From Expulsion to Exclusion for Jewish People in Tennessee
Tennessee, Antisemitism, and the Constitutional Fight for Religious Freedom
What would you do if in 2026 America, you were denied adoption only due to your faith?
Hold that thought.
On December 17, 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, Union General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Order No. 11—one of the most sweeping and explicitly discriminatory orders in American history. Order No. 11 expelled an entire class of people—Jewish residents—from the Tennessee District, giving them only 24 hours to leave.
Grant justified this order not with evidence, but with prejudice. Denied their humanity and the most basic protections of law, Jewish families were forced to flee with only what they could carry with them.
What makes this history particularly urgent is not simply that it occurred, but that its underlying logic persists into 2026. Though this time it isn’t a war general expelling Jewish Americans because they are Jewish, it is another government entity—the Tennessee Department of State—denying Jewish parents the ability to adopt a child because they are Jewish. Today, more than 160 years later, Tennessee is once again at the center of a case that asks fundamental questions about religious freedom, equality, and the role of the state in either protecting or violating both.
Let’s Address This.
The Case of Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services
Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram are a Jewish couple who sought to adopt a child through a taxpayer-funded adoption agency in Tennessee. Like countless families across this country, they were motivated by a simple and profoundly human desire: to provide a child in need with a safe, stable, and loving home.
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services denied their application to adopt.
To be clear, they were not denied because they were unqualified. They were not denied because they lacked the means to care for a child. They were denied because of their faith and identity as Jewish Americans.
The agency, operating with public funds through the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, applied a religious test to determine eligibility. Because Liz and Gabe are Jewish, they were deemed unsuitable.
This is not a misunderstanding of policy. It is the policy.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is representing the Rutan-Rams in challenging this practice, arguing that the state’s decision to fund and contract with an agency that discriminates on the basis of religion violates the Tennessee Constitution and the foundational American principle of separation of church and state.
The legal issue here is not complicated. When the government uses taxpayer dollars to fund a program, that program must operate in accordance with constitutional guarantees. It cannot extend benefits to some while denying them to others based on religious identity. To do so is to transform public services into instruments of discrimination.
And yet, that is precisely what Tennessee has allowed to occur.
The Misuse of Religious Freedom
As a human rights lawyer, it is critical to clarify what religious freedom actually protects—and what it does not.
The First Amendment guarantees that individuals have the right to practice their religion freely, without interference from the government. It also guarantees that the government cannot establish or favor a particular religion over others. These principles work together to ensure that the state remains neutral in matters of faith, secular in matters of administration, and consistent in the application of justice.
But in Tennessee we are seeing anything but neutrality, secular governance, or justice.
Instead, Tennessee has allowed religious belief to be weaponized as a basis for exclusion within a publicly funded system. It has permitted a government contractor to deny services to qualified individuals because they do not adhere to a preferred religious framework.
That is not religious liberty. That is religious discrimination, enabled by the state.
When public funds are used to support programs that exclude people on the basis of religion, the government is no longer acting as a neutral guarantor of rights. It is actively participating in the denial of those rights.
And the consequences extend beyond the individuals directly affected. In this case, religious discrimination is also harming children. Under this discriminatory policy, children in need of homes are left waiting longer, not because there are no willing families, but because the state has chosen to limit who is allowed to serve those families. That is both unconstitutional and contrary to the best interests of the children the system is supposed to protect.
The Broader Ideological Context
This case must also be understood within a broader national context.
Policies like the one at issue here are not isolated decisions made in a vacuum. They are part of a larger ideological movement—one that seeks to redefine the relationship between religion and the state in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with constitutional principles.
Efforts associated with initiatives like Project 2025 reflect a vision of governance in which religious identity is not merely protected, but privileged. Under such a discriminatory framework, the state becomes a vehicle for advancing a particular religious worldview—in this case white Christian nationalism—rather than a neutral protector of diverse beliefs.
What Liz and Gabe are experiencing is a direct manifestation of that injustice. History has already shown us where that path leads.
Tennessee’s Continuing Pattern
It would be a mistake to view this case as an anomaly. Tennessee has, in recent years, demonstrated a troubling reluctance to confront extremism rooted in exclusion and hate.
For example, in 2018, the Tennessee legislature failed—twice—to pass resolutions condemning neo-Nazism and white supremacy. That failure was not merely procedural. It reflected a broader unwillingness to draw clear lines against ideologies that have long targeted marginalized communities, including Jewish Americans. Thus it is no surprise that in 2024 neo-Nazis proudly, and repeatedly, marched in Nashville, Tennessee.
The current case fits within that pattern of antisemitic and religious discrimination.
From the forced expulsion of Jewish families in 1862 to the denial of adoption services to a Jewish couple in 2026, the underlying principle remains disturbingly consistent: that belonging can be conditioned on identity, and that the state can, either explicitly or implicitly, sanction that exclusion.
Conclusion: The Constitutional Line We Must Not Cross
The injustice being imposed upon Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram is unconstitutional—period. Their case demands more than sympathy. It demands clarity and action. And history gives us that lesson. When President Lincoln learned of General Grant’s Order No. 11, he immediately recognized it for what it was: antisemitism, a gross abuse of power, and a violation of fundamental American principles. He intervened, ensured the order was rescinded, and Jewish Americans were able to once again return to their homes in the Tennessee District. That process serves as a reminder that constitutional principles are not self-executing. They depend on those in power choosing to uphold them.
Today, Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram are deserving of those same constitutional principles and protections. Because the United States is not, and has never been, a nation defined by a single religion. It is not a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or atheist nation. It is a constitutional republic that belongs to people of all faiths and no faith, grounded in the principle that every individual is entitled to freedom of conscience and equal protection under the law.
Because if we fail to act, if we allow the erosion of these principles to continue, if we allow the discrimination imposed upon Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram to continue unchallenged, then we are not merely tolerating discrimination.
We are institutionalizing it.
And that is a line that a just society cannot afford to cross.
NOTE: My gratitude to Americans United for Separation of Church and State for fighting this important case to protect freedom of conscience and secular governance. If you or someone you know has experienced state-based religious discrimination, please reach out to AU here.
This is just WRONG. TY for reporting Qasim.
Yikes! I did not know this, beyond the general hatefulness we are aware of. So much for the joy and love represented by Nashville's country music scene....
What the hell is wrong with people???