A federal advisory commission created to protect religious freedom in America is now facing a lawsuit alleging it did the opposite — operating in secret, excluding the voices of millions of religious Americans, and rushing to publish a report that critics say will enshrine a narrow theological viewpoint as government policy.
The Religious Liberty Commission, established by Executive Order 14291 on May 1, 2025, and led by former Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, was charged with examining threats to religious freedom and recommending policy responses. Its final meeting is scheduled for April 13, with a report expected on or around May 1. But a coalition of diverse faith groups is asking a federal court in the Southern District of New York to stop that report from being published — at least until the commission complies with the law.
The Transparency Problem
The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argues the commission violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act — the 1972 law that requires government advisory panels to operate transparently, with balanced membership and public access to their proceedings.
According to the complaint, the commission has failed to publish agendas, transcripts, witness statements, and supporting materials from its meetings in a timely manner. Public participation has been limited or nonexistent. The American people — who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of a religious liberty commission — have been largely shut out of the process that will produce recommendations potentially shaping federal policy for years.
FACA exists precisely to prevent this kind of closed-door policymaking. When the government convenes outside experts to advise on matters of public concern, the law requires that the process be open, the membership be balanced, and the public have access to the deliberations. The plaintiffs argue the commission has failed on all three counts.
Who Was at the Table — And Who Wasn't
The membership question is perhaps the most striking. According to court filings and public reporting, the commission's members consist exclusively of Christians, with the exception of one Orthodox Jewish rabbi. The panel includes no representatives of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or any other non-Christian faith tradition. Non-religious Americans — a rapidly growing demographic — have no representation either.
The plaintiff organizations include the Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus for Human Rights. Their argument is straightforward: a commission on religious liberty that excludes the religious traditions of tens of millions of Americans cannot credibly claim to represent the full spectrum of religious freedom.
This is not a partisan objection. Religious liberty is a bedrock constitutional principle that protects every American, regardless of faith tradition. A Baptist pastor in Alabama, a Muslim family in Michigan, a Sikh gurdwara in California, and a Jewish congregation in New York all depend on the same First Amendment protections. A commission that hears from only one tradition cannot produce recommendations that protect all of them.
The Rush to Conclude
Adding urgency to the legal challenge is the commission's abrupt decision to conclude its work a year and a half ahead of its original schedule. The commission was authorized to operate for a multi-year term, but announced it would hold its final meeting on April 13 and issue its report by May 1 — giving the public and the courts barely any time to review or challenge its findings before they become part of the policy landscape.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to order the commission to comply with FACA's transparency requirements before any report is published. That means releasing the full record of proceedings — agendas, transcripts, witness statements, and all supporting materials — so the public can evaluate what the commission actually heard, from whom, and whether its recommendations reflect a genuine assessment of threats to religious liberty or a predetermined theological conclusion.
What's at Stake
The outcome of this case will set a precedent for how the federal government engages with religious communities on policy matters. If a commission on religious liberty can operate in secret, exclude major faith traditions, and rush out a report without public scrutiny, then the advisory committee process has failed in exactly the way FACA was designed to prevent.
Religious liberty is strongest when it is universal — when the same protections that allow a Christian church to operate freely also protect a mosque, a temple, a synagogue, and a meeting hall. A commission that understands this principle would welcome diverse voices, not exclude them. The federal court will now decide whether the law requires nothing less.