Podcast appearances and mentions of Carson V Makin

full Relevant Radio 99760dc8-afb3-42f4-9c3d-af740102024f 99760dc8-afb3-42f4-9c3d-af740102024f Fri, 23 Dec 2022 15:41:21 +0000 3068

Kirby West is an attorney at the Institute for Justice. Earlier this year, she worked on the IJ team that successfully litigated Carson v. Makin at the Supreme Court of the United States. In the Season 2 opener, Kirby joins Jon and new host Robert Capodilupo to talk about Carson v. Makin, educational choice, and free exercise litigation.

School choice litigation has come a long way in the modern era of advancing educational freedom. Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice details the big win in Carson v. Makin and what might come next. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Barely Legal, we talk about Carson v. Makin, a case regarding schools and religion but more specifically with government funding for religious schools. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088 !

*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required. A reading of the recent opinion of the Court in Carson v. Makin (2022). The constitutional question before the Court was: does a Maine state law prohibiting students from choosing to use otherwise generally available student-aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution? This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088   Music by Epidemic Sound    

Liz and Rebecca recap the case, which was discussed in Episode 1, and review the decision handed down by the Supreme Court at the end of June. They also discuss the impact this has for the separation of state and church moving forward. Background SCOTUS Decision   Check us out on Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice

In this episode, we track back to last month to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Carson v. Makin, which has major significance for parental rights in schooling, with the Court holding that public programs cannot discriminate against a school simply for being a religious school.After that, we continue our discussion of the French Revolution and why it actually doesn't make much sense to liken it to the American movement for independence by comparing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen to the American Declaration of Independence.Finally, we bring you the hottest legal takes from the internet. Topics include: why “the physics” don't count as a witness in a trial, why overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't automatically release all military personnel from their contracts, and why it's not illegal for Supreme Court justices to be Catholic.Carson v. Makin (0:06:00)The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (0:28:00)Hot takes (1:17:50)

School systems that are inherently discriminatory may be the next big target for the educational freedom movement. Neal McCluskey comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

You can check out the Ladies Love Politics blog and read a transcript/references of this episode at www.ladieslovepolitics.com. If you're looking for something to listen to besides politics, check out my crime podcast on YouTube.Ladies Love Crime: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Z3F_1rn3a637H_p7YtMUgBackground Music Credit:Music: Hang for Days - Silent Partner https://youtu.be/A41A0XeU2dsREFERENCES:https://ballotpedia.org/Carson_v._Makinhttps://www.newsweek.com/justice-alito-asks-if-maine-schools-teaching-crt-would-excluded-public-funding-1657325https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/

On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice

Not allowed to discriminate based solely on religion.Support the show

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/outofypsi/support

A breakdown of Carson V. Makin Decision.

Does the Constitution require our government to fund religion? In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court says, for the first time, that if a state has a program that includes funding for private schools it must also provide funding for religious schools. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the Carson v. Makin decision, which shows how the Supreme Court is shifting further and further away from the Establishment Clause's protections of religious liberty for all. They explore the Court's “bait and switch” to make this radical shift seem not so bad, and they look at all of the reasons the Framers thought it was smart to avoid government funding of religion. In segment three, Amanda and Holly review the latest misleading headlines that conflate “religious liberty” with a promotion of free exercise rights at the expense of Establishment Clause protections.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1: A radical shift in religious liberty law (starting at 03:50) You can contact Amanda and Holly with your thoughts on the show by writing to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org. Amanda Tweeted her reaction to the Dobbs decision on Friday, June 24. You can see her Tweet thread here.  Holly and Amanda recorded this episode before the Court released its opinion in the Kennedy v. Bremerton case on June 27, 2022. They will analyze that case in the next episode of Respecting Religion. Access BJC's resources on Carson v. Makin at BJConline.org/CarsonvMakin, including the brief we joined, Holly's article for our winter magazine, and our statement on decision day.  Read the Supreme Court decision in Carson v. Makin at this link. We mentioned the two recent cases that led to this case: Trinity Lutheran v. Comer: BJConline.org/TrinityLutheran Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue: BJConline.org/Espinoza   Segment 2: Where's the Establishment Clause?  (starting at 19:18) Holly and Amanda mentioned these cases when discussing how the Court abandoned the “play in the joints” principle in religious freedom law and the impact of this case in state funding of religious schools:  Locke v. Davey (2004) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Amanda quoted from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson. Holly quoted from Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, written by James Madison.   Segment #3: More misleading headlines (starting at 33:02) Amanda and Holly discussed this New York Times newsletter written by Ian Prasad Philbrick: A Pro-Religion Court. It also links to a piece by Adam Liptak with some misleading shorthand, titled Supreme Court Rejects Maine's Ban on Aid to Religious Schools. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

