A significant part of the BJC's work has been its participation in religious liberty cases that are considered by various courts, particularly in the U.S. Supreme Court. The BJC engages in litigation by filing
amicus curiae briefs, a term that means . Those briefs are filed to assist the court by providing support for specific points at issue in the dispute. Throughout the BJC's history, the organization has filed more than 140 legal briefs in court cases.
Large free-standing cross on government property In
American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the question for the U.S. Supreme Court concerned a
free-standing 40-foot cross on government land in the middle of a major intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland. The BJC filed a brief arguing that the monument is unconstitutional because it represents a government endorsement of religion. In response to claims that the monument has an objective and secular meaning, the BJC countered, stating there is no more recognizable symbol of Christianity than the cross, and any attempt to deny it is offensive to Christians. On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the cross could remain, basing its decision on the particular history of that memorial monument.
Muslim ban In
Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court addressed the White House's third attempt to limit immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries. The BJC argued that the government cannot enact laws designed to harm a specific religious group. But, in June 2018, the Court upheld the validity of the travel ban as within the president's immigration powers. The BJC continues its opposition.
Wedding cake for a same-sex couple's reception Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission centered around a bakery owner's refusal to make a cake for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple based on his religious beliefs, despite a state law requiring that businesses open to the public not refuse service due to LGBT status. The BJC filed a brief on behalf of the state of Colorado, explaining that laws like this one – covering discrimination against "disability, race, [religion], colour, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry" – protect religious liberty. Granting a broad exemption for this baker would open the door for other business owners to refuse service to customers in other protected categories based on the business owner's religious beliefs. For example, another commercial baker could use these same arguments to refuse to create a cake for an interfaith couple, an interracial couple or a couple where one had been previously divorced.
Religious headscarf in the workplace In 2015, the BJC and 14 other religious groups joined to defend the right of a Muslim woman to wear her
hijab at work in
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The Supreme Court agreed. ==Advocacy and education==