A court has sided with two pro-life organisations in Michigan, temporarily blocking a state law that they argued would require them to hire and recruit people who disagree with their mission.

“The court’s decision is a welcome reprieve and reaffirms our fundamental right to hire employees who agree with our life-affirming mission,” said Amber Roseboom, president of Right to Life of Michigan, in a statement released July 13.

She continued: “Any attempt by state officials to force organisations like Right to Life of Michigan to employ staff who do not agree with our fundamental mission is a wild abuse of power and defies common sense.”

The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan issued a temporary injunction on July 10, blocking enforcement of an amendment to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The amendment changed the definition of sex discrimination to include views on the legality of abortion.

“This ruling also calls into question the radical abortion-only response to unplanned pregnancy that Democrats in our state continue to push. Seeking to undermine organisations that offer life-saving choices is counterintuitive,” said Roseboom.

“For choice to truly exist, every woman must have the opportunity to make a choice for life if she would like to do so,” she added.

Right to Life of Michigan, together with the Pregnancy Resource Center of Grand Rapids (PRC), filed suit in February seeking to block the amendment, arguing that it would require the organisations to hire people who support abortion rights.

In the injunction, US District Judge Robert Jonker, of Grand Rapids, wrote that although there was no realistic prospect that the organisations would face immediate enforcement, state officials had not “disavow[ed] an intention to enforce the new statutory provisions against Plaintiffs”.

“Defendants appeal to common sense: enforcement is not credible here, because how many people who have gotten abortions, or advocate for abortion, would apply to work at Right to Life or PRC – pro-life organizations – in the first place? This appeal to common sense may seem tempting. But courts, especially at the pleading stage, do not take this approach,” wrote Judge Jonker.

The court found that both organisations would likely succeed in challenging the law on free speech grounds, but asked the Michigan Supreme Court to rule on how the legislation should be interpreted and applied.

“In the Court’s view, if Right to Life and PRC must employ, or accept as volunteers, anyone that ‘advocates’ for abortion, and if they must also provide abortion-related care as part of their health insurance plans, ELCRA likely violates their expressive association rights,” Judge Jonker wrote.

He added that the right to freedom of association is implicitly protected by the First Amendment.

Following the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal case will resume.