First Liberty Briefing

Rhode Island Police banned an elderly blind woman from visiting her local park because she was handing out copies of the Gospel of John. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Gail Blair was a nurse at Johns Hopkins.  But, she walked away from nursing in 1989 and toward an unexpected encounter with the police. A degenerative condition that causes gradual vision loss drove Gail away from nursing.  At just 37 years of age, she could no longer see.  She and her husband moved to a place just about a block away from Wilcox Park and Westerly Public Library.  She learned how to independently navigate the sidewalks that lead to and from her home and sit in the park. As passersby strolled past in this 10-acre park, Gail would engage them in conversation, telling them about Jesus and sharing with them a copy of the Gospel of John.  In 2019, park authorities accused this 63-year old blind woman of “accosting” park goers and blamed her for littering when they found copies of the Gospel of John on the ground.  They asked the police to ban her from the park under threat of arrest if she were to trespass in the future.  Sighted persons are free to cross into the park and have conversations with anyone, but park officials called the police on a blind woman who shared her faith with others. First Liberty and its network attorneys filed a charge of discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights because banning a blind woman from entering a public park simply because she offers people she meets religious material is outrageous and discriminatory.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

A newly naturalized citizen, Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that the phrase “so help me God” in her naturalization ceremony was a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, the courts did not agree. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. America’s newest citizens start their official lives as Americans with the words, “so help me God.”  One new citizen took advantage of her new rights as an American to sue Congress. Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that those four little words—"so help me God”—violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.  She asked a court to invalidate the phrase and enjoin its use during her naturalization ceremony.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected that request. The First Circuit concluded that, “Recent developments in Establishment Clause jurisprudence . . . suggest that the mere presence of a historical pattern now carries more weight.”  One of those “recent developments” was First Liberty’s case at the Supreme Court of the United States: American Legion v. AHA.  Judge Juan Torruella, writing for the First Circuit, concluded that American Legion approves the use of “so help me God” because such words are “a ceremonial, longstanding practice” that lack “a discriminatory intent” and, therefore, bear a presumption of constitutionality.   Thus, thanks to the American Legion case, and the analysis of Judge Torruella, these four words that have joined the 136 other words to make up this nearly 100-year old oath will be among the first words America’s newest citizens get to say well in to the future. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church in California asked the United States Supreme Court to invalidate a state ban on the size of religious gatherings of more than ten people.  Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The COVID-19 pandemic gave the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court something to think about—and not just washing their hands. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, a church asked the court to invalidate the State of California’s ban on religious gatherings of more than ten people.  On the eve of the Supreme Court’s review of that claim, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded that limitation to 25% of a church’s occupancy or 100 people, whichever is fewer.  Four of the Justices agreed that California’s restrictions treated places of worship less favorably than comparable secular businesses.  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wondered why churches were required to cap attendance at 100 people or 25% when “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries” did not. “The Church and its congregants” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses.”  And, since “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices,” he observed, why not churchgoers? In the end, the case becomes something of an academic exercise, binding only on the parties to the case.  Still, it’s quite concerning that only four of the nine Justices of the nation’s highest court would conclude, as Justice Kavanaugh did that California “may not discriminate against religion” even in a pandemic. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Governing public health is an important task, but it is not more important than following the Constitution. If people can practice social distancing and go to Kroger or Home Depot, then they should be allowed to gather in a similar fashion for their weekly religious service. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. “But what of that enduring Constitution in times like these? Does it mean something different because society is desperate for a cure or prescriptions?” Those are among the opening words of Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, a federal judge of a federal district court in Kentucky, as he issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church.  We filed for a TRO in that case because Kentucky’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak had prevented in-person religious gatherings, but did not restrict other secular gatherings like it.  So, while Kentuckians could visit their local grocery store or hardware store, following proper social distancing measures, they could not employ the same social distancing measures and attend in-person religious meetings.  To that, Judge Tatenhove said, “If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.” Certainly, protecting the public health is an important task of governing, but not if it comes at the expense of the Constitution.  As Judge Tatenhove put it, “It would be easy to put [the Constitution] on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient.  But that is not our tradition.  Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Governor Andy Beshear and others have been preventing in person worship services despite churches’ willingness to adhere to social distancing and appropriate hygiene guidelines while allowing gyms, stores and the like to re-open. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It seems that some state officials think that Americans who go to church only go to church.  Maybe that’s an overstatement, but it at least appears that Governor Andy Beshear, and others, treat religious Americans differently.  The lockdowns associated with COVID-19 suggest that some officials think that Americans are capable of shopping safely, but religious Americans are incapable of worshipping safely.  In a per curiam decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wondered at this distinction.  The litigants, church members, simply wanted to be treated equally.  The court said, “They are willing to practice social distancing.  They are willing to follow any hygiene requirements.” And, yet, the Court explained, “The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same.” Then the Court asked this, “aren’t the two groups of people often the same people—going to work on one day and going to worship on another?  How can the same person be trusted to comply with social-distancing and other health guidelines in secular settings but not be trusted to do the same in religious settings?” The Sixth Circuit enjoined Governor Beshear’s order preventing in-person worship services.  After all, the Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

First Liberty Institute is asking Congress to provide immunity from lawsuits to houses of worship and religious nonprofits during this world-wide pandemic. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. All of us are hopeful for the day everyone is declared immune from the threat of COVID-19.  Recently, hundreds of pastors and religious leaders sent a letter to members of Congress asking for a different kind of immunity: from lawsuits. As Kelly Shackelford, our firm’s president said in written testimony submitted to the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, “Whether Orthodox Jewish synagogues in New York, inner-city churches in Houston, or faith-based non-profits providing spiritual and humanitarian relief from coast to coast, these religious organizations and their leaders are each concerned about a new threat to our nation’s faith communities: a swarm of lawsuits blaming houses of worship and religious ministries for any person who attended a religious gathering or received food or shelter from a charity or ministry and subsequently contracted COVID-19.” Sure, the lawsuits might ultimately prove meritless, but should churches, synagogues, and others really have to litigate these claims?  That’s why we worked to spearhead a letter signed by nearly 300 religious leaders around the country, asking Congress to include immunity from lawsuit for America’s houses of worship as they reopen.  Churches, synagogues, and America’s houses of worship have provided critical care, comfort, and calm in the midst of the uncertainty caused by a worldwide pandemic.  They should not be punished for their many kindnesses by a wave of lawsuits when this is all over. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Judge Justin Walker sides with religious freedom when Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services on Easter Sunday. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Easter is a special day on the Christian calendar.  But for On Fire Church in Louisville, Kentucky in the Spring of 2020, it would be more than special; it would be memorable. They intended to hold a drive-in Easter service, since the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from meeting in person. But, Mayor Greg Fischer forbade it.  Actually, the mayor said the police might attend too, but only to write down license plates and force atte­ndees into a 14-day quarantine.  First Liberty sought a temporary restraining order late on Good Friday.  Less than 24-hours later, Judge Justin Walker granted the TRO, explaining that the mayor’s actions were “violating the Free Exercise Clause ‘beyond all question.’”  He noted that “Louisville . . . targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services, while not prohibiting a multitude of other non-religious drive-ins and drive-throughs—including . . . drive-through liquor stores.”  Concluding, “if beer is ‘essential,’ so is Easter.”  Judge Walker’s opinion recalled the experience of the Pilgrims who, he said, understood that, “No place, not even the unknown, is worse than any place whose state forbids the exercise of your sincerely held religious beliefs.” Even in times of worldwide pandemic, the First Amendment does not hand in a doctor’s note and take the day off.  Rather, it preserves and defends the first of our freedoms given to us by God himself. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

