Federal Case Questions US Religious Panel
New York: A U.S.-based Hindu advocacy organisation announced today that it has joined a multifaith coalition in a federal lawsuit challenging the Donald Trump administration’s Religious Liberty Commission, alleging that the advisory body was created and operated in violation of federal law designed to ensure transparency and balanced representation in government policymaking.
Hindus for Human Rights said it formally became a plaintiff in the case on February 9, 2026, the date the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, titled Interfaith Alliance et al. v. Trump et al., was brought by Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values and Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, along with Hindus for Human Rights. Democracy Forward represents the coalition – a legal organisation that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement; alongwith Americans United for Separation of Church and State – a religious freedom advocacy organisation, founded in 1947, that educates about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
“We’re Taking Trump to Court. We won’t back down until religious freedoms are protected,” the HfHR stated today.
Hindus for Human Rights is a nonprofit organisation based in the United States that advocates for pluralism, civil liberties and inclusive democratic values, particularly within the Indian-American diaspora. Its participation adds a Hindu American perspective to what the plaintiffs describe as a broader constitutional and civil rights dispute over how the federal government structures advisory bodies on religion.
The legal challenge centres on Executive Order 14291, signed on May 1, 2025, which established the Religious Liberty Commission. According to the executive order, the commission was created to advise the president and executive branch officials on policies and practices affecting religious freedom in the United States. It is an advisory entity and does not have the authority to enact laws, issue binding regulations or exercise subpoena power. The commission operates administratively under the U.S. Department of Justice and is expected to produce recommendations and a report addressing domestic religious liberty concerns.
The plaintiffs argue that the commission is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a 1972 statute that regulates federal advisory bodies. FACA requires committees that provide collective advice to the executive branch to file formal charters, provide advance public notice of meetings, open meetings to the public except in limited circumstances, maintain accessible records and ensure that their membership is “fairly balanced” among relevant viewpoints. The law was designed to prevent the executive branch from relying on closed or narrowly constituted groups to shape national policy without public accountability.
According to the complaint, the commission’s membership consists entirely of Christians except for one Orthodox Jewish rabbi, and does not include representatives from other major faith traditions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism, nor from nonreligious Americans. The plaintiffs contend that this composition fails to meet FACA’s balance requirement, given the commission’s mandate to advise on religious liberty in a religiously diverse nation.
The lawsuit also cites statements made during commission meetings that described the United States as a “Judeo-Christian” or Christian nation guided by Biblical principles. Several meetings have been held at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., a venue referenced in the complaint as part of its broader argument that the commission reflects a particular religious perspective. The plaintiffs further allege deficiencies in transparency, including concerns regarding timely public access to records and materials associated with the commission’s work.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include President Donald Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the U.S. Department of Justice, the commission itself and its designated federal officer. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief that the commission was created and administered in violation of FACA, an order compelling disclosure of records, and a requirement that any recommendations issued by the commission be identified as originating from a body that was not lawfully constituted.
Under U.S. federal procedure, a civil complaint is docketed upon filing unless it is facially defective. As of now, the court has not issued a substantive ruling on the merits of the claims, nor has it dismissed the case. No publicly reported decision has been made regarding preliminary injunctions or expedited proceedings, and the matter remains at an early procedural stage.
The administration’s executive order states that the commission’s purpose is to examine and advise on threats to religious liberty and to recommend policies to safeguard First Amendment protections. In the United States, the First Amendment contains both the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government establishment or endorsement of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects individuals’ rights to practice their faith. Disputes over religious liberty in recent years have involved questions about the balance between faith-based exemptions and civil rights protections, making the composition and mandate of advisory bodies on religion politically and legally significant.
For international observers, including audiences in India where religion and state relations remain central to public debate, the case illustrates how U.S. law regulates executive advisory structures when their work intersects with constitutional rights. Although the Religious Liberty Commission cannot directly change the law, its recommendations could influence federal policy priorities. The court’s eventual ruling may clarify how statutory requirements of transparency and viewpoint balance apply to advisory bodies addressing issues at the core of constitutional governance and civil liberties in a religiously diverse democracy.
– global bihari bureau
