In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act to solve a problem that had plagued the executive branch for decades: powerful government panels packed with ideologically aligned members, operating without public transparency, producing recommendations that served the interests of those who designed the panel rather than the public it was supposed to serve. The statute's requirements are straightforward. Every federal advisory committee must be in the public interest. It must disclose its meetings, agendas, and materials. And it must be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented."
The Religious Liberty Commission, established by executive order in May 2025, has not met those requirements — according to a federal lawsuit now before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
A Commission Tasked With All Americans
The Religious Liberty Commission was created by Executive Order 14291 on May 1, 2025, and chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. Its stated mandate is expansive: to produce a "comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, its impact on society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, and strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations."
That mandate covers all Americans. The United States is home to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, members of Indigenous spiritual traditions, and tens of millions of people who practice no religion. All of them have an interest in how the federal government defines, applies, and enforces religious liberty protections.
The commission's membership does not reflect that diversity. According to the lawsuit filed by the Interfaith Alliance and allied organizations, the commission is composed exclusively of Christians — with the single exception of one Orthodox Jewish rabbi. No member represents Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, or any non-religious perspective.
What the Meetings Looked Like
The composition of the commission is one problem. Its operational conduct has raised additional concerns.
Four of the commission's five meetings have been held at the Museum of the Bible — an institution explicitly oriented around Christian scripture and tradition. Each meeting has opened with Christian prayers. The commission has not published meeting transcripts, agendas, or other materials that federal transparency requirements mandate be made available to the public.
The Interfaith Alliance, in its legal challenge, notes that these practices are not incidental oversights. They reflect a governing philosophy. The commission's members share what the plaintiffs describe as "the narrow perspective that America was founded as a 'Judeo-Christian' nation" — a contested historical claim that, when embedded in a government advisory body, becomes something more than a viewpoint: it becomes the lens through which official federal guidance on religious liberty will be interpreted.
The FACA Standard
The Federal Advisory Committee Act was designed precisely to prevent this kind of capture. The statute establishes that advisory committees must avoid "inappropriate influence by special interests" and must represent "fairly balanced" viewpoints when they are expected to produce guidance that will affect the public at large.
The Religious Liberty Commission is charged with producing recommendations that will define the government's approach to protecting — or failing to protect — the faith practices of every American. A commission that reflects only the tradition of 60-65% of the country, on a question that concerns 100% of the country, does not meet the fairness standard the law requires.
The lawsuit — Interfaith Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al. — was filed by Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of the Interfaith Alliance, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Hindus For Human Rights, and Muslims For Progressive Values. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the commission's creation unlawful, to compel disclosure of the materials the commission has withheld, and to ensure that any recommendations the commission produces are clearly identified as coming from a panel that did not represent the full scope of American religious life.
Why Religious Liberty Requires Pluralism to Mean Something
The First Amendment's religious liberty protections are, by constitutional design, universal. The Free Exercise Clause protects the religious practice of every American. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from favoring one religion over others, or religion over non-religion. These are not merely protections for the majority faith — they are structural guarantees that the government remains neutral across all traditions.
When a government commission defines what constitutes a "threat" to religious liberty, or what "strategies" the government should adopt to protect it, that definition shapes enforcement priorities, grant funding decisions, litigation postures, and legislative recommendations for years. A commission that speaks exclusively from within one tradition does not produce neutral guidance. It produces guidance that may protect that tradition well and leave others without adequate framework.
This is precisely the concern the plaintiffs raise. Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, stated plainly that the commission's structure reflects "a culture of Christian Nationalism that seeks to divide and isolate people across our nation" — framing that reflects a substantive legal argument about the commission's real-world effect, not merely its composition.
The Johnson Amendment Context
The Religious Liberty Commission's work does not exist in isolation. The same week the commission was established, the administration directed the Treasury Department and IRS to develop guidance on the Johnson Amendment — the 1954 law that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including houses of worship, from making direct political endorsements. That guidance process followed a legal effort in federal court, National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, that sought to create an effective carve-out from the Johnson Amendment for religious organizations. The Texas federal court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
More than 1,800 nonprofit organizations filed opposition to that settlement. The question of when and how religious organizations may engage in partisan political activity — and whether the government can create preferential exemptions for religious groups from neutral laws that apply to all nonprofits — sits directly within the commission's analytical mandate.
A commission designed to answer those questions without input from the full spectrum of American religious life will not produce answers that serve that full spectrum.
What Accountability Looks Like
The Religious Liberty Commission is scheduled to expire on July 4, 2026, unless the president extends it. Before it produces its final report, the federal court in New York has the opportunity to require that the commission comply with the statute it has been violating — disclosing its records and, if the court finds the FACA balance requirement violated, reconstituting its membership to reflect the diversity of the country it is advising.
Congress can also act. The FACA oversight authority rests with congressional committees, which have the power to demand records from any advisory committee and to hold hearings on whether the commission has met its statutory obligations.
Religious liberty in America is strong when its protections are understood to belong equally to every American. A government commission that begins from the premise that only some Americans' religious traditions are worth protecting is not defending religious liberty. It is defining it — in ways that leave everyone else out.