As large group gatherings have been placed on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, Pastor Charles Hamilton from Greenville, Mississippi, prepared to preach to his usual Sunday crowd via a drive-in church service. However, the Mayor suspended these gatherings and it took two lawsuits and an intervention for the discrimination to stop. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It was a warm spring Thursday evening in Greenville, Mississippi.  One would have said it was a perfectly normal evening for King James Bible Baptist Church to host a Bible study, but things were hardly normal. A highly communicable virus had infected the world.  Everyone was shut down, or so it seemed.  The town’s mayor had even cancelled all gatherings in the town, including religious gatherings. Still, Pastor Charles Hamilton made adjustments and readied himself to preach to a bunch of cars.  Well, he meant to preach to people, but they were confined to their cars.  That week, the mayor of Greenville had even prohibited so-called drive-in church services where parishioners drove to the church, parked in the lot, and stayed in their cars, listening through the closed doors and windows to hear Pastor Hamilton preach. It was a strange time.  Nonetheless, Pastor Charles Hamilton was shocked when he walked outside.  The entire police force was there, piling out of their cruisers.  One officer rushed to inform Pastor Hamilton that his rights had been “suspended.”  Pastor Hamilton thanked the officer, picked up his Bible, and continued to preach anyway.  We don’t know what the officers thought about the sermon that evening, but we do know this: it took two lawsuits and the intervention of the Attorney General of the United States to get Greenville’s mayor to stop discriminating against Pastor Hamilton.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Are the recent restrictions imposed by state officials in response to COVID-19 a violation of your religious freedom? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. A global pandemic has gripped the nation’s attention in the Spring of 2020 and rightly so.  In response, some state officials are imposing restrictions upon the gathering of large numbers of people in one place at a time.  Are such restrictions Constitutional? As my law professors used to say: it depends. Temporary, evenly applied restrictions on religious gatherings may be permissible.  Government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling reason for doing so.  But, even then, government must use the least burdensome approach that achieves that compelling interest. So, temporary restrictions to reduce the spread of a global pandemic is almost certainly a compelling reason, so long as the government is not treating religious institutions unfairly compared with how it treats other comparable gatherings. Those restrictions need to be applied evenly and temporarily.  For instance, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s famous threat to shut down synagogues who disobey his orders would almost certainly violate the constitution if he attempted to enforce it.  Likewise, Mayor Errick Simmons, of Greenville, Mississippi, was wrong and unfair to send the entire police force to surround our clients at King James Bible Baptist Church for having a drive-in church service, but leave the local drive-in hamburger joint alone. The Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.  Even in times of a worldwide pandemic, it’s good to know religious liberty is protected. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Despite doing her best to find a solution that would reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community, Justice of the Peace, Dianne Hensley is still under fire for not personally performing a same-sex marriage due to her religious beliefs. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Dianne Hensley is a Justice of the Peace in Waco, Texas.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, she has been looking for a way to reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community. She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she understands that many of her gay friends do not share that conviction. If she, like most of the local justices of the peace stopped officiating weddings altogether, those without ready access to low-cost alternatives suffer most. So, she assembled a referral list of wedding officiants, including a walk-in wedding chapel just 3 blocks from the courthouse.  That arrangement worked, until the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, without having received a complaint, initiated an investigation.  That resulted in an official “public warning” with likely worse sanctions to follow should she continue. Surely in 2020, we can find a way to protect those with religious beliefs that prevent them from officiating weddings with which they morally disagree, while also accommodating the marriage of anyone lawfully allowed to wed. We’ve filed a lawsuit against the Commission, alleging their punishment violates Dianne’s religious liberty.  Rather than punish her, the Commission ought to have recognized Dianne’s effort to balance her faith with the needs of her community — a type of basic, human, and much needed fairness missing in much of America today. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Despite long standing amendments like the Blaine Amendment, religious organizations should be just as deserving of participating in public programs as anyone else. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. We have discussed the history of anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments on this program before.  If you recall, it was Senator James Blaine who, in the mid-1800’s, proposed language ultimately adopted within state constitutions that prevents government dollars flowing to religious institutions, even to this day. It’s a curious thing that, in 2020 two organizations, one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions, yet only the secular organization may qualify for participation in public programs. Government officials need not rely upon the overall ability, educational or professional qualifications, financial stability, or facilities of a religious organization to decide whether it may participate. Rather, they may exclude religious organizations because they are religious organizations. Their religion may be the sole criterion for exclusion. In January of 2020, the Supreme Court once again heard arguments over the constitutionality of Blaine Amendments in Espinoza v. Montana.  In a friend of the court brief, First Liberty Institute argued that religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else. The promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion, welcoming religious organizations to compete in the public square on equal footing with other organizations. If they are to be denied, let it be for legitimate reasons having not the whiff of religious discrimination. Government should never tolerate the codification of religious bigotry. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Despite both Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor cases, states like California are continuing to try and subvert the Weldon Amendment, and force citizens to violate their conscience. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The United States Department of Health and Human Services recently announced through its Office of Civil Rights that HHS is pursuing an enforcement action against the State of California.  You see, something known as the Weldon Amendment guards against states accepting federal dollars to require those using its health insurance to fund abortion services. It seems that the State of California has required The Guadalupanas Sisters, a Catholic order of religious women headquartered in Los Angeles to fund abortion services through the premiums they pay in insurance services. Now, if the State of California fails to provide assurances to HHS that it will end the practice, the federal agency plans to refer the state on for further investigation, if not prosecution. You would think that, in the years since our Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby and over the years of litigation concerning the Little Sisters of the Poor that states would begin to understand that they can’t force its citizens to violate their religious conscience. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, “In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law.  For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The opinions written by judges are important in all cases, but when it comes to religious freedom cases, the words and manner in which a case is written can either expand religious freedom or lessen it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The measure of a federal judge may be what he or she writes.  Or maybe that a judge writes.  Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit never seems to miss the chance.  And his opinions are worth reading. Take for instance his separate opinion in Horvath v. City of Leander.  While he mostly agreed with the majority’s decision, he raised concerns that the lower court relied upon Employment Division v. Smith, a case often relied on to curtail the First Amendment’s promise of the free exercise of religion. That led him to articulating the importance of words, pushing back against efforts to reduce the promise of the Free Exercise Clause to the mere “freedom of worship.”  Properly understood, Judge Ho helpfully explains, the Founders intended the First Amendment to “extend beyond mere ritual and private belief to cover any action motivated by faith.”  Care for the text may even mean that we shed any reluctance to hold government officials personally accountable for violating someone’s religious liberty.  As Judge Ho reminds us, we ought instead to be “concerned about government chilling the citizens-not the other way around.”  After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower it. The point, for Judge Ho, is that in guarding the text of the First Amendment, we refuse efforts to redefine it into lesser terms while rejecting judicial additions to it.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The religious freedom rights of our men and women in the U.S. military is constantly coming under attack, and First Liberty is fighting back each and every time. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. You have heard me refer to Mikey Weinstein and his deceptively-named Military Religious Freedom Foundation on this program more than once.  Over the last couple of months, this group of anti-faith activists has certainly shown a dogged resolve to brazenly attack the right of our service members to live out their faith. After the MRFF sent a legal demand to the Department of Defense regarding our client, Shields of Strength, a Christian company that graciously provides replica dog tags with inspirational Bible verses to active-duty service members, veterans and their families who want them, we had to take action.  We’ve now sent two demand letters on the topic—one to the Army and another to the Navy—insisting the DOD respect our client’s religious liberty. But that’s not all.  Before Christmas of 2019, the group complained about an inflatable Santa Claus on an Army base, claiming that the display was unconstitutional because it stood wearing military camouflage, a lapel reading “Christmas Force” and held a small sign with the phrase, “God Bless America.”  Not only that, they also called out the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO for selling Jesus-themed candy canes. These may sound silly, but we can’t risk not taking them seriously.  Just as our service members never give up when fighting for our freedoms, First Liberty will never give up on our mission to fight for their First Freedom. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

