Thomas More Law Center

The Thomas More Law Center is a United States nonprofit public-interest law firm headquartered in Ann Arbor Charter Township, Michigan. Founded in 1999 by Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan and attorney Richard Thompson, the organization presents itself as a Christian legal advocacy institution dedicated to preserving what it describes as America's Judeo-Christian heritage and defending religious freedom, traditional family values, the sanctity of human life, and a strong national defense. The center operates primarily through litigation, legal representation, amicus briefs, public advocacy, and related educational activity. It is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a section 501(c)(3) organization and is principally supported by contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. It is not a publicly traded company and does not publish conventional commercial revenue or sales figures. Its work has concentrated on disputes involving religion and public institutions, abortion and euthanasia, same-sex marriage and sexual-orientation issues, gender identity, education policy, military religious expression, and constitutional challenges to government programs. The organization often represents individuals, school boards, religious groups, activists, and public officials whose positions it considers consistent with conservative Christian principles. Among its best-known matters was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the 2005 federal case concerning the teaching of intelligent design in a public-school biology curriculum. The center represented the Dover school district, while the plaintiffs argued that the policy violated the Establishment Clause. Judge John E. Jones III ruled for the plaintiffs, concluding that intelligent design was religious rather than scientific in the context presented and therefore could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in a public-school science class. The decision became one of the most prominent legal defeats for the intelligent-design movement. The center has also litigated or supported cases involving religious expression in public schools, employee speech, Christmas displays, abortion-clinic buffer zones, domestic-partner benefits, and government restrictions affecting Christian ministers or anti-abortion demonstrators. Several of those cases ended unsuccessfully for the organization or were dismissed on procedural grounds, including matters concerning standing, mootness, or the scope of applicable constitutional protections. Its litigation record therefore includes both favorable settlements or rulings and high-profile losses. The law center is named for Thomas More, the English lawyer, statesman, humanist, and former Lord Chancellor who was executed after refusing to accept Henry VIII as head of the Church of England. More is recognized in the Catholic tradition as the patron saint of lawyers. The organization's identity combines Catholic and broader Christian references with a conservative constitutional and cultural agenda. Its activities remain focused on American litigation and advocacy rather than commercial legal services.

The Thomas More Law Center was established in 1999 by Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza, and Richard Thompson, a former Oakland County, Michigan prosecutor who became the organization's president and chief counsel. Its name refers to Thomas More, the English lawyer and statesman executed after opposing Henry VIII's break with the Catholic Church. More's status as a Catholic patron saint of lawyers reflects the center's explicitly Christian institutional identity. From its beginning, the center was designed as a nonprofit legal advocacy organization rather than a conventional law firm serving commercial clients. It sought to use litigation to defend Christian religious expression, oppose abortion and euthanasia, promote traditional definitions of marriage and family, and challenge government policies viewed as hostile to religion or national sovereignty. Its funding model relies primarily on charitable contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations, and the organization is recognized as a 501(c)(3) public charity. The center's early matters included religious-liberty disputes involving schools, public employees, and local government. In 2001 it defended Traverse City police officer Travis Leach after he objected on religious grounds to rainbow stickers placed on police vehicles. In 2002 it sued Ann Arbor Public Schools after a student was excluded from a diversity panel because she wished to discuss her Catholic beliefs in relation to homosexuality and religion; the court ruled in the student's favor. The same year, the center filed an amicus brief in a Kansas inheritance and marriage dispute involving the legal recognition of a transgender woman's sex for marriage purposes. The organization's national profile grew substantially through Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The center had sought a school-board test case concerning intelligent design and agreed to represent the Pennsylvania district after it adopted a policy requiring a statement about intelligent design in ninth-grade biology. The federal trial took place in 2005. Judge John E. Jones III ruled for the parents challenging the policy, finding that intelligent design was a religious concept rather than science and that the policy violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The ruling was not appealed because the school-board members supporting the policy were no longer in office. The center subsequently continued to pursue cases involving abortion protests, reproductive-health-facility restrictions, same-sex relationships, domestic-partner benefits, and Christian expression by public employees. Its abortion-related work included litigation against Planned Parenthood over alleged failure to disclose a supposed relationship between abortion and breast cancer, a claim rejected through dismissal and subsequent procedural rulings. The organization also became involved in the Terri Schiavo controversy, providing legal analysis to Florida Governor Jeb Bush concerning possible state intervention. In education and public-employment cases, outcomes varied. The center's challenge to Christmas-display restrictions in New York was rejected by a federal district court and affirmed by the Second Circuit. Its lawsuit concerning domestic-partner benefits at Ann Arbor Public Schools was ultimately defeated because the plaintiffs lacked standing. A related Michigan State University challenge raised similar constitutional questions. In Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, the Ninth Circuit held that a public school could restrict a teacher's classroom banners, relying on limits applicable to public employees' workplace speech. The center has also represented military and religious clients, including a Catholic priest seeking to conduct services on a military base during a federal government shutdown. In more recent public advocacy, its work has remained aligned with conservative Christian positions on religious liberty, abortion, sexuality, gender, education, and federal power. The organization continues to operate nationally from Michigan, with Richard Thompson identified as its president and chief counsel.