We have a Supreme episode of the Right and Wrong show today! We'll be talking about some of the major rulings that were made by the Supreme Court this past week. We'll discuss the Dobbs decision and debunk some of the common leftist talking points.Religious rights are alive and well because of the rulings in the Coach Kennedy V Bremerton School District and the Carson V Makin cases.We're also going to talk about the major win for the second amendment in the right to carry case against the state of New York. We've also got our Rights and Wrongs of the week and the always popular “Come On Man” segment of the day.

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Arif Panju, a managing attorney with the Institute for Justice and co-counsel in the U.S. Supreme Court school choice case, Carson v. Makin; and David Carson, the lead plaintiff. Panju shares the key legal contours of Carson v. Makin and the potential impact of […]

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Arif Panju, a managing attorney with the Institute for Justice and co-counsel in the U.S. Supreme Court school choice case, Carson v. Makin; and David Carson, the lead plaintiff. Panju shares the key legal contours of Carson v. Makin and the potential impact of the Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs. Source

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Arif Panju, a managing attorney with the Institute for Justice and co-counsel in the U.S. Supreme Court school choice case, Carson v. Makin; and David Carson, the lead plaintiff. Panju shares the key legal contours of Carson v. Makin and the potential impact of the Court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs. Source

Sarah Parshall Perry is on from Heritage Foundation to get into this seminal ruling for school choice. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1 & 2  Dissecting Carson v. Makin and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v Bruen Carson v. Makin:  In a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court has ruled that Maine violated the Free Exercise Clause by restricting its program of tuition assistance to private schools that are “nonsectarian.” Vec discusses “Free Exercise” in the Supreme Court case of Carson v. Makin. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v Bruen: The Supreme Court has struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home. Mark dissects the 2nd Amendment Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Virginia's Lieutenant Governor is on to look back at the budget session, look forward to the midderms and get into a Supreme Court Ruling that NO ONE's talking about... Carson v. Makin (hint; School Choice) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court delivers rulings for school choice and abortion: an in-depth analysis of the Carson V Makin case and initial reactions to the historic overturn of Roe V Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Cardinal Timothy Dolan is “On the Record” to discuss Religious Freedom Week in the U.S. Plus, a look at the tenth annual World Meeting of Families in Rome.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern react to the Supreme Court's decision in Carson v Makin, a blockbuster religious liberty case that sees the court traveling a long way in a short time, and trampling the establishment clause along the way,  Slate Plus members have access to the whole interview.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. . Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern react to the Supreme Court's decision in Carson v Makin, a blockbuster religious liberty case that sees the court traveling a long way in a short time, and trampling the establishment clause along the way,  Slate Plus members have access to the whole interview.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. . Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

6/22/22 6am CT Hour John and Glen chat about School Choice ruling, earthquake in Afghanistan and progress of gun control law. Emily talks about how we can redirect the focus of June from celebrating Pride to the virtues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, namely humility, purity and charity. Ashley reports on the Pope's weekly General audience, the draught in Italy, looking at archeological sites in 3D and the Nemi Strawberry Festival. Andrea breaks down the history of the Carson v Makin case and what the repercussions are for religious freedom and school choice due to the Supreme Court's ruling.