All school organizations should be treated the same. When school officials at the University of Iowa exempted non-religious school organizations from its human rights policy and not groups like InterVarsity, they were held personally liable. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Holding government officials personally liable for violating an organizations religious liberty seems harsh, but is an important—and difficult—job of the federal courts. At the University of Iowa, university officials exempted a number of groups from their human rights policy.  Sports clubs could distinguish by gender.  The military dental club restricted membership by military members.  Even acapella groups meeting on campus were allowed to restrict membership by gender. But, the university told the InterVaristy Christian Fellowship chapter that requiring its leadership to adhere to historic religious convictions on human sexuality was wrong and resulted in the club being deregistered. The club sued the university and the court held that not only did the University violate the law, but the university officials who investigated the student group were to be held personally liable for the constitutional violation.  In civil rights litigation, if a plaintiff demonstrates that a state official acting under color of law deprives a citizen of any of the rights and privileges found in our Constitution, courts may hold them personally liable.  Holding university or government entities liable is one thing, but when the full weight of federal law lands on the backs of individual bad actors, it has a deterring effect.  Moreover, reminding state officials that they have a responsibility to protect the religious liberty rights of Americans makes them all the more cautious to come close to violating our first freedoms. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Despite an article in Christianity Today claiming tax exemptions are leading churches to be more parasitical than independent, tax exemptions help to protect and promote the autonomy of churches. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The January 2020 edition of Christianity Today features the headline, “The Hidden Cost of Tax Exemption.”  The author makes his case for why American churches may be better off for refusing what he calls the “government largesse” of tax exemptions. The article portrays churches in America as “basically parasitical” with pastors feeding on the benefits their churches drain from their host community without returning much noticeable benefit. The story contends that the appeal of the tax exemption is rooted in a historical desire to propagate racism and further discrimination against the LGBTQ community. The story ends with these words, “It might not be such a bad thing to lose tax-exempt status . . . The true church of God, after all, is not reliant on its special status in the tax code. We can walk by faith and not by government largesse.” In truth, rather than make churches more ideologically faithful, the loss of tax exemption for churches would invade upon church autonomy and curb religious liberty.  The “true church of God” is less a target to be taxed or a parasite to be crushed and more a quiet blessing upon a world in need of the peace they preach and acts of service they humbly perform. A local gathering of religious believers should be viewed as a human right of religious association and free exercise worthy of protection, rather than a potential stream of revenue. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Judge Thomas Griffith’s ruling in Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB is a great example of what the Establishment Clause is supposed to do, limit the role of government in the affairs of religious groups. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The reach of the First Amendment is extensive in securing the religious liberty of individuals and organizations, including colleges and universities.  Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB.  When Duquesne, a Catholic university, refused to bargain with a group of adjunct faculty seeking to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board stepped in, recommending that the union be certified. But, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the Catholic university.  Judge Thomas Griffith, authoring the opinion, notes that our Constitution restrains government agencies from excessive involvement with religious organizations. “The Establishment Clause,” he writes “limits governmental involvement in the affairs of religious groups, and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards the freedom to practice religion, whether as an individual or as part of a group.” That is critical, he said, because it means religious institutions retain the independence required to pursue religious activity, inculcate its religious identity, and teach according to its religious tradition. After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower its creep into every aspect of our lives. The importance of this decision cannot be understated. Its immediate impact should be welcomed by religious colleges and universities around the country. Furthering the autonomy of religious institutions to be unapologetically religious and free from government intrusion is an unambiguous goal of the First Amendment. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

On Religious Freedom Day 2020, President Trump announced new initiatives that his administration is taking to preserve religious freedom in America. Learn more about these three key initiatives at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  On Religious Freedom Day 2020, we celebrated a major victory for the rights of students, teachers, coaches, public employees, and religious organizations who want to freely live out their faith in school, at work, and in ministry. Two of our clients, Coach Joe Kennedy and Hannah Allen, joined our president, Kelly Shackelford, in the Oval Office of the White House while President Trump announced new initiatives aimed at preserving religious freedom. First, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated guidelines on prayer and religious expression in public schools. The updated guidelines expand upon previous guidelines and will help students freely live out their faith, without as much interference by school officials.  No student should fear discrimination for simply expressing their faith while at school. Second, the White House announced that nine federal agencies proposed new administrative rules to ensure that religious organizations and their secular counterparts are treated equally by the federal government. Religious organizations deserve to be treated just like secular organizations. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget issued new guidance requiring that the administration of federal grants is consistent with the 2017 Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran.  Religious organizations should never be disqualified from federal grants just because they are religious. These actions by the Trump administration are an important step in helping end religious discrimination, while ensuring people of faith will be treated equally when they seek to partner with federal or state governments to provide services to communities nationwide. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

After two years since First Liberty filed a lawsuit against the Village of Airmont, New York, the orthodox Jewish community will finally have its day in court. Get the full update and learn more at FirstLiberty.org/briefing. In 2018, we filed a lawsuit alleging that government officials in the Village of Airmont, New York and the Suffern Central School District had engaged in a deliberate effort to dissuade Orthodox Jewish residents from staying in or moving to the Village of Airmont. Town officials required multiple rounds of permitting and endless inspections, costing tens of thousands of dollars for Orthodox Jewish residents to be able to use their own homes for religious meetings.  They were even threatened with criminal sanctions by the Town of Airmont. Even when presented with the prospect of the United States Department of Justice weighing in against them, town officials would not relent, filing motions to dismiss the legal action.  In January of 2020, Judge Vincent Briccetti issued an opinion, denying the town’s motions to dismiss. My colleague, Keisha Russell said, “Our clients are thrilled that they will get their day in court.  We are pleased that the judge dismissed the effort by both the Village of Airmont and the Suffern School District to avoid accountability for their discriminatory actions.” Perhaps this will make town officials more receptive to treating its Jewish residents with respect.  The Orthodox community in Airmont just wants to be left alone to peacefully worship and coexist without fear of criminal prosecution. The First Amendment and federal law protect the right of all Americans to pray together in their homes free from unreasonable and intrusive government interference. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org. 

