New testimony in the ongoing Schmitt v. Rebertus lawsuit is raising eyebrows, not only because of what the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) banned, but because of what one of its top officials could not explain.
The case challenges the DOC’s 2023 decision to shut down Quest for Authentic Manhood, a successful and voluntary, Bible-based program that had operated at the St. Cloud prison since 2012 and was—by the DOC’s own records—one of its most popular courses. The DOC justified the ban by claiming the program’s “biblical lens” conflicted with department diversity values.
In August 2025, the Eighth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction allowing Quest to resume while litigation continues.
On November 24, 2025, UMLC attorney for Religious Liberty Brent Robbins deposed DOC Assistant Commissioner Jolene Rebertus, the official who made the final call to terminate the program. Her testimony offered a revealing look at how DOC leadership interprets gender, marriage, religious teaching, and the limits of its own DEI framework.
Below are three moments from the deposition that stood out.
“I don’t know what they mean”: DOC official unable to define “man” and “woman”
During questioning about a Catholic Studies curriculum already approved for Minnesota prisons, Robbins pointed to statements such as “man and woman were created for each other” and “husband and wife.”
Asked what “husband and wife” means, Rebertus responded:
“I think it can mean whatever it wants to each individual.”
When asked whether “husband” normally refers to a male:
“It doesn’t have to be, no.”
And when pressed on whether “man and woman” meant biological male and female, she said:
“I don’t know what they mean.”
Rebertus later testified:
“I find gender and sex incredibly complex… what it means for each individual can be different.”
At one point, Robbins replied:
“Well, when language runs out, it’s hard to have conversations.”
Under DOC policy, criticizing gay marriage, polygamy, or open marriage is prohibited, and even criticism of cousin marriage is “contextual”
Another striking portion of testimony involved which teachings about marriage are allowed under DOC rules.
Rebertus testified that, under her interpretation of DOC DEI values, negative statements about gay marriage, open marriage, and polygamy would violate DOC policy.
But when Robbins asked whether criticizing marriages between cousins, or marriages involving adults and minors, would violate policy, Rebertus said it “depends on the context,” and in the case of adult-child marriage, mandatory reporting laws would come into play.
Not only are these statements evidence of exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination barred by the First Amendment, they show a DOC deeply at war with common sense and values held by most Minnesotans.
Bible and Koran verses deemed unacceptable for prison programs
Robbins also asked whether religious teachings stating that homosexuality is sinful— quoting from both the Bible and the Koran—would conflict with DOC values.
In both cases, Rebertus answered:
“Yes.”
She also confirmed that teaching a biological view of sex would be contrary to DOC DEI standard.
This testimony goes to the heart of the case: whether the DOC may exclude volunteer programming solely because its religious viewpoint conflicts with agency ideology.
Bigger Picture
The deposition doesn’t settle the case. But it raises serious questions about:
- how far the DOC’s embrace of DEI ideology has gone,
- how DOC applies its policies,
- whether religious viewpoints are being singled out, and
- whether the department is enforcing standards that lack clear definitions.
The Eighth Circuit has already found that the DOC’s actions likely violate the First Amendment when it banned Quest. The case now proceeds toward further proceedings in federal court, where the ultimate question remains: Did the DOC act within constitutional limits?
Two things are clear from the deposition: the DOC’s commitment to DEI has caused it to lose sight of a common-sense view of what language means, and that disfavored religious-based viewpoints aren’t welcome in Minnesota prisons.