What You Need to Know is about Carson v. Makin. This decision ruled that you cannot focus and discriminate against private schools — Supreme Court says Maine cannot bar religious schools from state tuition program. This has been a long time coming. This allows parents who receive taxpayer-funded tuition payments to use them at religious schools. This is more movement towards more religious liberty. More and more states must pass laws that allow parents to decide where their kids go to school.  Adam Andrzejewski, founder of Open the Books, shares a recent story — C-SPAN: Sen. Rand Paul Grills Dr. Fauci on Receiving Royalty Payments from NIH. Adam talks about third parties giving money to the NIH and how that money was used to pay Dr. Fauci and other doctors. This appears to be a conflict of interest and Dr. Fauci basically refuses to share any information on receiving these payments. Check out OpenTheBooks.com. Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor at Human Events, Veteran Navy intel officer, and author, talks about an offshoot group from Antifa called Jane's Revenge — WATCH: Posobiec on Jane's Revenge, an Emerging 'Movement' of Pro-Abortion 'Violent Radicals'. Jack explains that there are people trying to overturn our life and destabilize our country and this is being done by design. Be sure to check out Human Events Daily with Jack Posobiec.  What You Need to Do is remember the many people who made a difference in Pro-Life efforts including David Daleiden — Planned Parenthood Trashes David Daleiden After He Exposed It Again for Selling Aborted Baby Parts.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Horace Cooper, legal commentator and Co-Chair of the Black Leadership Network Project 21 and author of  "How Trump is Making Black America Great Again and Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), discusses the opinions coming from the Supreme Court today, one in particular the Carson V Makin case, where the ACLJ participated in the filing.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The State of Maine relies on local school administrative units (SAUs) to ensure that every school-age child in the state has access to a free education. Not every SAU operates its own public secondary school. To meet the state requirements, an SAU without its own public secondary school may either (1) contract with a secondary school to provide school privileges or (2) pay the tuition of a secondary school at which a particular student is accepted. In either circumstance, the secondary school must be either a public school or an “approved” private school. To be an “approved” school, a private school must meet the state's compulsory attendance requirements (which can be demonstrated by accreditation by a New England association of schools and colleges or by approval by the Maine Department of Education), and it must be “nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment.” The Carsons, Gillises, and Nelsons live in SAUs that do not operate a public secondary school of their own but instead provide tuition assistance to parents who send their children to an “approved” private school. The three families opted to send their children to private schools that are accredited but do not meet the nonsectarian requirement because they are religiously affiliated. Because the schools are not “approved,” they do not qualify for tuition assistance. The families filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the “nonsectarian” requirement violates the Constitution on its face and as applied. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted judgment to the State and denied judgment to the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, noting that it had twice before rejected similar challenges, and even though the U.S. Supreme Court had decided two relevant cases in the interim, those cases do not produce a different outcome here. The case was decided on June 21, 2022. The Court held that Maine's “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part 1–B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Liz, Rebecca, Alison and Monica discuss the “sleeper case” of the Supreme Court term which could upend prohibitions on government funding to religious schools. The lawyers break down the arguments from the case out of Maine, Carson v. Makin, and discuss ramifications and potential outcomes. Background Oral Arguments SCOTUS Blog The Atlantic - “The Sleeper SCOTUS Case That Threatens the Separation of Church and State” Slate - “The Supreme Court's New Religious Liberty Case Could Destroy Public Education”   Relevant Cases Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017) Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue (2020) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Locke v. Davey (2004) Widmar v. Vincent (1981)

Dr. Grazie Christie chats with TCA colleagues Ashley McGuire and Maureen Ferguson about Disney's recent decision to wade into gender identity politics--and the three offer other entertainment platforms that offer more enriching content for our children. With Carson v. Makin being decided this Spring by the Supreme Court, Notre Dame law professor Nicole Garnett offers insights on this very important case revolving around religious freedom and school choice. Father Roger Landry also offers an inspiring homily for Palm Sunday. Catch the show every Saturday at 7amET/5pmET on EWTN radio!