No one can deny Lawrence VanDyke’s excellent credentials for the federal court system. Attempting to deface his reputation nonetheless, the ABA and its progressive counterparts in the Senate questioned his impartiality toward LGBTQ litigants due to his faith. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. President Trump and I have a common friend in Lawrence VanDyke.  I know Lawrence from the time he’s spent volunteering with First Liberty Institute and as solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana.  President Trump nominated him to an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As you might guess, he took a few shots during his confirmation hearing.  This time, the real culprit seems to be the American Bar Association.  Somehow, the ABA is perceived to be a neutral evaluator of judicial nominees.  So, rating Lawrence as “not qualified” is a severe blow to his nomination.  When senators inquired if he would be fair toward LGBTQ litigants, Lawrence’s emotions got the better of him.  Choking back tears, he managed to say, “It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God.  They should all be treated with dignity and respect.”  No one can honestly and credibly attack VanDyke’s sterling credentials. No one even tries. But attacks on someone’s legal research, writing, and advocacy are not in the playbook for today’s progressive left, which is driven by a militant secularism that worships at the altar of wokeness. Lawrence VanDyke is a compassionate man with a brilliant intellect who has donated hours and hours of his professional career defending religious liberty.  I hope the senate ignores the ABA’s biased letter and confirms my friend, Lawrence VanDyke. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

A Cameron, Missouri, school district superintendent has received a series of complaint letters regarding religious activity in school. However, these letters are rife with unsubstantiated claims and unidentified sources. In order to be taken seriously, legal             demand letters require litigants and facts—not anonymous threats and gripes. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America, whether that is Tim Tebow’s eye black or Coach Kennedy’s silent prayer. However, with these public displays of religions often come needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent, demanding an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity. But something always seems to be missing with these letters: A litigant. Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — such a letter amounts to little more than a public gripe. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

In a recent speech, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith. Ignoring both the Constitution and precedent, secularists are now accusing him for his “proselytizing religious speech.” Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. We recently discussed Attorney General Barr’s excellent speech on religious liberty.  But, he’s not the only one in the Trump administration talking about religion. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also delivered a speech that progressives found troubling because he dared note that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith. The fourth in line to the presidency admitted to learning a great deal about leadership while at West Point, in his service in the Army and Congress, and as director of the CIA.  Yet Pompeo  focused on how his faith has informed his leadership. Secularists now demand that the Inspector General of the United States investigate and punish Secretary Pompeo for his “proselytizing religious speech.”  It may come as a surprise to some that even civil servants look to their personal faith in making leadership decisions. When those decisions align with calls for social justice and progressive calls for economic equality, the Left celebrates. Yet, admit that a secretary of state relies upon his faith to be humbler, listen better, and make wiser decisions, and suddenly it crosses the line into a constitutionally dubious attempt to establish an official church of the United States. Americans of every walk of life — elected or not — are free to be known by their faith in both public and private life. More than that, they are free to rely upon that faith in their disposition, dialogue, and decisions. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Upon receiving a Gospel tract in the mail, New York resident Annmarie Trombetta sued the sender for causing “severe emotional distress” due to “extreme and outrageous         conduct.” Thankfully, a New York trial court concluded that sharing God’s Word isn’t intentionally harmful. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. You will be pleased to know that a New York trial court has declared that proselytizing someone does not rise to the level of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Back in 2015, Lauren Kruse mailed a religious pamphlet to Annmarie Trombetta.  The pamphlet, also known as a ‘tract,’ featured a cartoon depiction of someone who is sent into the "lake of fire" to "burn in hell" because they did not follow the version of Christianity promoted by the pamphlet which is evangelical Baptist. Eventually, she learned that Lauren had sent her the tracts. Lauren explained that she was concerned for Annmarie’s eternal soul, along with many others to whom she had sent the tract.  Annmarie sued Lauren, including a claim for the intentional affliction of emotional distress, which requires a showing of (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress.  Ultimately, the court noted that the “First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the courts of this State from evaluating the religious beliefs of a church or individual,” and, further, “While the court understands why the plaintiff found the tract and email disturbing, the court does not find that the conduct rose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.” And, for the majority of Americans, that’s a good thing. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Religious exemptions to the Contraceptive Mandate are under attack once again. After several states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration for protecting the rights of religious objectors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that        RFRA does not permit a broad religious exemption from this very mandate. The case now heads to The U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  You would think that, in light of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision a few years ago and the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the so-called contraceptive mandate, the fight over forcing religious adherents to compromise their religious convictions would be over.  You would be wrong.  First Liberty recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging them to review yet another Little Sisters of the Poor case.  This case stems from lawsuits filed by several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, against the Trump administration for providing religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against religious objectors, concluding that RFRA does not permit a broad religious exemption from the Contraception Mandate, jeopardizing the exemptions granted to the nuns and others. The Little Sisters appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. We argue in our brief that this decision ignores binding precedent and forces the courts to evaluate the sincerity of an employees’ religious convictions—which is against the law.  Left alone, the Third Circuit’s decision threatens religious freedom by allowing courts to assess which religious convictions are reasonable. As my colleague, Keisha Russell said when we filed the case, “Enough is enough. The Supreme Court of the United States needs to finally protect Little Sisters of the Poor and all other religious objectors from government-forced violations of their faith.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org. 

Along with many of her peers, Skylar Carson, a student within the Steamboat Springs (CO) School District, was forced to read and analyze explicit lyrics in her “Music   Literature” class. In doing so, her teacher had broken school policy (requiring parental      consent to teach controversial material). No student should have to undergo such treatment—and neither teacher nor school district should get away with it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Skylar Cason started her school day like any other, by attending her “Music Literature” class.  She left with feelings of guilt and shame no student should be forced to endure while at school. Steamboat Springs School District teacher Ryan Ayala decided to required students to fill-in-the-blanks in which a district-approved textbook had censored out much of the lewd and vulgar language of the infamous poem, “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg—words mostly used by pornographers.  Then, he assigned students to analyze the song, “Teenagers take off your clo” which seems to normalize sexting and ends by the singer noting his power over now nude teenagers as he holds their clothes. None of this came with a warning—not to Skylar, nor to her parents.  School policy permits teachers to instruct on controversial materials, but they are required by that policy to obtain parental permission before they do.  No one at Steamboat Springs School District told Skylar’s parents and, therefore, they could not request an alternative assignment or exercise the option to opt-out in order to protect her religious conscience. We sent a letter to the superintendent, asking that the teacher be required to apologize for the lack of forewarning and that the entire district undergo several hours of sensitivity training.  No student should feel guilt or shame—much less have their religious conscience violated by the actions of a teacher.    To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

While elementary students in Knoxville, Tennessee, can legally opt for Bible study time during their school days, complaints have recently arisen regarding this practice. Critics should recall that The Supreme Court of the United States approved and even commended this tradition in Zorach v. Clauson. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Is it possible for public school students to go to a church or synagogue to receive religious education during the school day?  In fact, yes it is. Release time education is one such example.  Instruction provided by release time education is not and cannot be provided by the school, and no school support or participation of any kind is allowed—including transportation. No student is required to participate, and no student can participate without specific parental consent and it cannot be held on school property. In Tennessee, for example, students from Sterchi Elementary School are released during the school day to travel to the Church at Sterchi Hills.  There, some 70 students spend about an hour of time receiving a Bible lesson. Some will raise complaints about the religious instruction received during release time, but those are entirely unfounded. The Supreme Court of the United States approved the idea almost 70 years ago in a case called Zorach v. Clauson. The Justices recognized that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” and went on to not only uphold release time programs as perfectly lawful, but further explained that “[w]hen the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it then follows the best of our traditions.”  So according to the Supreme Court, Bible release time is not merely lawful — it exemplifies what it means to be an American.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

