A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on Monday, ruling that the advisory body’s composition meets federal balance requirements despite claims it excluded non-Judeo-Christian faiths. U.S. District Judge John Cronan, an appointee of Trump serving in New York, found the commission’s 14 members include adherents of at least five different religions and represent diverse life experiences.
The multifaith coalition—Interfaith Alliance, Muslims For Progressive Values, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus For Human Rights—filed the lawsuit in February 2026, arguing the commission violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by failing to maintain “fairly balanced” membership. The plaintiffs contended the panel, chaired by former Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and vice-chaired by Ben Carson, was stacked with Judeo-Christian perspectives while excluding other faith traditions.
In his 49-page opinion, Judge Cronan rejected the argument that religious diversity requires proportional representation across faith groups. “Given the wide diversity of Christian and Jewish beliefs, there is no reason to think that an Evangelical member would ‘balance out’ a Catholic member any less than a Buddhist member would,” he wrote. He noted that FACA’s balance requirement does not demand perfection, and that leaving some groups out of a 14-member commission does not inherently prove imbalance.
Trump established the commission in May 2025 to examine religious liberty protections and threats in the United States. The group released a draft report in June 2026 recommending the Justice Department issue guidance on the Establishment Clause and church-state separation. The commission includes Rev. Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, and New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
Despite the dismissal, the lawsuit achieved a significant transparency victory. In April 2026, government disclosures required by the litigation forced the administration to publicly release previously hidden documents—including commission transcripts, meeting minutes, witness testimonies, and hearing summaries. The coalition cited this forced disclosure as evidence the litigation served its purpose.
“Even before this decision, our litigation helped uncover the information the Trump-Vance administration attempted to hide from the public about this biased and unlawful body,” the coalition said in a statement. “We are grateful that this case achieved a major goal by forcing greater transparency, and we will continue our work.”
Judge Cronan also ruled that an ordained minister representing an interfaith group had no legal standing to pursue the claims. The plaintiffs were represented by Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Sources
- The Hill — the federal judge’s dismissal ruling and the judge’s reasoning on religious diversity and FACA balance requirements
- Democracy Forward — the coalition’s statement, the lawsuit timeline, and the forced disclosure of previously hidden documents
- Congressional Research Service — FACA balance requirements and how courts interpret “fairly balanced” membership