Father Mykhailo Kuzma, The importance of the consecration to the Mother of God and of praying the Rosary  Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, Carson v. Makin: Anti-Catholic Amendments

On December 8th, the Court heard arguments in Carson v. Makin, a case which concerned whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student aid program from choosing their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or sectarian, instruction. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Professor Nicole Garnett, The John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. This episode begins with coverage of the question and background, and proceeds in second part to focused analysis of oral argument.

You're listening to this podcast on the old feed! Join us on the feed called "Respecting Religion" for the latest episodes. It's a frustrating day at the Supreme Court when several justices seem not to care about the reasons religion gets special treatment in our constitutional system. Amanda and Holly share audio clips and their reaction to the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin, including spotting some faux outrage from the justices and how six justices seem poised to chart a new and troublesome direction in church-state law. They talk about obvious differences between determining protecting free exercise of religion and requiring taxpayer funding of religious education. In segment three, Amanda and Holly share how they are welcoming the holidays.   SHOW NOTES: Segment one: Why should religion be treated differently? (starting at 00:55): Amanda and Holly previewed the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin in episode 5: What's the problem with the government funding religious education?  Amanda shared her first impressions of the oral arguments on Twitter. You can read her thread here. You can follow her on Twitter @AmandaTylerBJC.  We played the following clips from the oral arguments, available at this link. *Michael Bindas, attorney for the challenge to Maine's program: 1:31-2:09 *Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration 1:31:36-1:32:46   Segment two: Is this a choice program? Is there discrimination between different religions? (starting at 14:40) We played the following clips from the oral arguments, available at this link: *Christopher Taub, attorney defending Maine's program: 42:54-44:14 *Justice Elena Kagan: 29:15-30:04, and then 30:30-31:17   Segment three: The advent of the holiday season (starting at 29:08) Amanda and Holly talked about this New York Times piece by Tish Harrison Warren: I'm not ready for Christmas. I need to take a minute.  Amanda wrote a devotional for Word & Way's Unsettling Advent series. You can read her devotional here, and read the entire series here. Subscribe to get future editions sent to your inbox.    Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

It's a frustrating day at the Supreme Court when several justices seem not to care about the reasons religion gets special treatment in our constitutional system. Amanda and Holly share audio clips and their reaction to the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin, including spotting some faux outrage from the justices and how six justices seem poised to chart a new and troublesome direction in church-state law. They talk about obvious differences between determining protecting free exercise of religion and requiring taxpayer funding of religious education. In segment three, Amanda and Holly share how they are welcoming the holidays.   Segment one: Why should religion be treated differently? (starting at 00:55): Amanda and Holly previewed the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin in episode 5: What's the problem with the government funding religious education?  Amanda shared her first impressions of the oral arguments on Twitter. You can read her thread here. You can follow her on Twitter @AmandaTylerBJC.  We played the following clips from the oral arguments, available at this link. *Michael Bindas, attorney for the challenge to Maine's program: 1:31-2:09 *Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration 1:31:36-1:32:46   Segment two: Is this a choice program? Is there discrimination between different religions? (starting at 14:40) We played the following clips from the oral arguments, available at this link: *Christopher Taub, attorney defending Maine's program: 42:54-44:14 *Justice Elena Kagan: 29:15-30:04, and then 30:30-31:17   Segment three: The advent of the holiday season (starting at 29:08) Amanda and Holly talked about this New York Times piece by Tish Harrison Warren: I'm not ready for Christmas. I need to take a minute.  Amanda wrote a devotional for Word & Way's Unsettling Advent series. You can read her devotional here, and read the entire series here. Subscribe to get future editions sent to your inbox.    Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, who represents the lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Carson v. Makin. They discussed last week's oral arguments, and the background and key legal contours of the case. Bindas described Maine's school tuitioning program... Source