An atheist group has criticized Wayne Ivey, Sheriff of Brevard County, Florida, for lettering “In God We Trust” on the exterior of his police department’s vehicles. This accusation is nothing short of ridiculous—even the United States and the State of Florida claim this phrase as their official mottos! Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The Sheriff of Brevard County, Florida, Wayne Ivey, made a decision that one group hates, but you will probably love.  He decided to put new lettering on all of his cruisers and department vehicles.  That lettering is the National Motto, “In God We Trust.”  That merited Sheriff Ivey a nasty letter from a group of atheists.  Usually this group cites a few cases to make their point, but this time, they didn’t cite a single case in support of their demands that he remove the motto from the vehicles.  That’s probably because it is nearly impossible for them to cite any binding case invalidating the National Motto.  As we have observed before on this program, every federal appellate court to have considered the motto has deemed it perfectly constitutional.  This past summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to review the constitutionality of the motto appearing on our coinage.  More ironically, not only is “In God We Trust” the official motto of the United States, the State of Florida adopted the phrase as its official state motto as well.  So, it’s a little hard to figure how it would be inappropriate—much less, illegal—for a sheriff in the State of Florida, within the United States, to publish the state’s official motto on his cruisers.  We sent a letter to Sheriff Ivey letting him know he’s on solid ground with his decision.  And, with that support, I’m happy to report that he’s not changing his mind anytime soon. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

In a recent speech, Attorney General Bill Barr emphasized religious liberty’s importance in our federal republic. Echoing the Founders, he maintained that religious liberty promotes individual self government and morality—needed virtues in American citizenry. Additionally, Barr explained why governmental neutrality depends upon religious liberty’s protection. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  Another Trump Administration official has come out in favor of religious liberty, this time with one of the best speeches on the topic in modern memory. Bill Barr serves the nation at Attorney General. In October of 2019, Barr delivered a speech to his law school alma mater, Notre Dame.  The entire speech is worth reading, but his primary point was to explain that the framers of our Constitution believed self-government was only as effective as the people were moral.  Without a common moral commitment to restrain them, people will turn to tyranny to have moral restraints forcefully applied or licentiousness brought about by the complete absence of morality.  The Constitution succeeded because its framers relied upon the ethics of Judeo-Christianity in drafting it. But, as Barr notes, the problem now is that “militant secularists” are engaged in “an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”  He says, “The problem is not that religion is being forced on others.  The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.” That’s what his critics fail to grasp.  To them, neutrality means government-enforced secularity.  But, the genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it guards against hostility masquerading as secularized neutrality. America’s founding era is replete with efforts by the founding generation to preserve space for people of faith to exercise religion independent of the government’s preferences.  Such historic toleration is what is rightly called, “neutrality.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Opeleika, Alabama officials prohibit a tradition of student-led prayer over the loudspeaker before football games. This ban directly violates a standing state law. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Prayer under the Friday night lights is once again in the crosshairs of activists.  In Opeleika, Alabama, school officials ended the practice of students praying over the loudspeaker prior to kickoff.  Sadly, the decision ignores the law the Alabama legislature passed in 1993.  According to the law, the legislature meant “to properly accommodate the free exercise of religious rights of its student citizens in the public schools.”  But, not merely their rights within the school building, but also (and this is quoting from the law) “at public school events,” including football games. In fact, the law explicitly says that “non-sectarian, non-proselytizing student-initiated prayer, invocations and/or benedictions, shall be permitted [at] school-related sporting events.”  One court, upholding the law, explained: “So long as the prayer is genuinely student-initiated, and not the product of any school policy which actively or surreptitiously encourages it, the speech is private and it is protected.” And what about those who don’t like the prayers?  Well, the same court explained that they are simply “free not to listen, and to express their disagreement by not participating in any way.”  In other words, genuinely student-initiated prayer is nothing to be feared and everything to be protected.  Alabama law makes it abundantly clear: students may pray over the loudspeaker at public school football games.  Driving religious expression by students off of public property is never the right option.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The City Council of Cleveland, Ohio desires to reinstitute the practice of legislative prayer before its meetings. As legislative prayer is a long-standing and constitutional practice upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court—and even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cleveland Councilmembers should not fear legal retribution for reincorporating it into their meetings. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Legislative prayer is as old as the United States. In fact, offering a prayer before a public meeting should be one of the least questionable topics of our day.  That is why some on Ohio’s Cleveland City Council would like to bring the practice back to its meetings.  Thankfully, the law supports them if they do. Not only has the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the practice of legislative prayer—twice—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has even said that the lawmakers themselves can lead such invocations.  That’s partly why we litigated The American Legion v. AHA where Justice Samuel Alito agreed with our understanding of the First Amendment and noted that “religiously expressive” practices, such as legislative prayer, that have long been a part of our nation’s history and heritage, bear “a strong presumption of constitutionality.”  Just a few weeks later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives noted that presumption of constitutionality extends to legislative prayers. As we recently explained in a letter sent to the Councilmembers, the Cleveland City Council is on solid legal ground to restart its practice of legislative prayers. Extending that level of freedom to all Americans, whether they are private citizens or elected officials, reflects the very best of the American brand of freedom. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

