The ACLU is not going to take it as a case. When I worked for a U.S. Senator, the Senator only reads a sampling of letters prepared by the staff. Staff may be moved by personal vignettes that are short. Form and legalistic letters merely show an organization at work. Few constitutents take the time to write theri personal stories. These stories, read in the aggregate, convey a powerful message. Signed postcards and petitions are thrown in the trash. People are paid to collect signatures. Writing a short personal letter shows that a voter is likely to vote or not vote for the candidate based on thiis issue.
There is no present legal framework for this sort of claim. The climate can be changed by writing letters to the editor. It is a very fine line to walk between appearing too bitter and too removed. Certainly, a legal complaint should be neutral and focus on the law. This is more of a public relations campaign. Almost any letter is better than no letter. IN fact, staff prob. no longer reads them. A computer program must look for key words. I've written abut health care and received form letters about national security.
One letter isn't going to change things. A mass of letters might show a movement. Dignified movements might get a chance on a talkk show and Dr. Phil. It is not a panacea but I truly believe it is a start in the right direction. I would suggest reading the European documents. The law is different but the items are valid. Internal religious matters don't count. Cult behavior without notice or disclosure to victims does count.
Imagine what a New Yorker or Vanity Fair article could do.