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, who represents the lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Carson v. Makin. They discussed last week's oral arguments, and the background and key legal contours of the case. Bindas described Maine's school tuitioning […]

On December 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carson v. Makin on the question of whether a state violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction. […]

In the last week before the Court’s Christmas break, it heard oral arguments in several interesting cases concerning immigration courts, the fiduciary duties owed by retirement plans administrators, habeas corpus proceedings, and the big school choice case, Carson v. Makin. Your hosts discuss all of those cases, and Zack offers his predictions for Carson. Zack […]

In the last week before the Court's Christmas break, it heard oral arguments in several interesting cases concerning immigration courts, the fiduciary duties owed by retirement plans administrators, habeas corpus proceedings, and the big school choice case, Carson v. Makin. Your hosts discuss all of those cases, and Zack offers his predictions for Carson. Zack also interviews preeminent Supreme Court litigator Charles "Chuck" Cooper about his storied career. Finally, GianCarlo tests Zack's knowledge of the Supreme Court's use of scholarly articles in opinions. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss Carson v. Makin at the Supreme Court, the Olympics in China, and Biden confronting Putin over Ukraine. They also talk about biblical justice, friendship and the pro-life movement, and vaccine mandates. ERLC ContentJordan Wootten with How the debate on life might be won through friendshipMark Kelly with Five basic truths about biblical justicePolicy Staff with Explainer: What is Carson v. Makin about?CultureBiden confronts Putin over UkraineCarson v. Makin before the Supreme Court; ERLC filed briefChina says US diplomatic boycott violates Olympic spiritDemocrats souring on vaccine mandatesLunchroomLindsay: Hawkeye on Disney+Brent: UPenn transgender swimmerConnect with us on Twitter@ERLC@LeatherwoodTN@LindsNicoletSponsorsThe Dawn of Redeeming Grace // This episode was sponsored by The Good Book Company, publisher of The Dawn of Redeeming Grace .Join Sinclair Ferguson as he opens up the first two chapters of Matthew's Gospel in these daily devotions for Advent. Each day's reflection is full of insight and application and will help you to arrive at Christmas Day awed by God's redeeming grace and refreshed by the hope of God's promised King. Find out more about this book at thegoodbook.com.Outrageous Justice // God calls us to seek justice. But how should Christians respond? Outrageous Justice, a free small-group study from experts at Prison Fellowship, offers Christians a place to start. Explore the criminal justice system through a biblical lens and discover hands-on ways to pursue justice, hope, and restoration in your community. Get your free copy of Outrageous Justice, featuring a study guide, videos, and a companion book today! Visit prisonfellowship.org/outrageous-justice.

On December 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carson v. Makin on the question of whether a state violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction.We are joined by two experts, one of whom will argue the case before the Supreme Court for the petitioner, to discuss the legal issues involved and the implications of oral arguments. Featuring:-- Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice-- Daniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL READING PART 1 (0:0 - 10:15): ────────────────── Can States Constitutionally Discriminate Against Religious Schools? — Nation's Highest Court Hears Oral Arguments over Big Separation of Church and State Case from Maine THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Carson v. Makin PART 2 (10:16 - 16:19): ────────────────── The State of Maine Is OK with Funding Religious Schools — So Long as They Are Not Actually Religious SLATE (MARK JOSEPH STERN) The Supreme Court's New Religious Liberty Case Could Destroy Public Education VOX (IAN MILLHISER) The Supreme Court Appears Really Eager to Force Taxpayers to Fund Religious Education PART 3 (16:20 - 22:33): ────────────────── Biden Appointee for Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Withdraws from Confirmation Fight . . Over Questions About Communism? NEW YORK TIMES (EMILY FLITTER) President Biden's Pick for a Key Banking Regulator Backs Out. PART 4 (22:34 - 25:0): ────────────────── Identity Politics Never Gives Up: The Media's Constant Focus on LGBTQ Identity, as in “First Openly Gay Commissioner of Customs and Border Control" NEW YORK TIMES (EILEEN SULLIVAN) Senate Confirms Chris Magnus to Lead Customs and Border Protection

