Podcast appearances and mentions of casey mattox

Caleb O. Brown hosted the Cato Daily Podcast for nearly 18 years, producing well over 4000 episodes. He has gone on to head Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute. This is one among the best episodes produced in his tenure, selected by the host and listeners.What happens when public university officials violate your free speech rights? Often, they get qualified immunity, thus shielding them from the consequences of those actions. Casey Mattox with Americans for Prosperity comments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder, was detained by ICE on March 8 and faces deportation for his involvement in the protests and disruptions at Columbia University related to the war between Hamas and Israel. The U.S. government cites an immigration law provision allowing his deportation because of “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Critics have argued that the government's action is retaliation for his speech. How does the Constitution apply in the case of non-citizens legally present in the U.S.? What is the role of the courts here? Join us on April 1 at 11 AM EST for a conversation between Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their conversation will be moderated by Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together. Featuring: Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan InstituteModerator: Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.

Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, joins Sarah and David to read between the lines of the Constitution to find and define unenumerated rights. Be sure to check out his books, America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By and The Words that Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840. And stick around after the interview for a brief Alito flag update. —Akhil Amar's two-tier theory of jurisdictions —AO episode with Judge Newsom mentioning unenumerated rights —Ezra Klein's article on the Second Amendment —District of Columbia v. Heller —McDonald v. City of Chicago —New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen —Akhil Amar's podcast —NRA v. Vullo decision —Casey Mattox's tweet on NRA v. Vullo —SCOTUS clears the way for Louisiana to use a new congressional map Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this engaging episode of "American Potential," host Jeff Crank sits down with Casey Mattox, the Vice President of Legal and Judicial Strategy for Americans for Prosperity, to explore the labyrinth of America's most absurd laws. From the ban on selling silly string in Mobile, Alabama, to prohibitions against donkeys sleeping in bathtubs in Arizona, this conversation sheds light on the peculiar side of legislative history. Maddox shares his insights and anecdotes from his research, revealing how some laws, while seemingly laughable, are indicative of deeper legislative tendencies and societal values at the time of their enactment.   The discussion not only delves into the quirky and outdated laws that dot the legal landscapes of various states but also examines the implications of more recent regulatory attempts, such as California's gender-neutral toy aisle mandate and New York's efforts to regulate Chick-fil-A's business operations. Through a blend of humor and analysis, Crank and Mattox invite listeners to reflect on the role of legislation in shaping American life, questioning the balance between order and freedom. This episode is a fascinating journey through the annals of legal history, inviting a reevaluation of how laws, both old and new, continue to affect the fabric of American society. Check out American Potential here: https://americanpotential.com   Check out our Spanish episodes here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8wSZydeKZ6uOuFlT_1QQ53L7l6AmC83c   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanPotentialPodcast     Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/americanpotentialpodcast/   X: https://twitter.com/AMPotentialPod

Hour 2 - Jeff's guests include Dave Trabert, Casey Mattox, Chris Croft

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – Tuesday, February 6, 20244:20 pm: Scott Walker, former Governor of Wisconsin and now President of the Young America's Foundation, joins the program to discuss new polls that show Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden is several swing states.4:38 pm: Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity joins Rod to discuss his piece for the New York Post about why politicians can't stop passing absurd laws.5:05 pm: Representative Kera Birkeland joins the program to discuss her proposal to allow a state-run lottery in Utah, the proceeds of which would help offset property taxes for older residents of the state.6:05 pm: Senator Mike Lee joins Rod for their regular weekly conversation, and today they'll discuss the Senate's border deal and why he says it's a bad idea.6:20 pm: Lora Ries, Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the Heritage Foundation joins Rod to give her reaction to the Senate's border bill, which already appears to be DOA.6:38 pm: Mayor Donald Huish of Douglas, Arizona, a small town on the border of Arizona and Mexico, joins Rod to discuss the type of border issues they are experiencing in his town.