When Drew Brees, the New Orleans Saints’ quarterback, endorsed “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” he received a lot of criticism from the “woke” culture. Nonetheless, the Constitution protects Brees’ freedom of speech as well as the right of students to read their Bibles at school. Building on these principles, First Liberty has successfully defended individuals maligned for expressing their faith in the academic and professional spheres. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Drew Brees is not only a Super Bowl winning quarterback, he’s been an outspoken advocate for several issues dear to his heart.  That includes his faith. But when he cut a public service announcement for a project by Focus on the Family called, “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” the woke, cancel culture whipped itself into the usual frenzy. The whole situation made me think of a few of our past clients. For instance, officials in Georgia removed Dr. Eric Walsh from being a public health official over something he said in a sermon as a lay minister.  Giovanni Rubeo, just 12 years old at the time, was told he could not read his Bible during free reading time at school.  Drew Brees probably won’t lose his job like Dr. Walsh did, but I worry about kids who actually do bring their Bible to school, like Giovanni did.  While the law is crystal clear that students have every right to carry, read, and reference their Bible at school, we all brace for the next student who runs up against the teacher who doesn’t think the student should have the freedom to do so. All of us ought to appreciate Drew Brees for what makes him different from us, even if that is his religion. That’s what our commitment to religious liberty and the guarantee to exercise that religion in public demands. By the way, in case you’re wondering, we won Dr. Walsh’s case and, after several exchanges with Giovanni’s school, they admitted their teacher made a mistake.  So, don’t be afraid of living out your faith in public either.  We’re here to help. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Cases have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court hinging on the court’s definition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The justices’ potential altering of this definition would greatly injure the democratic process as well as the state of religious liberty in America. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The day after the Supreme Court of the United States opened the 2019-2020 term of the court, the Justices heard argument in three cases over what is meant by a single word in a federal statute. The cases involve two homosexual men and one transgendered woman terminated from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.  The federal statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of, among other things, a person’s sex. That’s the word up for debate.  Activists have labored since at least 1974 to update Title VII’s definition of sex to include any number of gender identities and sexual orientations, but Congress has declined to act. Part of the reason for that has to do with the very real fear expressed by religious conservatives at the potential loss of key religious liberty protections.  They fear becoming the next Aaron and Melissa Klein.  Cutting off that democratic debate—one that allows concerns for the protection of religious liberty to be accounted for—is unwise.  The question everyone should be asking is what does yet another decision on a significant cultural question by judges mean for our democratic republic?  Equality and nondiscrimination means very little in the hands of a democracy that can be altered by the stroke of the judicial pen. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Activists challenged Lehigh County in Pennsylvania for retaining a cross symbol among the various elements displayed in its county seal. Following the precedents set in The American Legion v. AHA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld Lehigh County’s right to include the cross in its seal. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Activists who dislike the presence of anything religious in public can no longer safely assume that judges will order religious symbols hidden from public view.  In recent decades, progressives have turned to the courts to accomplish what ought to be done in the political arena. No less is that true than when it comes to religiously expressive symbols that appear in public. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA is correcting the faulty understanding of the First Amendment. In Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, for instance, that county’s seal includes various elements symbolic of their community, including a cross.  That, activists say, establishes a religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Mercifully, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed. Judge Thomas Hardiman explained that what matters is less how old a particular religious symbol is and more whether its use fits within our country’s longstanding traditions. He said, “The Lehigh County seal fits comfortably within a long tradition of State and municipal seals and flags throughout our Republic that include religious symbols or mottos which further confirms its constitutionality.” Rather than allow judges to force the removal, destruction, or censoring of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, The American Legion line of cases safeguards the history of our country, the text of our Constitution, and the simplicity of a self-governed local community. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Because Jeremy and Kristy Morris shared the Gospel via their annual Christmas display, their HOA sued them. This legal action amounts to nothing more than unlawful religious discrimination in housing, an injustice that First Liberty has taken on in the fight for our constitutional freedoms. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Some months ago on the First Liberty Briefing, I introduced you to Jeremy and Kristy Morris.  Located in northern Idaho, the Morrisses have been embroiled in a lawsuit with their homeowners association over their annual Christmas display. But, they don’t just put up Christmas lights to look at them.  The Morrisses want to bless others with their light display.  And so, they decided to spread a little Christmas cheer by inviting folks onto their yard, sharing the Gospel with them over a cup of hot chocolate and asking for donations for disadvantaged kids in the area.  But the HOA told them to get rid of the lights and based their disagreement with the display on the Morrisses’ religion.  Jeremy and Kristy sued and convinced a jury that the HOA engaged in unlawful religious discrimination in housing.  But, the judge overruled the jury and entered judgment in favor of the HOA instead. In October 2019, First Liberty and our volunteer attorneys at Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher appealed the judge’s decision and asked the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the jury’s decision. As Kristy Morris explained, “I had to go to court because I invited my neighbors for Christmas.  I truly hope the judges on the Ninth Circuit will free us to be able to once again celebrate Christmas and raise money for charity.” Me too.  No one should have to fight to spread a little Christmas cheer outside their own home. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Judge Tammy Kemp has received criticism for giving her Bible to a convicted felon in an act of compassion and mercy. Any judge that hands any holy writ to someone in an effort to encourage the improvement of his or her life is legal and worth defending. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Everyone seems to have been moved by the remarkable story of forgiveness and mercy of Brandt Jean, brother of Botham Jean tragically killed in 2018 by an off-duty police officer in his own apartment. Many have even taken note of Judge Tammy Kemp’s actions as well. After sentencing was complete, Judge Kemp descended from the bench, visited with the Jean family, and was moved to give her personal Bible to Amber Guyger, the newly sentenced felon, when she greeted her. Ignoring the example of humanity, healing, and mercy demonstrated by Judge Kemp, the Freedom From Religion Foundation stepped in to ruin the moment.  They filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, calling the act of Judge Kemp an “abuse of power.” Our country has a longstanding tradition of respecting the reality that our leaders have both a professional, official role and yet may retain their personal humanity.  Not only should Judge Kemp be permitted to be human, including the parts of her humanity informed by her religious beliefs, any judge that hands any holy writ to anyone in any effort to encourage the improvement of their lives is worth defending. The protests of Judge Kemp should stop and those protesting ought to join the rest of the nation celebrating the compassion and mercy Judge Kemp demonstrated. We should all be thankful the law allows Judge Kemp’s actions. We stand with her and will gladly lead the charge in defending her noble and legal actions if necessary. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

For the first time in U.S. presidential history, President Donald Trump hosted a meeting at the United Nations dedicated to religious freedom. This is an extremely important step on the path to eradicating religious persecution across the world. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Never in American history has a United States president hosted a meeting at the United Nations dedicated to religious freedom.  But, in late September 2019, as the delegations from around the world descended on the UN General Assembly in New York City, President Donald Trump hosted a meeting focused on international religious freedom. He explained that, “The United Sates is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God,” but then admitted that “the religious freedom enjoyed by American citizens is rare in the world.” Indeed it is.  As he explained, “Approximately 80% of the world’s population live in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.”  President Trump called upon them to “end religious discrimination.”  After announcing the formation of a coalition of U.S. businesses that will work to protect religious freedom globally, President Trump ended with this observation, “Too often, people in positions of power preach diversity while silencing, shunning, or censoring the faithful.  True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs.” Indeed it does and, whatever else might be said of President Trump’s foreign policy, his administration appears concerned for the persecuted church.  As he said to the persecuted church, “The United States of America will forever remain at your side and the side of all who seek religious freedom.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

In a recent town hall, Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke contended that religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage. His statement is an overt attack on The First Amendment and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s promise of the continued protection of religious liberty in Obergefell v. Hodges. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. At yet another town hall event for Democratic presidential hopefuls, candidate Beto O’Rourke once again peeled back the veneer of political centrism to reveal a disturbing threat to religious liberty.  Asked if he thought that religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage, Beto wasted no time casting off the shackles of centrism and told the world what the left really believes. "Yes,” O’Rourke said immediately, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for any one or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.” That’s a far cry from former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s promise in Obergefell v. Hodges when he said “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost sincere conviction” their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality.  Indeed, Kennedy promised that “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Yet under an O’Rourke administration, organized religion will have to pay its own freight.  O’Rourke’s purpose is to expand the borders of the increasingly far left.  He will not win the presidency.  Still, we ought to take with deadly seriousness that he is saying what his party is increasingly thinking. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

