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 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: Ball v. Ball: We represent Shawn Ball in a custody agreement allowing both parents to take children to a Christian church of their choice. Judge ruled that fathers choice of church was not Christian. We will not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“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 its 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 against Washington Interscholastic Activities Association who were barred from participating in athletic competitions due to religious Sabbath observance. We are not charging any fees, but will seek a fee award from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Dalberiste v. GLE Associates: We represented Mitche Dalberiste, a Seventh-day Adventist employee of GLE Associates who was terminated due to his refusal to work on his Sabbath. Case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. We are not charging any fees or seeking a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish: We represent St. Andrew the Apostle Parish in ministerial and church autonomy case involving an employee who sued the church regarding his termination. Case is now at the Seventh Circuit. We will not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Diocese of Madison: We represented Diocese of Madison, WI to oppose coronavirus-related restrictions on in-person worship services. The Mayor and county executive issued a new order returning houses of worship to equal footing with secular services. 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: 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: Gonzales v. Mathis Independent School District: We represented the Gonzales children who attended a public school which required them to cut hair in violation of religious beliefs. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Guerrero v. Diocese of Lubbock: We represent the Diocese of Lubbock, TX, which was sued for defamation for publicizing the name of a deacon credibly accused of sexual abuse. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: InterVarsity v. University of Iowa: We represent InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and its student chapter at the University of Iowa, defending the organizations 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: InterVarsity v. Wayne State: We represent InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and its student chapter at Wayne State University, defending the organizations 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: Katsareas v. US Navy: We represented Leo Katsareas, a devout Muslim serving in the US Navy, who sought a religious accommodation to grow a beard. The US Navy granted Katsareas a temporary accommodation. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Kondratyev v. City of Pensacola: We defended the City of Pensacolas decision not to remove from one of its parks a historic cross that was erected during World War I. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar: We represent 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 any fees and did not receive a fee award from the opposing party during the reporting period.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary: We represent Fuller Theological Seminary who was sued by a student for violating the schools religious beliefs agreement. The district court ruled in favor of the Seminary and the case is currently on appeal at the Seventh Circuit. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Minnesota Catholic Conference: We represented Minnesota Catholic Conference to oppose coronavirus-related restrictions on in-person worship services. The Mayor and county executive issued a new order returning houses of worship to equal footing with secular services. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: New York v. HHS: We represent Dr. Frost and 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 was decided in July 2020. 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 represented 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 from the opposing party.”

“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 have not charged any fees or sought 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: Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board: We represent George Ricks who asked for exemption from Idahos requirement that he provide his Social Security Number on his application for a contractors license, as doing so violates his religious beliefs. We did not charge any fees or 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 was decided in July 2020. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: St. Vincent Catholic Charities v. Ingham County: We represent St. Vincent Catholic Charities regarding Ingham Countys termination of their refugee services contract because they disapproved of St. Vincents religious beliefs. We are currently involved in discovery. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. 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 are not charging any fees or seeking 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 care. We are not charging any fees or seeking fees from the opposing party.”

“Page 2 Part III Line 4: Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel: We represent Faith Bible Chapel in a ministerial exception and church autonomy case involving a former chaplain suing the church over his termination. We are not charging any fees or seeking 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: Young Israel of Tampa: We represent Young Israel of Tampas challenge to public transportation advertising regulations that discriminate against religious content and viewpoint. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful.”