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.Date                   Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Feb 04 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 11, 2021)Feb 26 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, David Carson, et al.Mar 09 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and yes. every kid. filed.Mar 09 2021 | Waiver of right of respondent A. Pender Makin to respond filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition of Religious Liberty filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Council of Islamic Schools in North America, Partnership for Inner-City Education, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Innovative Schools filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Legal Foundation, et al. filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of EdChoice filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center,et al. filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of Arkansas, et al. filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)Mar 16 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.Mar 22 2021 | Response Requested. (Due April 21, 2021)Mar 26 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 21, 2021 to May 21, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Mar 29 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 21, 2021.Apr 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.May 21 2021 | Brief of respondent A. Pender Makin in opposition filed.Jun 03 2021 | Reply of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed.Jun 07 2021 | Supplemental brief of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jun 08 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.Jul 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.Jul 02 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Jul 09 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jul 09 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, David Carson, et al.Jul 12 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 22, 2021.Jul 14 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, A. Pender MakinSep 03 2021 | Brief of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed.Sep 03 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of World Faith Foundation, et al. filed.Sep 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.Sep 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Michael W. McConnell filed.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center, et al. filed.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, et al. filed.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition of Religious Liberty filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Charles L. Glenn filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Members of the United States Senate filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Ashley R. Berner filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al., filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Freedom X filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Advancing American Freedom filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Partnership for Inner-City Education, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Pioneer Institute filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Independent Women's Law Center and Independent Women's Forum filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Concerned Women for America, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Innovative Schools filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of EdChoice, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference - Memphis Chapter, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Arkansas, et al.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, Inc. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Hillsdale College filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA), et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Georgia Goal Scholarship Program, Inc. filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 8, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.Oct 04 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer also received is one envelope with the Joint Appendix.Oct 08 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. District Court of Maine is electronic and located on Pacer.Oct 22 2021 | Brief of respondent A. Pender Makin filed.Oct 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of State of Vermont filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDOct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Virginia, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Education and Constitutional Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Funds Public Schools filed.Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Freedom From Religion Foundation and Center for Inquiry filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Atheists, Inc. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancement Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Religious and Civil-Rights Organizations, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Maine School Management Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Nov 08 2021 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Nov 22 2021 | Reply of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed. (Distributed)DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Feb 04 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 11, 2021)Feb 26 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, David Carson, et al.Mar 09 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and yes. every kid. filed.Mar 09 2021 | Waiver of right of respondent A. Pender Makin to respond filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition of Religious Liberty filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Council of Islamic Schools in North America, Partnership for Inner-City Education, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Innovative Schools filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Legal Foundation, et al. filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of EdChoice filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center,et al. filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of Arkansas, et al. filed.Mar 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)Mar 16 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.Mar 22 2021 | Response Requested. (Due April 21, 2021)Mar 26 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 21, 2021 to May 21, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Mar 29 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 21, 2021.Apr 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.May 21 2021 | Brief of respondent A. Pender Makin in opposition filed.Jun 03 2021 | Reply of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed.Jun 07 2021 | Supplemental brief of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jun 08 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.Jul 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.Jul 02 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Jul 09 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jul 09 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, David Carson, et al.Jul 12 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 22, 2021.Jul 14 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, A. Pender MakinSep 03 2021 | Brief of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed.Sep 03 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of World Faith Foundation, et al. filed.Sep 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.Sep 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Michael W. McConnell filed.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center, et al. filed.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, et al. filed.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition of Religious Liberty filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Charles L. Glenn filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Members of the United States Senate filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Ashley R. Berner filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al., filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Freedom X filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Advancing American Freedom filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Partnership for Inner-City Education, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Pioneer Institute filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Independent Women's Law Center and Independent Women's Forum filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Concerned Women for America, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Innovative Schools filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of EdChoice, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference - Memphis Chapter, et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Arkansas, et al.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, Inc. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Hillsdale College filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA), et al. filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Georgia Goal Scholarship Program, Inc. filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 8, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.Oct 04 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer also received is one envelope with the Joint Appendix.Oct 08 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. District Court of Maine is electronic and located on Pacer.Oct 22 2021 | Brief of respondent A. Pender Makin filed.Oct 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of State of Vermont filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDOct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Virginia, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Education and Constitutional Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Funds Public Schools filed.Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Freedom From Religion Foundation and Center for Inquiry filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Atheists, Inc. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancement Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Religious and Civil-Rights Organizations, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Maine School Management Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Nov 08 2021 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Nov 22 2021 | Reply of petitioners David Carson, et al. filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

