as members of the legislative branch (or at least they shouldn’t). Instead, they only apply the law as written…The concept of judicial review recognizes that we want the courts to respect our highest law when any other law conflicts with it.”
Unlike the other branches of government, Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people every two, four or six years. This was not an oversight. It was a deliberate decision.
With life tenure, the Founders sought to ensure justices would focus foremost on interpreting the law. It was a way to encourage their fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law, instead of worrying about personal gain or what’s best for them after they leave the Court. Carrington summarizes it well: “We’re not looking for a mirror in the Court—we are looking for an anchor, one that will keep us moored to our commitments to the law, constitutional or otherwise.”
Getting rid of life tenure also reduces the wisdom judges obtain through age and experience. Think of some of the most influential justices in American history—such as Chief Justice Marshall—who impacted the rule of law in our country, because they served on the Court for decades.
Imposing a system of term limits would make it very difficult—or even impossible—to produce judges who have longstanding, distinguished careers and thereby, less opportunity for them to positively impact the law in the long-term. Life tenure is a way to ensure judges can decide cases not according to the temper of the times or political expediency, but by applying centuries-old legal traditions, relying on precedent, facts, and the intent and text of the law and the Constitution.
Whether it’s court packing or judicial term limits, the Supreme Court Coup is all about those who want to bend the rules and get around decisions they don’t like. At the end of the day, radical court “reform” is nothing more than a raw and brazen power grab.
Leading The Conversation | First Liberty in the News
Todd Blanche Receives Outpouring of Support From Law Enforcement, Angel Families, Bipartisan DOJ Officials and Legal Organizations – President and CEO Kelly Shackelford’s Letter to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Flight Attendants Win Major Faith Case – Senior Counsel Becky Dummermuth on The Steve Gruber Show
Providence and the Founding of the Nation – Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy Executive Director Jordan J. Ballor on World News Group
Why We Still Read the Declaration – Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy Senior Fellow Wilfred M. McClay on Law & Liberty
The Truth of the American Republican Creed – Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy Fellow James M. Patterson on Acton Institute
Tennessee’s Religious Liberty Comeback
Offers a Lesson for Every State
by Jacqueline Isaacs, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy Fellow
Hundreds of thousands of people have moved to Tennessee over the past decade, including my family. People come to the Volunteer State for many reasons, but its commitment to individual liberty is part of the appeal, and recent laws have made Tennessee one of the nation’s strongest protectors of religious liberty.
Tennesseans know that a comeback requires more than playing defense. The same is true for religious liberty, where advances are made when lawmakers identify specific ways people may be forced to violate their convictions and enact clear protections before those conflicts reach a courtroom.
This year, Tennessee rose to second place in the 2026 Religious Liberty in the States index, up from tenth place in 2025. The state now protects 85% of the religious liberty safeguards measured by the index, earning an “excellent” rating alongside first-place Arkansas.
Tennessee improved largely because lawmakers enacted the Medical Ethics Defense Act. The law protects healthcare professionals and institutions from being forced to participate in or pay for medical services that violate their religious or moral convictions.
How States Go On Offense for Religious Liberty
Tennessee and Arkansas’s success reflects a pattern seen throughout the history of the index. The 2026 index measures 50 legal protections across 20 safeguards, but three kinds of laws have repeatedly produced some of the largest gains in state scores.
1. Enact a State RFRA
The first is a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which 30 states now have, including eight out of the top ten states. Georgia adopted a RFRA in 2025, which contributed to its rank improving from 36th to 23rd. State RFRAs are important because they provide broad protection when government action substantially burdens a person’s religious exercise. They require the government to justify such a burden under the strictest legal standard, protecting individuals and organizations when more specific laws do not apply.
2. Protect Conscience in Health Care
Second is a general medical conscience protection, such as what Tennessee enacted this past year. This type of statute allows healthcare providers to decline participation in procedures for reasons of conscience without listing every protected procedure or permissible objection. When South Carolina passed a general medical conscience law in 2022, it rose to second place in the 2023 rankings. Idaho also passed a version of this law this past year, which helped it move up to eighth place from 13th in 2025. Although only 11 states have such a law, all ten of the highest-ranked states do.
3. Protect the Right to Decline Participation in Weddings
The third category protects people and organizations that decline to participate in wedding ceremonies or celebrations. Nineteen states provide some protection for religious entities, but only two protect private businesses from being forced to provide services for weddings that violate their owners’ beliefs. These laws recognize that religious liberty follows Americans into the marketplace. Americans should not lose the freedom to live according to their faith simply because they operate a business.
For example, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, declined to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding because of their Christian convictions. Instead of protecting their religious liberty, their home state of Oregon punished them with a $135,000 penalty and issued a gag order against them. First Liberty represents the Kleins in this case, and notably, Oregon currently ranks 39th in the index. A clear state law could protect individuals and businesses from this kind of government punishment before years of litigation become necessary.
Court victories remain essential when officials violate constitutional rights, but lawmakers need not wait for a lawsuit. They can enact durable protections before people are forced to choose between complying with a government mandate and following their religious convictions.
How Tennessee Can Still Improve
Second place is an achievement, but Tennessee still only protects 85% of the items measured by the index. The clearest area for improvement involves participation in wedding ceremonies. Tennessee does not fully protect religious organizations or private businesses that decline to participate in weddings that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Arkansas is one of the two states that protect private businesses in this area, a distinction that contributed to its first-place finish in 2026. If Tennessee had adopted protections covering all four wedding-related items, its score this year would be approximately 92.5%. That would surpass Arkansas’s current score, and would have landed Tennessee at the top of the rankings in the 2026 index.
More important than the ranking, such laws would protect real people and continue to make Tennessee a destination state for religious liberty. My fellow Tennesseans should celebrate this year’s progress while encouraging our state leaders to finish the work.
Citizens across the country see where their state ranks and identify the next steps lawmakers can take in your state to protect religious liberty for all.
— — — — —
Jacqueline Isaacs, MBA, is a fellow at First Liberty’s Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy. She is currently completing a Doctor of Ministry in faith, work, and marketplace ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary. She holds an MBA in marketing from Johns Hopkins University and a BS in government from Oral Roberts University.
Editors’ Picks | Stories Around the Nation
Opinion | How a Lawsuit Seeking to Silence Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission Actually Proved Its Point – Daily Signal
You Can’t Understand America Without The Bible – Washington Examiner
New York Issues Nuns Temporary Religious-Liberty Relief as Legal Assisted-Suicide Regulations Go Live – National Review
Americans Should Redouble Support for the Religious Freedoms Our Nation Was Built On – George W. Bush Presidential Center
Lawsuit Alleges Religious Discrimination at Southwest Airlines – World News Group
