A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the composition of President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, ruling that the claim lacked sufficient legal grounds. The decision came on Monday, rejecting arguments that the commission’s membership, predominantly composed of conservative Christians and one Orthodox Jewish rabbi, failed to meet a requirement for advisory bodies to maintain a balance of viewpoints. The case was brought by the Interfaith Alliance, alongside Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh groups, which contended that the commission’s structure favored specific religious perspectives while excluding others. The lawsuit alleged that the commission’s makeup violated a federal law requiring advisory commissions to ensure a fair balance of viewpoints. However, Judge John P. Cronan, sitting in New York, ruled that the law does not mandate a specific method for achieving this balance, leaving the president with broad authority in selecting members. He emphasized that Trump had wide discretion in assembling the commission, and therefore, the plaintiffs' argument did not satisfy the necessary legal standards to warrant further action. The plaintiffs argued that the commission’s composition reflected an ideological imbalance, with nearly all members identifying as conservative Christians and one Orthodox Jewish rabbi. They pointed to statements by several commissioners expressing skepticism toward the concept of a strict separation between church and state, and advocating instead for a closer relationship between religious institutions and government. Critics noted that these views were evident in a draft report released in June, which questioned modern interpretations of church-state separation and proposed a framework emphasizing “bridges” between the two. Cronan acknowledged that the commission includes individuals from various backgrounds, such as clergy and laypeople, and cited the presence of adherents from at least five different religions. He highlighted the inclusion of the one Jewish member, as well as representatives from multiple Christian denominations. Despite this, the plaintiffs maintained that the commission’s composition still failed to reflect a broader range of religious perspectives, particularly those represented by non-Christian faiths. The Interfaith Alliance, which led the legal challenge, has consistently criticized the commission for allegedly prioritizing certain religious interests over others. It argued that the commission’s stance aligns with policies that favor particular religious groups, often at the expense of minority communities. In particular, the alliance has raised concerns about the commission’s failure to address issues such as anti-Muslim bias and its perceived endorsement of religious privilege. In his ruling, Cronan stated that the commission’s founding principles reject the notion that religious liberty conflicts with civil rights, and thus, Trump was not required to appoint individuals who would challenge this foundational belief. This reasoning effectively barred the plaintiffs from seeking a more ideologically diverse commission, as they could not demonstrate that the current composition violated the law in a meaningful way. The decision marks another instance in which the administration has faced legal challenges over the composition of advisory bodies, with critics arguing that such panels often reflect the political and religious preferences of those in power. Legal experts suggest that the ruling underscores the limitations of using existing laws to contest the ideological alignment of presidential appointments. As the case concludes, attention will likely shift to future developments involving the commission’s activities and potential legislative responses to similar concerns.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