Pastor Jesse Lee Peterson joins us to discuss the loss of enthusiasm among Black voters for President Biden. Next, retired U.S. Army Major General Bob Dees breaks down the latest developments in the Middle East. Then, Vice President of Legal and Judicial Strategy at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation Casey Mattox fills us in on why a Federal appeals court ruled against First Amendment rights. Finally, we take your calls in open phones across America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Guy Benson Show for 1/17/23 ~ L.T. General Keith Kellogg (Retired) Fox News Contributor-- Former National Security Adviser To VP Pence   ~ Jason Rantz (@jasonrantz), Host of the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH 770AM/94.5 FM in Seattle/Tacoma   ~ Casey Mattox, VP, Legal and Judicial, Stand Together   ~ Brandon Judd, President of the National Border Council Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guest Host Mike Donnelly is joined by the vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, Casey Mattox. They discuss a wide range of topics including the supreme court, freedom of speech and what AFP is doing to fight for your rights as an American.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join host Jeff Crank on 'American Potential' as we commemorate Constitution Week, honoring the brilliance and resilience of the U.S. Constitution. Delve into the revolutionary nature of this foundational document, its inception, amendments, and the vital role it plays in safeguarding our God-given rights. Special guest Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal and Judicial Strategy for Americans for Prosperity, shares his insights on the significance of the Constitution, its global impact, and why it's crucial to celebrate and uphold its principles. Tune in for a journey through history and a deeper understanding of the cornerstone of American democracy. #americanpotential    Check out American Potential here: https://americanpotential.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanPotentialPodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/americanpotentialpodcast/  X: https://twitter.com/AMPotentialPod YouTube: https://youtube.com/@americanpotentialpodcast?si=TQcA8jBhehDH7Vx9

What happens when public university officials violate your free speech rights? Often the get qualified immunity, thus shielding them from consequences of those actions. Casey Mattox with Americans for Prosperity comments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The King welcomes Casey Mattox to discuss the conservative shift in the judiciary, especially as it affects the freedom of religion, free speech, and in pushing back the administrative state. Casey is vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, advocating for individual liberty. Before this role, he spent 15 years defending the First Amendment rights of students... Source

The King welcomes Casey Mattox to discuss the conservative shift in the judiciary, especially as it affects the freedom of religion, free speech, and in pushing back the administrative state. Casey is vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, advocating for individual liberty.Before this role, he spent 15 years defending the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, families, healthcare workers, and religious organizations. He has litigated in 35 states and also testified three times before congressional committees. Casey has a J.D. from Boston College School of Law and a B.A. in Government and History from the University of Virginia. And he has strong views on Christmas music.Jon finishes the show talking about the first GOP primary debate, Trump's Thursday arraignment, and why you should never march halfway to Moscow.Subscribe to the King of Stuff Spotify playlist featuring picks from the show. This week's song is"Scapa Flow" by Drop Nineteens.For video versions of the interviews, subscribe to Jon's YouTube or Rumble channel!

The King welcomes Casey Mattox to discuss the conservative shift in the judiciary, especially as it affects the freedom of religion, free speech, and in pushing back the administrative state. Casey is vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, advocating for individual liberty. Before this role, he spent 15 years defending […]