December 8, 2021 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Carson v. Makin

Carson v. Makin | 12/08/21 | Docket #: 20-1088

A case in which the Court will decide whether a state law prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

A case in which the Court held that a state law prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

You are subscribed to our old feed! Subscribe to "Respecting Religion" on this same provider to get the clean feed and to access show notes! A central concern for BJC in protecting faith freedom for all involves keeping the government out of religion, and that principle is at stake at the Supreme Court next week. Holly and Amanda preview the case of Carson v. Makin, talking about the Baptist beginnings of protecting religious liberty, the importance of religious education, the unique school system in the state of Maine, and how this case is different from cases involving school vouchers. After listening to this episode, you'll also be able to impress your friends with trivia about Maine's public school system. In segment three, they talk about a troubling article and share a warning about overreaching arguments. For show notes and additional information, please find this episode on the "Respecting Religion" feed or visit this link: https://bjconline.org/s3-ep-05-government-funding-religious-education-carson-v-makin/

A central concern for BJC in protecting faith freedom for all involves keeping the government out of religion, and that principle is at stake at the Supreme Court next week. Holly and Amanda preview the case of Carson v. Makin, talking about the Baptist beginnings of protecting religious liberty, the importance of religious education, the unique school system in the state of Maine, and how this case is different from cases involving school vouchers. After listening to this episode, you'll also be able to impress your friends with trivia about Maine's public school system. In segment three, they talk about a troubling article and share a warning about overreaching arguments.   SHOW NOTES: Segment one: Why are cases about government funding important? (starting at 00:48) Holly previewed Carson v. Makin in this article for BJC's winter magazine: Forcing states to fund religion Amanda  mentioned this article in The Atlantic by Kimberly Wehle: The Sleeper SCOTUS Case That Threatens the Separation of Church and State  Holly read from the brief of the attorney general of Maine to describe Maine's public education system and the law that provides school administrative units (SAUs) — alternative ways to ensure every child has an opportunity to receive the benefits of a free public education.    Segment two: Is there a free exercise right to government money? (starting at 17:10)Holly mentioned two recent cases that involved Free Exercise Clause claims challenging government programs: Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (the playground case): Learn more at BJConline.org/TrinityLutheran Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue: Learn more at BJConline.org/Espinoza Read the brief BJC joined in Carson v. Makin at this link. Amanda read from James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance: “Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.” Amanda mentioned their conversation about Espinoza on season one, which you can listen to at this link or in your podcast feed.   Segment three: Is Maine discriminating between religions? Spoiler alert: No (starting at 32:31) You can find the link to the article they mention in The Atlantic article linked in segment one.   Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