• 2014

  Portland buffer-zone challenge

  [1]Thomas More Law Centeren.wikipedia.org

  The center challenged a Portland, Maine, abortion-clinic buffer zone; the city later repealed the ordinance and most of the case became moot.

• 2011

  Poway banner decision

  [3]Johnson v. Poway Unified School Districten.wikipedia.org

  The Ninth Circuit rejected the center's challenge to a school district's removal of a teacher's religiously inflected classroom banners.

• 2005

  Dover intelligent-design trial

  [2]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Districten.wikipedia.org

  The center defended the Dover Area School District in the federal intelligent-design litigation that became Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

• 2005

  Dover policy overturned

  [2]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Districten.wikipedia.org

  A federal judge ruled that the district's intelligent-design policy was unconstitutional and religious in purpose and effect.

• 2002

  Ann Arbor school speech case

  [1]Thomas More Law Centeren.wikipedia.org

  The center sued Ann Arbor Public Schools over a student's exclusion from a panel concerning homosexuality and religion and obtained a favorable ruling.

• 2001

  Travis Leach religious-expression matter

  [1]Thomas More Law Centeren.wikipedia.org

  The center sent a legal letter supporting a Traverse City police officer who objected to rainbow stickers on police vehicles on religious grounds.

• 1999

  Organization founded

  [1]Thomas More Law Centeren.wikipedia.org

  Tom Monaghan and Richard Thompson established the Thomas More Law Center as a Christian conservative nonprofit legal-advocacy organization.

A Christian conservative public-interest law firm positioned as a legal defender of religious liberty, traditional family and moral values, the anti-abortion movement, and a limited-government interpretation of constitutional rights.

• Legal services · 1999

  Constitutional litigation

  Representation and litigation involving First Amendment rights, religious expression, public-school policies, government mandates, public-employee speech, and related constitutional claims. The center generally pursues cases that it believes protect Christian individuals or institutions and conservative interpretations of constitutional liberty.

• Public-interest legal advocacy · 1999

  Religious-liberty advocacy

  Legal assistance and advocacy for Christians, clergy, religious organizations, and public employees facing policies or disciplinary actions they regard as restricting religious belief or expression.

• Public-interest litigation · 1999

  Life and family-values litigation

  Cases and legal advocacy concerning abortion, anti-abortion protest activity, euthanasia, marriage, domestic-partner benefits, sexual orientation, and gender-related legal questions.

• 2014

  Challenge to Portland reproductive-health-facility buffer zoneStrategy

  Background

  The center represented anti-abortion activists challenging Portland, Maine's ordinance restricting access and activity near reproductive-health facilities.

  Action taken

  It filed a federal lawsuit seeking constitutional relief and nominal damages.

  Aftermath

  Portland repealed the ordinance after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a similar Massachusetts buffer-zone law. Most of the case became moot, although a damages claim remained at the time described by the reference material.

  Source

• 2005

  Defense of Dover intelligent-design curriculumOther

  Background

  The Dover school board adopted a policy requiring biology students to hear a statement presenting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. Civil-liberties organizations and parents challenged the policy under the Establishment Clause.

  Action taken

  The center represented the school district during the federal trial.

  Aftermath

  The court ruled for the plaintiffs, concluding that intelligent design was religious rather than scientific in this setting and that the policy was unconstitutional.

  Source

• 2014

  Portland repeals abortion-clinic buffer-zone ordinance[1]Thomas More Law Centeren.wikipedia.org

  Other

  After the center challenged Portland, Maine's reproductive-health-facility buffer zone, the city repealed the ordinance; much of the litigation subsequently became moot.

• 2011

  Appeals court rejects challenge to Poway teacher banners[3]Johnson v. Poway Unified School Districten.wikipedia.org

  Other

  The Ninth Circuit ruled that a California school district could require a teacher to remove classroom banners containing religiously inflected patriotic slogans.

• 2005

  Thomas More Law Center represents Dover school district in intelligent-design case[2]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Districten.wikipedia.org

  Other

  The organization defended the Dover Area School District after its biology curriculum required students to hear a statement presenting intelligent design alongside evolution.

• 2005

  Federal court rules against Dover intelligent-design policy[2]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Districten.wikipedia.org

  Other

  Judge John E. Jones III held that the Dover policy violated the Establishment Clause and that intelligent design was religious rather than scientific in the circumstances of the case.

1. 1Thomas More Law Centeren.wikipedia.org
2. 2Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Districten.wikipedia.org
3. 3Johnson v. Poway Unified School Districten.wikipedia.org