First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization based in Plano, Texas.

Prominent in the legal circles on the Christian right, the organization litigates in First Amendment cases on religion, and is often referred to as a law firm.

First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is headed by Kelly Shackelford who founded the organization in 1997 under the name Liberty Legal Institute. The organization changed its name to Liberty Institute in 2009 and then, in 2016, to First Liberty Institute.

First Liberty Institute

Prominent cases

First Liberty Institute is one of several Christian conservative legal organizations in the United States; others include the Alliance Defending Freedom, American Center for Law and Justice, Thomas More Society, Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, Liberty Counsel, National Legal Foundation, and Christian Legal Society. The group has taken stances against LGBT rights. Among its most prominent cases are the "Candy Cane Case"; legal actions taken to stop a report on an investigation into Sarah Palin being published; and numerous legal cases filed in Texas courts concerning First Amendment and religious freedom issues.

First Liberty Institute

List of Supreme Court cases:

Sause v. Bauer, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, Carson v. Makin, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,

Coach Joe Kennedy

First Liberty Institute represented high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District in the state of Washington. The dispute centers around the dismissal of the coach after a school policy conflict pertaining to his practice of a prayer after each game. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January 2019. In March 2020, a federal district court ruled against Kennedy. In January 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In April 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. In June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the coach. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that the school district discriminated against Coach Kennedy and that his prayers are protected by the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and religious exercise.

Maine Tuition Program

First Liberty, alongside the Institute for Justice, represented three families in the Supreme Court case Carson v. Makin. The case centered around the limits of school vouchers offered by state governments to pay for religious-based private schools. A Maine law excluded religious schools from a state tuition program, which pays for students to attend private schools. In December 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. In June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of the three families, holding that Maine's exclusion of religious schools from otherwise generally available tuition assistance programs violated the Free Exercise Clause. The case was remanded to a lower court for further proceedings.

Oregon Cake Bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein

First Liberty represents Aaron and Melissa Klein, who owned a family bakery in Oregon, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. In 2013, they declined to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding because doing so would violate their religious beliefs. In 2015, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the couple had violated the state's nondiscrimination statutes and ordered them to pay $135,000 in compensatory damages. That decision was reaffirmed by a ruling from the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2017. In 2018, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling and directed the Oregon court to review its decision in the wake of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which favored a Colorado baker who also declined to serve a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. In January 2022, the Oregon Court of Appeals, for a second time, held that the Kleins had illegally discriminated against the same-sex couple, but ordered the state to reconsider the monetary damages.