On July 4, 2023, a preliminary injunction was issued in Missouri v. Biden (Western District of Louisiana, 3:22-CV-01213). At issue is the constitutionality of alleged collusion between various federal government agencies and social media companies. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants – including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary Xavier Becerra, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and numerous other key federal officials – violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress protected speech. Defendants have described the speech in question as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Some observers are calling the case a major battleground for the future of internet speech. Please join us as Harmeet K. Dhillon and Casey Mattox deliver an update on recent events.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation & SCOTUS decision with Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for ProsperitySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR ROY COOPER THINKS ITS A STATE OF AN EMERGENCY FOR KIDS TO HAVE SCHOOL CHOICEThis damn fool is making North Carolina a Laughing Stock!! What a mess, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper declares 'state of emergency' over school choice billRepublican state lawmakers have planned to use their veto-proof majority to pass education reformBy Lindsay Kornick | Fox NewsGov. Roy Cooper declares state of emergency over upcoming education reformNorth Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency on Monday ahead of the Republican state legislature planning to pass school choice legislation.Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper declared a "state of emergency" on Monday in an attempt to stop a school choice bill from passing the state legislature.Cooper released a video announcement where he declared a state of emergency, arguing that the state of public education is "no less important" than other emergencies."It's time to declare a State of Emergency for public education in North Carolina. There's no Executive Order like with a hurricane or the pandemic, but it's no less important," Cooper stated.He continued, "It's clear that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of public education. I'm declaring this state of emergency because you need to know what's happening. If you care about public schools in North Carolina, it's time to take immediate action and tell them to stop the damage that will set back our schools for a generation."Cooper's announcement drew intense backlash on Twitter as an overreach of government power.The Blaze columnist Auron MacIntyre wrote, "Executive governing in the permanent state of exception to save democracy.""Neutering the abuse of emergency power by the executive branch should be priority number 1 for every state," Conservative account "PoliMath" tweeted.School choice advocate Corey DeAngelis wrote, "they're losing control over the minds of other people's children. good. cry harder, @RoyCooperNC.""What a hypocrite. Public schools aren't good enough for his kids, but they are for yours," Independent Women's Forum senior policy analyst Kelsey Bolar blasted.Purple Strategies partner Rory Cooper commented, "If I *were* the Governor of NC, I would've been declaring a state of emergency when the state was in the bottom third of states reopening schools and depriving children of the education they needed. Not once parents got involved and demanded something better for their kids.""A ‘state of emergency' over a bill passed by the legislature. Very serious," Americans for Prosperity vice president Casey Mattox joked.In April, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina announced efforts to move forward with education reform bills that promote school choice. One measure includes a bill that would provide equal funding to charter school students along those who attend public school. Critics, such as Cooper, claimed that the bill mostly serves to cut funding for public schools."Put together, these ideas spell disaster that requires emergency action. The North Carolina I know was built on support for public schools, and we can't let the legislature tear them down. I'm fighting back, and I need you to do it too. Public schools can survive this legislative session if we can limit the damage, but we all need to pull together to do it," Cooper said.The measures by state Republicans followed the announcement by State Rep. Tricia Cotham that she would be defecting from the Democratic Party to join the GOP. Her decision, she stated at the time, came from her support for school choice."On issues like school choice, like charters, we have to evolve," Cotham said. "One-size-fits-all in education is wrong for children … [Democrats] didn't really want to talk about children. They had talking points from adults and adult organizations."Cooper has been criticized for opposing private school vouchers while sending his daughter to a private school in Raleigh. He has also attempted to end the state's Opportunity Scholarship Program which provides vouchers to lower and middle-income students.=====================LIFE, LIBERTY, JUSTICE FOR ALLPROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS#GoRight For Peter Boykinhttps://PeterBoykin.comPeter Boykin For NC LT GOVERNOR 2024#ncgov #ncltgov #ncltgovernor #NCGOP #NCpolitics #ncpol #PeterBoykin #GoRight #Trump #gop #Election2024 #ElectionsMatter

Host Jeff Crank sits down with free speech champion Casey Mattox to discuss the growing problem across college campuses around America.  A university should be a place where free speech is the norm, but that has quickly changed over the years. Jeff and Casey discuss why the free sharing of ideas has been thwarted on campus with a fun bracket twist.   Download the FUN basketball bracket here: https://fantasy.espn.com/tournament-challenge-bracket/2023/en/group?groupID=5251965 Check out American Potential here: https://americanpotential.com 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake is read by Casey Mattox, the vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity. Legal Question: Whether government retaliation against a contractor or regular provider of services for the exercise of rights of political association or allegiance violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Action: The Court found that the independent contractor relationship between O'Hare and the City was sufficiently close to an employer-employee relationship to justify the recognition of a First Amendment right.  Mr. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:35 This opinion's citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on O'Hare, visit FIRE's First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud. Free Speech Out Loud is a project of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The Heidi Harris Show is joined by Casey Mattox, Senior Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy for Americans for Prosperity, to discuss a recent study on American's trust in their Government.