After the American Legion decision was announced, an activist group is trying to remove a cross from a memorial on Vero Beach. Removing the cross from the monument would reveal a hostility toward religion, which Justice Alito ruled against in The American Legion case. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  There has been a war on religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices occurring in public for some time.  The Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA put an end to that, but some haven’t given up the fight. Back in 1964, residents of Vero Beach, Florida put up a “Lest We Forget” monument. The monument itself looks to be maybe four feet high and about as wide.  On top, sits a cross, at the most 19 inches tall and 12 inches wide. In 2017, a group of activists threatened Vero Beach officials, demanding they remove the memorial or at least knock off the cross from atop the monument.  But, nothing came of it.  Now, after The American Legion v. AHA, the same group is making noise once more. I’m not sure why. As you may have recently heard on the First Liberty Briefing, the Supreme Court has explained that monuments like this are “presumptively constitutional.” The passage of time may further reinforce that this memorial is in keeping with the history and tradition of our country, but what is certainly true is that those opposed to the cross on top of this memorial have no neutral solution.  Taking a sledge hammer to the cross atop this memorial would reveal a certain hostility toward religion that, as Justice Samuel Alito observed in The American Legion v. AHA, tearing down monuments in the name of the law would be “evocative, disturbing, and divisive” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The landmark decision in The American Legion case protects war memorials from destruction all across the country. Americans no longer need to fear these religious symbols on government property. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Over the last five episodes, we have been winding our way through the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case The American Legion v. AHA.  Before we move on to other areas of religious liberty, let’s tie the whole thing together. It’s undeniable that The American Legionis a landmark decision.  The days of activist courts catering to the offense of those who would illegitimately weaponize the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to attack religious symbols on public land are over. Not only is the Peace Cross safe from destruction, so are the hundreds of war memorials honoring veterans across the country. Our Founders would’ve been appalled at attempts by activists to purge the landscape of religious symbols in our country. We are a religious people, living in a diverse society. None of us should be surprised at the presence of religious symbols interspersed with secular ones in the public square.  Quite simply, Americans need no longer fear reprisals against the display of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or the national motto on government property. It is fitting that a memorial to the men who died in the “war to end all wars,” now ends the war to end all memorials with religious shapes or symbols.  Thanks to the efforts of The American Legion, and some good lawyering at First Liberty Institute, today we have more freedom than we did just a few weeks ago. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The Lemon Test is the main proponent in religious monuments and symbols being torn down. While the American Legion case didn’t overrule the Lemon Test, the Justices expressed significant skepticism of it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Over the last few episodes, we have been making our way through First Liberty’s latest Supreme Court case, The American Legion v. AHA.  Today, it’s all about Lemon. Of course, we’re not talking about citrus, but the test stemming from the court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman from several decades ago.  Lemonhas been the primary means by which opponents of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices have torn down, erased, or ended them.  But, thanks to The American Legion case, those days are over. In the words of a plurality of Justices, “Lemon ambitiously attempted to distill from the Court’s existing case law a test that would bring order and predictability to Establishment Clause decision making.”  But it didn’t.  So, the plurality expressed significant skepticism of the test, but stopped short of overruling it.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, evaluated all the ways the Lemontest has been applied, concluding that unless the state action is coercive, monuments and practices rooted in our history and tradition are just fine.  Justice Neil Gorsuch called Lemon“a misadventure.” Justice Clarence Thomas, also concurring, agreed with the plurality’s thinking, but said, “I would take the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts.” Bottom line for those who wish to attack religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, they’re going to have to find another case. We’ll wrap up our evaluation of this case in our next episode. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The removal of the Bladensburg monument would not be considered neutral by the justices. The passage of time turns the monument into a historical monument, rather than the focus being on religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. In The American Legion v. AHA, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Peace Cross was, and is, a religious symbol.  The Justices even noted that some who erected the memorial had a religious motivation in doing so.  But, the majority of the court rejected the idea that that religious symbolism or religious meaning meant the memorial must be destroyed. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the Justices, “Even if the original purpose of a monument was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment.” Over time, he notes, “a community may preserve such monuments, symbols, and practices for the sake of their historical significance or their place in a common cultural heritage” and “as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established monument, symbol, or practice often multiply.” In other words, what was once viewed as religious may now simply be considered historical. But, the passage of time makes that line more difficult to see. But, that’s ok.  As Justice Alito explained, “With sufficient time, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices can become embedded features of a community’s landscape and identity. The community may come to value them without necessarily embracing their religious roots.” And, if it is so firmly rooted to the community, he concluded, “removing it may no longer appear neutral.” On the next First Liberty Briefing, let’s talk about what The American Legion case means for the Lemon test. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The Justices wanted to remain neutral and tearing down the monument would be hostile towards religion. They emphasized that respecting monuments and symbols of religion is the best way to remain neutral towards religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. This is the third in a series of episodes exploring the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case, The American Legion v. AHA.  In this episode, we turn to the issue of hostility toward religion. It’s clear that the Justices wished to respect the presence of the memorial and what it has come to mean for the people of Bladensburg, Maryland.  Though opponents of the memorial clamored for neutrality, removing the Peace Cross would not be a neutral act by the government. As the majority explained, “requiring their removal would not be viewed by many as a neutral act” and “would be seen by many as profoundly disrespectful.”  Worse, the court’s majority observed, “a campaign to obliterate items with religious associations may evidence hostility to religion even if those religious associations are no longer in the forefront.” In our next episode, we will look at that last part and the evolution of this particular religious symbol into what it means today, but don’t miss this critical point: the Justices of the Supreme Court are communicating to the nation that genuine neutrality toward religion means respecting religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices, not destroying, altering, or hiding them. As Justice Alito explained in his majority opinion, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.” Stay tuned for more. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

A lawsuit could once be filed because someone was offended by the fact that a religious monument was in a public area. Now instead of being removed just because someone dislikes it, the monument must be proved unconstitutional, which is much more difficult to achieve. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. In our last episode, we learned that memorials with religious symbolism bear a “strong presumption of constitutionality,” according to Justice Alito’s majority opinion in The American Legion v. AHA.  But what does that mean? Well, to fully appreciate the court’s decision, you need to understand how these lawsuits once worked.  Previously, if someone saw what the Supreme Court calls “religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices,” a lawsuit could be filed based on little more than the offense of having been exposed to such a thing on public property.  It was called “offended observer standing” and, as Justice Gorsuch made clear in his concurring opinion, “If individuals and groups could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it, we would risk exceeding the judiciary’s limited constitutional mandate and infringing on powers committed to other branches of government.” Instead, those merely offended by the presence of a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice must now rebut the presumption that such religious displays are constitutional.  That’s a far more difficult standard to overcome and one certain to dissuade suits from even being filed.  Of course, there’s a reason why the court shifted the burden.  On our next episode of the First Liberty Briefing, we will discuss how the Justices are combatting hostility toward religion. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices rule that the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Prince George County, Maryland should remain standing. The majority opinion acknowledges that the memorial’s age makes it a part of the community. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It may have been a long time coming, but the freedom First Liberty Institute secured in The American Legion v. AHA is significant.  You will recall that at issue in the case was the Peace Cross, a World War I monument Gold Star Mothers erected to remember 49 sons of Prince George’s County, Maryland who died in the Great War. That idea came in 1919 and The American Legion dedicated it in 1925. Everything was fine until 2013 when someone decided they were offended at the presence of a cross on public property, ignoring the surrounding memorials to other wars in what is known as Memorial Park.  In June of 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision.  Seven of the nine Justices wrote an opinion, making the decision somewhat difficult to decipher.  But the clear majority of seven Justices ruled that the memorial should stay right where it is. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, explained the fact that the memorial bears religious symbolism does not mean the memorial must be destroyed or moved to private property.  That is all the more true when memorials age and become a central part of the community itself. “The passage of time,” Justice Alito wrote, “gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.” In our next episode, we will explore what this “strong presumption of constitutionality” means today. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Tim Goeglein and Craig Osten’s book, “American Restoration: How Faith, Family, and Personal Sacrifice Can Heal our Nation”, addresses solutions to cultural problems that our society is facing in religious liberty today. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Tim Goeglein and Craig Osten just released their new book, “American Restoration.”  It’s a critical examination of our time and place, recognizing the cultural battles our society faces and proposing common sense solutions to the problems Tim and Craig identify.  I’m particularly taken by their evaluation of the state of religious liberty in our country today.  There’s a recognition throughout the chapter that there is a clash between world views and religious liberty seems to be losing ground.  Their solution is simple, yet profound.  “If we are to restore religious liberty, we must engage,” they say.  “We must be involved.  This is a time for a historic flood tide of faithful men and women to get involved in the media, in culture, and in public policy debates at the local, state, regional, and national levels.”  That’s both vitally true and should be obvious to any reader paying close attention. But, here’s the payoff. After calling for involvement at every level, they conclude, “But in doing so, we cannot compromise the core beliefs of our faith if we are to successfully restore America’s spiritual formation and God-given freedoms.” Compromise erodes freedoms and that is not less true in the battle for religious freedom.  The loss of religious freedom is itself a loss of freedom.  And, at the same time, the more gains for the free exercise of religion we achieve, the more free our nation becomes.  The founders understood that.  My friends Tim Goeglein and Craig Osten do too.  Perhaps you ought to also read their new book, “American Restoration: How Faith, Family, and Personal Sacrifice Can Heal our Nation.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

