Youth 71Five Ministries is a Christian nonprofit organization that provides youth programs such as mentoring, vocational training, and youth centers. While its services are open to all youth, its stated mission is to “teach and share about the life of Jesus Christ.” To advance this mission, 71Five requires all board members, employees, and volunteers to affirm a Christian Statement of Faith and participate actively in a local church.
Since 2017, the Oregon Department of Education’s Youth Development Division (Division) had awarded 71Five multiple grants. For the 2023–2025 grant cycle, the Division added a new eligibility rule requiring applicants to certify that they do not discriminate in employment, vendor selection, subcontracting, or service delivery based on protected characteristics, including religion. 71Five applied for funding, and the Division conditionally awarded them $410,000. However, the Division later withdrew the grants after confirming that 71Five required its employees and volunteers to be practicing Christians, a policy that conflicted with the nondiscrimination rule.
71Five sued the Director of the Oregon Department of Education, the Director of the Youth Development Division, and the Deputy Director of the Youth Development Division, under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in their personal and official capacities. It alleged that enforcement of the non-discrimination rule violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, religious autonomy, and expressive association. It sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, and it moved for a preliminary injunction to reinstate its conditional grant awards.
The federal district court denied the preliminary injunction. It found that 71Five was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional claims, that any monetary harm could be rectified later, and that the balance of equities and public interest did not favor injunctive relief. The district court also dismissed all claims, including those for declaratory and injunctive relief, on the ground that qualified immunity protected the defendants. Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages liability unless they violate clearly established rights. 71Five appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Ninth Circuit motions panel granted an emergency injunction pending appeal, allowing limited funding while the Ninth Circuit expedited review of the case.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. On the Free Exercise Clause claim, the court held that the nondiscrimination rule likely does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. It found the nondiscrimination rule is neutral because it does not target religious beliefs and is generally applicable because it applies equally to secular and religious organizations. Therefore, the rule is subject only to rational basis review, which it likely satisfies because Oregon has a legitimate interest in ensuring that employees, volunteers, and participants have equitable access to grant-funded programs.
The Ninth Circuit rejected 71Five’s reliance on religious autonomy doctrines such as ecclesiastical abstention and the ministerial exception. Ecclesiastical abstention limits courts from resolving disputes over religious doctrine, and the ministerial exception exempts religious institutions’ employment decisions about ministers from government interference. The Ninth Circuit explained that these doctrines operate as defenses in litigation rather than as standalone claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against state officials.
On the expressive association claim, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the nondiscrimination rule burdens 71Five’s ability to select faith-aligned employees and volunteers. However, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the rule was likely permissible as a viewpoint-neutral and reasonable condition in the context of Division-funded initiatives. The Ninth Circuit held that, to the extent the rule applied to 71Five’s initiatives that did not receive grant funding, it likely imposed an unconstitutional condition by leveraging public funds to regulate speech and association outside the context of the funded program.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit addressed qualified immunity. It affirmed the dismissal of 71Five’s claims for damages, holding that no clearly established law prohibited attaching nondiscrimination conditions to grant funding. At the same time, it reversed the dismissal of 71Five’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, noting that qualified immunity does not shield government officials from equitable remedies.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It upheld the denial of preliminary relief as to Division-funded initiatives but ordered the district court to enjoin enforcement of the rule against 71Five’s unfunded initiatives. It also reinstated 71Five’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief while affirming dismissal of damages claims under qualified immunity.
Note: This case is relevant to California school districts and community college districts that partner with outside organizations using public funds. The case indicates that districts may impose nondiscrimination rules on grant-funded activities, including those run by religious groups, so long as the rules are neutral and generally applicable. However, districts may not be able to extend those rules to regulate the group’s unfunded, independent activities without risking a constitutional violation.
Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025, No. 24-4101).