Hour 2: Heidi discusses Missouri Senator Josh Hawley's concerns about the SCOTUS nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, why Facebook employees might be looking for new positions elsewhere and META's drop in stock, and is joined by Casey Mattox, Senior Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy for Americans for Prosperity, on a recent study on American's trust in their Government.

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – Monday, March 14, 20225:05 pm: Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity joins Greg to discuss the results of a new poll that show Americans don't trust their leaders and feel their core freedoms are less secure than before the pandemic6:05 pm: Representative Mike Schultz, Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, joins Greg for a conversation about the 2022 Utah Legislative session, including what could happen if Governor Spencer Cox vetoes the transgender sports bill

Show: 044 Top Priority Podcast | AFPF v. BontaHost: Duane Lester, Director of Issue Education, Grassroots Leadership AcademyGuests: Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Peace at Charles Koch InstituteToday's top priority is free expression. Specifically, the Supreme Court case AFPF vs. Bonta. Our guest today is Casey Mattox. He's the Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Peace at Charles Koch Institute.Our Vision:We break barriers that stand in the way of people realizing their potential. This moves our society toward one of mutual benefit, where people succeed by helping others improve their lives.History demonstrates people are capable of extraordinary things when they have the opportunity to learn, contribute, and succeed. We can transform society by breaking the internal and external barriers that prevent people from realizing their potential, enabling all people to improve their lives and find fulfillment by helping others do the same.This vision is guided by the following mutually reinforcing principles: Equal Rights A system of equal rights—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—requires respect for the dignity of all people and equality under the law. Mutual Benefit When the values and laws of society respect the dignity of individuals and uphold their rights, people succeed by creating value for others, motivating them to assist rather than harm one another. Openness Equal rights and mutual benefit foster openness by allowing the free movement of ideas, resources and people that generate knowledge, innovation, and opportunity, fueling progress throughout society. Self-Actualization For such a society to exist, its key institutions—education, communities, business, government—remove rather than erect barriers to people realizing their potential and finding fulfillment.  As more people have the opportunity to use their unique talents to succeed by helping others improve their lives, society flourishes. To realize this vision, we strive to build movements of millions by inspiring and equipping principled social-change entrepreneurs to bring us closer to a society of mutual benefit by eliminating injustice of all kinds. We stand by our principles at whatever cost, with a commitment to unite with anybody willing to dedicate themselves to any of these goals.Recognizing the magnitude of the task, our efforts are guided by a heightened sense of urgency.  We are committed to continually transforming ourselves and our organizations, constantly experimenting, learning and innovating. As we improve and add to our capabilities, new opportunities open, which point to the need for additional capabilities, and so on, in never-ending cycles of improvement and human betterment.Stand Together Website 

On July 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit issued a decision in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. University of Iowa et al. A three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Loken, Grasz, and Kobes held that University officials violated the First Amendment when they deregistered a Christian student group, further holding that the university officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. The University of Iowa deregistered two Christian student groups, finding that the groups violated the University's “Human Rights Policy” by requiring their membership and/or leadership to sign a statement of faith in order to join. The first group—Business Leaders in Christ—sued and successfully received a preliminary injunction. Following that litigation, the University reviewed its human rights policy and then deregistered the second group—InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. InterVarsity fought the deregistration, then sued alleging the application of the human rights policy was discriminatory and arguing First Amendment free speech, free association, and free exercise violations in addition to several state law claims. Not only did the District Court enter summary judgment for InterVarsity, but the Court also denied individual University defendants qualified immunity relying on the earlier Business Leaders in Christ preliminary injunction grant. The University appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in a decision with implications for campus free speech, religious liberty after Fulton, and qualified immunity.Joining us to discuss the case is Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity and Senior Fellow for Free Speech at the Charles Koch Institute. Casey is also a member of the Federalist Society's Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group. Featuring: -- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Propserity; Senior Fellow for Free Speech, Charles Koch Institute

Casey Mattox is vice president for legal and judicial strategy for Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation. During this conversation, he and Matt talk about how qualified immunity isn't just for police.