South Dakota has new law that public schools will display the national motto, “In God We Trust”, and many people are unhappy about it. Every circuit court has deemed it constitutional and it has been upheld that the motto has nothing to do with the establishment of religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Under a new law, South Dakota’s public schools will now display the national motto on school property.  But, not everyone is very happy displaying “In God We Trust” on public property.  One anti-religion activist called the idea “exclusionary and aimed at brainwashing American schoolchildren.”  Well, the only brainwashing seems to come from anti-religion activists with a bent to exclude, based on inaccurate information! Indeed, few words are more in keeping with our history and law than the National Motto.  Francis Scott Key included the line, “And this be our motto: ‘in God is our Trust’” in the further verse of the Star Spangled Banner. It went on our coins in 1864 and became the official motto in 1956, a year before it appeared on all our currency. It’s even displayed above the Speaker’s Rostrum in Congress! Every one of the 11 circuit courts of appeal to consider the motto has deemed it constitutional.  The Ninth Circuit has twice upheld the motto, explaining in one case that the motto “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.” So, the next time you hear someone suggest that it violates the constitution, just use the words of the Sixth Circuit who determined that a court removing the motto from government property would be “ludicrous.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Supreme Court of the United States sends Aaron and Melissa Klein’s case back to Oregon Courts to ensure the Klein’s had a fair trial and address the $135,000 state sanction that was put on them for discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The Supreme Court of the United States recently sent our case involving Aaron and Melissa Klein back to Oregon.  You may be wondering: why didn’t the Justices just decide the issue once and for all?  It’s a fair question, and only 9 Americans really know the answer, but perhaps part of the reason is that state-sanctioned hostility to religion keeps getting in the way.  By remanding the case for review in consideration of the Masterpiece Cakeshopdecision, it seems the Justices are asking the lower court to ensure, first, that the Kleins had a fair trial. That could be difficult.  Oregon’s administrator evaluating the charges suggested that the Kleins needed to be “rehabilitated.”  But, only the guilty are in need of rehabilitation. Prejudging the case seems unfair. But, the Justices seem even more concerned with ensuring state officials respect the religious beliefs of those accused of discrimination.  Issuing a $135,000 penalty for “emotional damages” and imposing a gag order barring any public speech discussing their beliefs on the situation, suggests that the State of Oregon was less than respectful toward Aaron and Melissa’s religious beliefs. In other words, it seems that the Justices are trying to stop the bleeding, stemming from an unfair process and state-sanctioned contempt for religious beliefs in public.  Once that bleeding stops, perhaps the court can diagnose and treat the actual problem.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Saying “So help me God” at the end of the oath is a part of our country’s history and tradition. Removing it is taking away the acknowledgement of accountability outside oneself. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives recently decided to remove the phrase, “so help me God” from the end of the oath. Witnesses appearing before Congress now end the oath that they will bear truthful witness before the body without invoking anything higher than themselves or the politicians they face.  Call it a “Congressional pinky promise.” Representative Steve Cohen told the New York Times, “I think God belongs in religious institutions: in temple, in church, in cathedral, in mosque — but not in Congress.” George Washington tagged the phrase “so help me God” to the end of his initial oath of office on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City.  The tradition stuck and eventually became part of federal law in 1966. In other words, like “In God We Trust”and “God Bless America”and the Pledge of Allegiance’s “under God,”the phrase “so help me God” is part of our history and tradition.  But, beyond history and tradition, acknowledging accountability outside oneself, or the men and women assembled on the dais of a congressional hearing room, is important in our republican democracy.  In other words, the use of the phrase “so help me God” acknowledges there is something to which each of us are accountable beyond ourselves and beyond government.  When we proudly reject these limitations upon our authority, we assert ourselves as an authority unto ourselves.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Federal policy states that their research and education grants must comply with all Federal law, regulations, and policies. Yale is receiving federal grants, so their discrimination of religion is violating federal policy. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. When a student group demanded that Yale Law School end financial assistance to students choosing to intern or work for faith-based organizations, Yale complied.  Now, they’re under investigation. Yale University’s endowment is $29.4 billion. Yet, it receives in excess of $480millionin federal grants and contracts.  As a private institution, Yale is entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion; however, under federal policy, federal contractors and grant recipients are not. Now, Senator Ted Cruz, chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, has opened an investigation.  The question is whether Yale’s new policy runs afoul of President Trump’s Executive Order designed to improve “Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.” According to the EO, the various federal agencies administering grants and contracts to the nation’s top institutions of higher learning are to, “take appropriate steps . . . to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.” Yale Law School’s policy of “no stipends for religious work” violates this policy.  Taxpayers should not subsidize that decision with a half billiondollars in aid.  Religious organizations provide tremendous value to the citizens of this country.  Yale’s policy treats them as a scourge.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The San Antonio City Council promises no discrimination, however they removed Chick-fil-A from the airport for being closed on Sundays. The city cannot violate the First Amendment that protects citizens from religious discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. You probably know by now that the City Council of San Antonio, Texas decided to remove Chick-fil-A from its airport.  That is, as a part of a multi-million dollar renovation of the airport, Chick-fil-A had won the bid to have a store. But, the city council decided that, because its owners gave money to organizations like the Salvation Army, Chick-fil-A could no longer be a part of their airport.  Of course, the mayor denies that there was any religious discrimination involved.  Instead, he blamed it on the fact that Chick-fil-A—which makes more per store than Subway, Starbucks, and McDonald’s combined—is closed on Sunday.  First Liberty Institute sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation asking for an investigation into San Antonio’s decision.  Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that they have opened the investigation we asked for, looking into whether San Antonio’s actions violate promises of nondiscrimination they made in seeking millions of dollars in federal grants for the airport renovation. The San Antonio City Council may spend its taxpayer dollars as its citizens will tolerate. However, it cannot do so in a way that brazenly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. After all, federal taxpayers should not be required to subsidize bigotry against religion.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The HOA told the Morris Family they were not able to display their Christmas decorations on the basis of religion. This violates the Fair Housing Act which ensures no religious discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Jeremy Morris likes to decorate for Christmas. Actually, that’s underselling it by quite a bit.  Jeremy Morris, and his wife Kristy, decorate nearly every inch of their home with Christmas lights.  The display in northern Idaho became such a hit at Christmas time, they decided to make it a community event.  When folks would stop by to see the display, they would invite them onto their driveway for hot chocolate, a picture with Santa, and even an opportunity to share with them the Biblical story of Christmas. When the Morris’s decided to move into a new neighborhood, they looked at the homeowner’s association’s covenants and didn’t see any problem with the display.  Still, wanting to be good neighbors, they gave the HOA a heads up. That’s when things took a turn. The HOA explained in a letter that “some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith,” noting that they were concerned for the “problems that could bring up.”  So, on the basis of religion, they told them they could not decorate their house at Christmas—even though houses in the neighborhood are decorated for Halloween.  So, Jeremy filed a lawsuit and a jury determined that the HOA violated the Fair Housing Act, engaging in religious discrimination.  But, soon after, a federal judge overruled the jury’s verdict! First Liberty has taken on the appeal, hoping to restore the jury’s verdict. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.