There aren't enough public schools in Maine. By some estimates, about half of Maine's school districts don't have the facilities or faculty to educate students who live in them. The state's solution is to give families who live in such districts money to send their children to another school—either a different public school further away, or a private school. But Maine doesn't make that funding available to families who choose to send their children to religious schools. In just a few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Carson v. Makin, a case that could affect the way that Maine, and the greater United States, deals with the funding of religious schools. On this week's podcast, the legal academic Avi Helfand joins Mosaic editor Jonathan Silver to discuss the amicus brief that he filed for this case, and to explore whether Maine is acting in a way that is consistent with the First Amendment's religious freedom protections. This particular case also allows for Helfand to question more fundamental legal heuristics, such as the supposed distinction in American case-law between a legal entity's religious "status," and its "use" of religion. Musical selections in this podcast are drawn from the Quintet for Clarinet and Strings, op. 31a, composed by Paul Ben-Haim and performed by the ARC Ensemble.

Our VP of Legal Affairs Leslie Hiner gives an update on the upcoming Carson v. Makin Supreme Court case out of Maine. She also gives us the backstory on why this case is one to really tune into.

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ). They discuss IJ's 2020 landmark U.S. Supreme Court win in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and its implications for state Blaine Amendments, bigoted legal barriers that have blocked religious liberty and school choice for over a […]

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ). They discuss IJ's 2020 landmark U.S. Supreme Court win in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and its implications for state Blaine Amendments, bigoted legal barriers that have blocked religious liberty and school choice for over a... Source

In today's News: New nursing satellite campus opens  At a time when the demand for nurses in central Texas is surging, Concordia University, Austin, Texas, has welcomed 288 new students so far this year to its traditional and accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing programs. But they didn’t report to main campus as usual. In August 2020, under many COVID-19 constraints, the university opened the doors to its Austin Nursing Satellite Campus. The new, interactive learning environment spans 17,000 square feet, complete with a cutting-edge simulation lab, a 10-bed clinical skills lab and simulation debriefing rooms. The building also houses a student lounge and administrative and faculty offices. Rooted in the university’s Christian values, the nursing program features an accredited and rigorous curriculum delivered utilizing an interactive e-learning platform, along with hands-on skills training and clinical rotations at the area’s top hospitals.  Pro-life demonstrators are sued  New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a lawsuit against Republican activists Bevelyn Beatty and Edmee Chavannes for protesting at Planned Parenthood. The federal lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the women from going near the abortion provider’s building. The lawsuit says that the women, who gained viral recognition for repeatedly painting over Black Lives Matter street murals in New York, have been protesting at the clinic nearly every week since 2019. James claims that the women would get close to patients and staff without masks and harass them as they entered the building.  New Mexico considers abortion up to birth  Two extreme abortion bills are heading to the New Mexico House and Senate this week. The bills would allow abortion up to birth in the state. The bills would repeal sections of New Mexico’s 1969 abortions statute. In doing so, they would allow abortion on demand throughout pregnancy and would also end conscience protections that allow medical personnel to opt-out of abortion based on moral or religious grounds. The bills would also remove requirements that parents be aware of a minor daughter’s abortion. According to New Mexico Alliance for Life, the bills will repeal all abortion restrictions put in place by the state’s 1969 criminal abortion statute and would fail to replace the statute with any laws that protect women, their babies or pro-life health care workers. The bills will actively codify abortion up to birth in New Mexico state law, force medical professionals to commit or assist in abortions and force New Mexico taxpayers to continue funding abortions on healthy babies and women throughout pregnancy.  Supreme Court asked to rule on tuition assistance  A group of parents in Maine seeking state tuition assistance to put their children in a religious private school have asked the United States Supreme Court to rule on their behalf. At issue is a state provision that only allows for tuition assistance if a private school is "nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The First Liberty Institute, the Institute for Justice, and others filed the appeal on behalf of the families to the Supreme Court on Friday in the case of Carson v. Makin.