In a decision issued on March 26, 2021, the Sixth Circuit held Professor Nicholas Meriwether, a long-time philosophy professor at Shawnee State and a devout Christian, had plausibly alleged Shawnee State violated his First Amendment Speech and Free Exercise rights by subjecting him to discipline over use of pronouns. On the Speech claim: the Sixth Circuit found the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Cebalos did not apply to bar Meriwether’s claim since the Court had expressly withheld applying the precedent to “a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.” On the Free Exercise claim: based on the hostility to religion demonstrated by Shawnee State officials, the Sixth Circuit found strict scrutiny under Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah rather than rational basis under Employment Division v. Smith applied, so Meriwether had successfully established a Free Exercise claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Joining us to discuss the implications of the decision for academic freedom, free speech and religious liberty is Mr. Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity. Featuring:-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

On February 19, 2021, the Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia Lawyers Chapters hosted Eugene Volokh and Casey Mattox for a discussion on the First Amendment and Rule 8.4.Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA Law and a recognized First Amendment expertCasey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy, Americans for Prosperity and a regular First Amendment litigatorIntroduction: Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins; The Federalist Society's Columbia Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In an 8-1 victory for religious liberty, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski that governments can be held accountable for past violations of First Amendment freedoms. Jeff Pickering, Chelsea Patterson Sobolik, and Travis Wussow welcome lawyer and free speech advocate Casey Mattox to the roundtable to talk about the decision and why it matters.Guest BiographyCasey Mattox is vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, where he advocates for a legal system that respects the rule of law and protects individual liberty. For over fifteen years before joining Americans for Prosperity, Casey's legal career focused on defending the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, families, healthcare workers and religious organizations. He has litigated in 35 states and also testified three times before congressional committees. Casey has a J.D. from Boston College School of Law and a B.A. in Government and History from the University of Virginia.Resources from the ConversationFind Casey on Twitter at @CaseyMattox_Read ERLC's Explainer on the Uzuegbunam caseRead the Top Quotes from the Uzuegbunam OpinionsSee Russell Moore's comment on the caseCheck out the ERLC's amicus briefCheck out American's for Prosperity's amicus briefSubscribe to ERLC's Policy Newsletter

10-13: Casey Mattox, Americans For Prosperity by KCMO Talk Radio

The news cycle these days is crushing — warping time upon itself like a black hole. So how does America's Most Balanced Podcast® respond? By booking a third guest, of course. On today's lineup, we've got Casey Mattox;the Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to (among other things), getting Amy Coney Barrett through the nomination process. Source

The news cycle these days is crushing — warping time upon itself like a black hole. So how does America’s Most Balanced Podcast® respond? By booking a third guest, of course. On today’s lineup, we’ve got Casey Mattox;the Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy at Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to (among other […]Sponsored by DonorsTrust, Express VPN, Fundrise Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/ricochet-podcast/the-viral-president/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

What do Amy Coney Barrett's writings and judicial opinions tell us about her judicial philosophy? Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal & Judicial Strategy and Americans for Prosperity gives his take. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On June 29, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.

On June 29, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.

