Filed Date: June 5, 2019
Closed Date: March 21, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about a new policy implemented in 2019 by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) to exclude Catholic charities from serving in the foster system unless they affirmatively recommend same-sex couples as foster and adoptive parents. In January 2017, two same sex couples had filed lawsuits against DHHS and CSA to prohibit agencies from contracting with faith-based providers who don’t recommend or license same-sex couples as foster and adoptive parents. See Dumont v. Lyon, No. 2:17-cv-13080-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich. 2017). In March 2019, parties to Dumont entered into a settlement agreement which required MDHHS to maintain a nondiscrimination provision in its foster care and adoption agency contracts “[u]nless prohibited by law or court order.” See Notice of Removal, Exhibit A, 25. Several cases were filed by faith-based providers of foster and adoptive services, including this one.
A month after the settlement in Dumont, on April 24, 2019, Catholic Charities of West Michigan filed a complaint against MDHHS, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in Michigan state court to ensure MIHHS “correctly interpret and comply” with state statutes and prevent MDHHS from enforcing the new policy. Notice of Removal, Exhibit A (Case No. 19-000072-MM). The claims were brought under state law and 42 USC 1983. Catholic Charities of West Michigan challenged the defendants’ new policy as violating Michigan statutes guaranteeing faith-based providers cannot be compelled to provide services that conflict with their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Mich. Comp. Laws ss 77.124e(2), 722.124f(1). District Judge Denise Page Hood was assigned the case.
Several days before the plaintiffs in this case filed their complaint, a separate religious Michigan foster care agency had also filed a complaint on similar facts and issues. See Buck v. Gordon.
On June 5, the plaintiffs filed a notice of removal to federal court, citing constitutional claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as federal and state laws. Plaintiffs filed a motion to change venue on June 19, and a week later, a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the policy against the plaintiff. The court set a date to hear arguments on both motions on August 7, 2019 (later moved to August 21). In Buck v. Gordon, plaintiffs had already filed a motion for preliminary injunction the month earlier.
On the same day, the plaintiffs in Dumont moved to intervene to enforce their settlement. Two months later, on July 17, 2019, the Dumont plaintiffs also moved to intervene to preserve their settlement.
On August 21, the Court cancelled the hearing on the motions, and filed a notice of determination on them without oral argument. Before the court in this case made a finding on the pending motions, a month later, the court granted the plaintiffs in Buck v. Gordon their motion for preliminary injunction, which prevented the defendants from suspending the Buck plaintiffs contracts. MDHHS appealed and on October 10, filed a motion to stay the Buck injunction. A day later, on October 11, MDHHS notified the court in this case of their appeal in Buck. In October and November, the trial and appellate courts in Buck denied MDHHS’s motions for stays, which the court in this case was notified of. On January 16, 2020, the plaintiffs notified the court in this case that MDHHS had filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal of the preliminary injunction in Buck. On February 20, the defendants filed a motion to expedite judgment on the motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants also asked the court to certify to the Michigan Supreme Court the question of proper interpretation of relevant state laws, specifically whether the state laws “authorizes a child placing agency … to refuse to provide state-supervised children with contracted services that conflict with the CPA’s sincerely held religious beliefs.” The next week, the court set a date for a hearing on the motion for April 8.
A month before the initial hearing date, plaintiffs in Buck filed a motion to stay their case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which the Buck court granted in May. The court in this case also pushed back the hearing on the motion to expedite to July 9, 2020. After the hearing, but before the court ruled on the motion, defendants filed another response to the plaintiffs motion of supplemental authority for the preliminary motion on August 4. In their response, defendants addressed the relevance of the Second Circuit’s July holding in New Hope Family Services, inc. v. Poole, another case involving a faith-based adoption agency in which MDHHS had filed and subsequently appealed the ruling on a motion to dismiss.
In mid-June 2021, the plaintiffs notified the court of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton, which determined that refusal to contract with a religious organization for foster care services unless the organization agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause.
The court granted the parties’ stipulated order and stayed the case on November 8, 2021, while parties attempted to settle outside litigation.
Finally, following negotiations, the court signed the parties stipulation and order resolving all claims on March 21, 2022. In the order, MDHHS maintained discretion to approve plaintiff’s request to return the referral of a foster child previously placed by the plaintiffs when in the best interests of the child. Parties also agreed that the plaintiff would likely prevail on their Free Exercise claim, and agreed to enter judgment against the defendant. The order required MDHHS to not take any action against the plaintiff’s license, or terminate or not renew their contracts due to their religious beliefs. In response, plaintiff also agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims with prejudice, except for the stipulated judgment on Free Exercise. Performance was the sole remedy of the case, and no damages were included. On the same day, the Court entered the judgment. This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Isobel Blakeway-Phillips (4/17/2025)
Dumont v. Lyon, Eastern District of Michigan (2017)
Buck v. Gordon, Western District of Michigan (2019)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15735535/parties/catholic-charities-v-michigan-department-of-health-and-human-services/
Cortman, David A. (Michigan)
Galus, Jeremiah James (Michigan)
Beeney, Garrard R. (Michigan)
Boone, Precious Synott (Michigan)
Drysdale-Crown, Cassandra A. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15735535/catholic-charities-v-michigan-department-of-health-and-human-services/
Last updated Feb. 20, 2026, 1:46 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 5, 2019
Closing Date: March 21, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Catholic charities which provide faith-based foster and adoption services in the state of Michigan
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Attorney General of Michigan
Michigan Children’s Services Agency
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Michigan 2:19-cv-11661
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Foster care (benefits, training)
Discrimination Basis:
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Catholic Charities v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44371/ (last updated 4/17/2025).