Oregon Court Reverses State Policy, Allowing Anti-LGBTQ+ Mom to Pursue Adoption of LGBTQ+ Children

In a decision that has drawn national attention and widespread concern from LGBTQ+ advocates, a federal appeals court has ruled that Jessica Bates, a self-identified devout Christian and mother of five, can resume her application to foster or adopt children in Oregon, even if those children are LGBTQ+. The move overturns a state policy that required all prospective foster and adoptive parents to commit to affirming the gender identity and sexual orientation of children in their care .

Jessica Bates, a widow from Malheur County, Oregon, began the process to become a foster and adoptive parent in 2022, stating that her faith compelled her to care for children in need. However, her application was denied by the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) after she made clear she would not support or affirm a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation if it conflicted with her religious beliefs. Bates specifically stated she would not allow children to dress according to their gender identity or access healthcare for gender dysphoria .

Bates sued the state in 2023, claiming that the requirement to affirm LGBTQ+ identities violated her rights to free speech and religious liberty. A district court initially ruled in favor of the state, emphasizing Oregon’s “compelling interest in protecting LGBTQ youth from harm” and noting that Bates had demonstrated “a lack of understanding about the unique support and care that LGBTQ+ children require” .

Supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization, Bates appealed. The case attracted national attention, with multiple religious liberty organizations and several states filing friend-of-the-court briefs in her support .

On July 24, 2025, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Oregon DHS must reconsider Bates’s application. The ruling concluded that the state’s policy may have constituted viewpoint discrimination by compelling “positive speech” in support of LGBTQ+ identities, thus infringing on Bates’s First Amendment rights. The court ordered the state to allow her to proceed with her application, though it stopped short of requiring approval of her as a foster parent .

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Bates, hailed the decision as a victory for religious liberty. In a statement, ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs said, “This is a reminder that the foster and adoption system should serve the best interests of children, not a state’s ideological values” .

Oregon officials expressed disappointment, with a spokesperson for the state Department of Justice stating that the ruling “undermines the state’s commitment to protecting the well-being of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care.” The state is reportedly considering its next legal steps .

The decision has sparked alarm among LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations and child welfare experts, who emphasize the unique vulnerability of LGBTQ+ youth in the foster care system. Studies consistently show that LGBTQ+ children are more likely to experience discrimination, mental health challenges, and homelessness when placed in unsupportive environments .

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, commented to The Advocate, “This ruling could have devastating consequences for LGBTQ+ youth, who already face disproportionate risks in foster care. Every child deserves a home where they are affirmed and supported for who they are” .

The Oregon Department of Human Services policy at issue was specifically designed to protect LGBTQ+ children by requiring that foster parents “respect, accept, and support” a child’s sexual orientation and gender identity. The reversal of this policy, advocates warn, may open the door for parents whose beliefs or practices could directly conflict with the needs of LGBTQ+ youth .

While the ruling does not guarantee that Bates will be certified as a foster or adoptive parent, it sets an important legal precedent that may influence other states with similar requirements. LGBTQ+ rights organizations are urging Oregon and other states to explore alternative ways to ensure the safety and affirmation of LGBTQ+ youth in care, such as enhanced screening or ongoing oversight of placements .

As the legal process continues, the case highlights the ongoing tension between religious liberty claims and the rights of LGBTQ+ children to affirmation and protection. For LGBTQ+ communities and allies, the ruling marks a significant setback in the effort to guarantee that every child in state care receives not just shelter, but unconditional support and respect for their identity.