The Becket Fund

“A copy of the 990 is emailed to the members of the governing body.”

“The conflict of interest policy is completed as part of the organization's annual audit.”

“The organization reviews the compensation paid by similar organizations.”

“The organization reviews the compensation paid by similar organizations.”

“No documents are available to the public at this time.”

“Page 9 Part VIII line 8 and Schedule G page 2 NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM CANTERBURY DINNER: Canterbury Dinner revenue $703,688 Canterbury Dinner expenses (435,746) NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM CANTERBURY DINNER 197,610 Less contributions included on page 1 line 8 (506,078) Net loss reported on schedule G page 2 line 11 (238,136)”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths. Becket exists to vindicate a simple but frequently neglected principle: that because the religious impulse is natural to human beings, religious expression is natural to human culture. We advance that principle in three arenas-the courts of law, the court of public opinion, and the academy-both in the United States and abroad. At Becket we have defended the religious rights of people from "A to Z," from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. Our supporters represent a myriad of religions, but they all share our common vision of a world where religious freedom is respected as a fundamental human right that all are entitled to enjoy and exercise. Becket relies on its own legal team, and its lawyers are renowned experts in litigating this particular aspect of constitutional law.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Buck v. Gordon: We represent St. Vincent Catholic Charities, a foster and adoption placement agency whose contract was terminated due to their religious beliefs on marriage and family. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa: We represent Business Leaders in Christ, a religious student group at the University of Iowa, defending the students' right to organize and be treated on equal terms as any other student group. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: California v. Azar: We represent the Little Sisters of the Poor, defending a regulatory religious accommodation to the HHS contraception mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act, which has been challenged by the State of California, among other states. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Chung v. WIAA: We represent Seventh-day Adventist student athletes who were barred by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association from participating in athletic competitions due to religious Sabbath observance. We did not charge any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Colorado Christian University v. Azar: We represented Colorado Christian University in a lawsuit in Colorado against the HHS contraception insurance mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We did not charge the client any fees, but obtained a fee award from the opposing party in the amount of $175,000.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Dumont v. Lyon: We represented St. Vincent Catholic Charities' right to provide services to foster families and children in a manner consistent with the religious beliefs. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Eastern Texas Baptist University v. Azar: We represented Eastern Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University in a lawsuit in Texas against the HHS contraception mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We did not charge the client any fees, but obtained a fee award from the opposing party in the amount of $637,740.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera: We represented First Resort, a pregnancy support services center, in challenging a San Francisco ordinance that restricted First Resort's free speech rights. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Fitzgerald v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis: We represent the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in a suit involving nonrenewal of employment contracts for Catholic high school teachers who violated Catholic teachings by entering into a same-sex marriage. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Franciscan Alliance v. Price: We represent Franciscan Alliance, Specialty Physicians of Illinois, and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations in a Texas lawsuit against the HHS medical transition mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Lehigh County: We successfully defended the decision of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, not to remove an image of a cross that is included on the County seal and flag along with a dozen other images that have historical, economic, and cultural significance to the County. We did not charge any fees and did not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Morris County Board of Shareholders: We represented the right of the Morris County Board of Shareholders to include religious organizations in a historic preservation grant program. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia: We represent Catholic Social Services' right to provide services to foster families and children in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs. We are not charging any fees but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the lawsuit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Gaylor v. Mnuchin: We represented a church in Chicago defending a 65-year-old provision of the tax code that includes religious leaders in a category of employees who are entitled to a tax exemption for their employer-provided housing allowance because they are required to live near their place of employment. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: IVCF v. University of Iowa: We represent InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and its student chapter at the University of Iowa, defending the organization's right to equal treatment in terms of its ability to select leaders who support its mission. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: IVCF v. Wayne State: We represent InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and its student chapter at Wayne State University, defending the organization's right to equal treatment in terms of its ability to select leaders who support its mission. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola: We are defending the City of Pensacola's decision not to remove from one of its parks a historic cross that was erected during World War I. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from opposing counsel.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar: We represented an order of Catholic sisters and their employees in a suit against the HHS contraception insurance mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We did not charge the client any fees, but obtained a fee award from the opposing party in the amount of $637,740.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: New York v. HHS: We represent Dr. Frost and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations arguing that no healthcare professional should be forced to choose between violating her conscience or providing compassionate medical care. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Obria v. HHS: We represented a faith-based medical clinic, Obria, against HHS over family planning program rules which violated First Amendment rights. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrisey-Berru: We represent Our Lady of Guadalupe (Catholic school) in a case dealing with the ministerial exception. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Patterson v. Walgreens: We represent Darryl Patterson, a Seventh-day Adventist employee of Walgreens who was terminated due to his refusal to work on his Sabbath. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Payne-Elliott v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis: We represent the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in a suit involving nonrenewal of employment contracts for Catholic high school teachers who violated Catholic teachings by entering into a same-sex marriage. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Pennsylvania v. Trump: We represent the Little Sisters of the Poor, defending a regulatory religious accommodation to the HHS contraception mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act, which has been challenged by the State of Pennsylvania, among other states. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Reaching Souls v. Azar: We represented Reaching Souls and others in a suit against the HHS contraception insurance mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We did not charge the client any fees, but obtained a fee award from the opposing party in the amount of $637,740.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board: We represent George Ricks who asked for an exemption from Idaho's requirement that he provide his Social Security Number on his application for a contractor's license, as doing so violates his religious beliefs. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: St. James School v. Biel: We represent St. James School (Catholic school) in a case dealing with the ministerial exception. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration: We represent several members of the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakima Nation, located in Washington State, in a suit seeking damages after a highway project demolished sacred burial sites. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. Case still being litigated.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Starkey v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis: We represent the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in a suit involving nonrenewal of employment contracts for Catholic high school teachers who violated Catholic teachings by entering into a same-sex marriage. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: State ex rel. Moses v. Skandera: We represented private schools in a case defending the use of state money for secular textbooks. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Texas v. Azar: We represent the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston as co-plaintiffs in a challenge to the federal rule regarding nondiscrimination in foster case. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: University of Mary v. Azar: We represent the University of Mary; the Religious Sisters of Mercy: the Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center of Jackson, MN; the Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center of Alma, MI; and SMP Health System in a North Dakota law suit against the HHS medical transition mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Wheaton College v. Azar: We represented Wheaton College in a suit against the HHS contraception insurance mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We did not charge the client any fees, but obtained a fee award from the opposing party in the amount of $642,190.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Whole Woman's Health v. Smith: We represented the Texas Catholic Conference defending against a third-party subpoena seeking details about its internal deliberations. We did not charge any fees or obtain a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Litigation 66453. 66453. 0. 0.”

“Communications 68023. 58791. 3875. 5357.”

“Books and subscriptions 195755. 169188. 11151. 15416.”