Strategic litigation is one of the most powerful tools we have to defend freedom of speech, conscience, and religion.

By taking carefully chosen cases to the highest courts, organisations can establish precedents that protect believers from hostility, not just for today but for generations to come.

In the United States, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is leading the way with four landmark cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

One challenges laws in Colorado that restrict Christian counsellors from offering faith-based conversations with minors, raising the vital question of whether the government can censor what a professional is allowed to say if that speech reflects moral or religious convictions.

Two other cases are centred on protecting women’s sports. Both involve state laws, one in Idaho and the other in West Virginia, that safeguard female athletes by ensuring that women compete only against women. Radical transgender activists have challenged these laws, and ADF is defending them to preserve fairness and the integrity of women’s sport.

The fourth case involves pro-life pregnancy centres, which have come under pressure from governments seeking to force them to promote or refer for abortion. At its core, the case asks whether people of faith can be compelled to speak messages that violate their conscience.

Taken together, these four cases show the importance of strategic litigation. If successful, they will build a body of precedent that strengthens legal protections for Christians in the United States across counselling, sport, and healthcare. They remind us that cultural battles are not just fought in parliaments or the media, but also in the courts where lasting change to law and culture can be secured.

Here in Australia, HRLA is working to achieve the same kind of generational wins. We are representing Dr Jillian Spencer, a respected child psychiatrist who was removed from her hospital role after raising concerns about being forced to adopt a “gender affirmation” model she believes is unsafe and not evidence-based. Her case goes to the heart of freedom of conscience in the workplace: should medical professionals be punished for holding to their ethical and professional judgment when it conflicts with ideology?

We are also standing with Jasmine Sussex, who faces proceedings under Queensland’s vilification laws for saying what nearly all Australians believe – that men cannot breastfeed. Her case highlights the dangers of censorious laws that weaponise anti-discrimination provisions to silence ordinary Australians for speaking biological truths in public debate.

Finally, HRLA continues to defend citizens like Matthew Squires and others who have faced workplace discrimination simply for speaking out in line with their faith. Cases like these test whether Australians will still have the freedom to express religious convictions in their professional lives without fear of losing their jobs.

These are not isolated battles. Each one lays the foundation for stronger legal protections in the future. Just as ADF’s cases in the United States seek to set precedents that will protect Christians for decades to come, HRLA’s work in Australia aims to ensure that future generations will not be silenced, punished, or excluded from public life simply for following their faith.

Strategic litigation is not about protecting only one client or one case. It is about building a legacy of freedom so that the truth and the right to live faithfully can continue to be shared openly in the public square.