On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., a case which considers whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of a funding-related federal policy requirement not only against domestic organizations but also their foreign affiliates.The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund efforts by nongovernmental organizations to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. The Act provides, however, that none of these funds may be used by an organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” 22 U.S.C. §7631(f). In its 2013 decision in Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., the Supreme Court held that this “Policy Requirement” violated the First Amendment, by compelling as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the Government program. Respondents are domestic organizations that carry out HIV/AIDS-related aid work, including activities undertaken through legally distinct foreign affiliates. As the Supreme Court’s decision in Agency for Int’l Development did not address foreign affiliates specifically, the federal government has continued to apply the Policy Requirement to them. The affiliates object that, while they do not condone prostitution, neither can they satisfy the Policy Requirement because their HIV/AIDS work necessarily involves them with the activities of sex-worker communities abroad. The affiliates, therefore, challenged the Policy Requirement as applied to them and the district court entered a permanent injunction in their favor. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the logic of the Supreme Court’s Agency for Int’l Development decision extended to foreign affiliates and not just domestic non-governmental organizations. The federal government thereafter sought certiorari and the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of the Policy Requirement with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.To discuss the case, we have Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow of Free Speech and Toleration at the Charles Koch Institute and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., a case which considers whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of a funding-related federal policy requirement not only against domestic organizations but also their foreign affiliates.The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund efforts by nongovernmental organizations to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. The Act provides, however, that none of these funds may be used by an organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” 22 U.S.C. §7631(f). In its 2013 decision in Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., the Supreme Court held that this “Policy Requirement” violated the First Amendment, by compelling as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the Government program. Respondents are domestic organizations that carry out HIV/AIDS-related aid work, including activities undertaken through legally distinct foreign affiliates. As the Supreme Court’s decision in Agency for Int’l Development did not address foreign affiliates specifically, the federal government has continued to apply the Policy Requirement to them. The affiliates object that, while they do not condone prostitution, neither can they satisfy the Policy Requirement because their HIV/AIDS work necessarily involves them with the activities of sex-worker communities abroad. The affiliates, therefore, challenged the Policy Requirement as applied to them and the district court entered a permanent injunction in their favor. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the logic of the Supreme Court’s Agency for Int’l Development decision extended to foreign affiliates and not just domestic non-governmental organizations. The federal government thereafter sought certiorari and the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of the Policy Requirement with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.To discuss the case, we have Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow of Free Speech and Toleration at the Charles Koch Institute and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Free speech has seen better days on the college campus. Increasingly, conservative ideas are unwelcome and even shouted down. At some schools, religious groups are being kicked off campus for not allowing non-believers to run their organization. It’s a concerning state of affairs—and yet, many students are pushing back and winning in the courtroom. In today's episode, I speak with Casey Mattox about upholding the First Amendment on campus. We also discuss whether tech companies have any role in protecting free speech.Read the lightly edited transcript of the interview, posted below, or listen on the podcast: We also cover the following stories: Daily Signal pushes back on YouTube after being censored.U.S. family is massacred in Mexico by drug cartels.Project Veritas hot mic sheds light on a potential Epstein cover-up.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet,iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Josh, Tim, and Rachel answer more questions from Ian McGinniss, the president of Dukes for Life at James Madison University. Questions: 00:00: Is A Quiet Place a pro-life movie? 02:28: What is your approach when pro-choice people say that they don’t want to be forced to stay pregnant? 09:12: How did all three of you get involved in the pro-life movement? 20:24: What would you say to groups who are dealing with pushback from their campus administration about doing pro-life events? How would you handle those issues yourself? 23:43: How would you describe the difference between legality and morality, especially for Christians who sometimes think that everything that is morally wrong should be against the law? 30:59: What do you do when you’re talking to a passive listener who doesn’t really want to explain their beliefs? Related Links: Timothy Brahm for the ERI Blog: Thanos Would be Pro-Choice Timothy Brahm for the ERI Blog: Pro-Lifers Aren’t “Forcing” Women to Stay Pregnant Rachel Crawford for the ERI Blog: Stop Using “Trust Women” as an Abortion Trump Card Timothy Brahm for the ERI Blog: On Virtue-Signaling Josh Brahm for the ERI Blog: My Pro-Life Journey Began in Front of This Abortion Facility Amazon: Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights by Dr. Francis Beckwith Alliance Defending Freedom’s Legal Request Page | 1-800-835-5233 Equipped for Life Podcast: Responding to Free Speech Violations on Campus – An Interview with Casey Mattox from Alliance Defending Freedom Timothy Brahm for the ERI Blog: Dialogue Tip: Tell Them That They Can’t Offend You The Amazon link on this page is an Amazon Affiliate link, which means that if you click the link and then buy the book, ERI will get a small kickback from Amazon.

Josh, Tim, and Rachel interview Casey Mattox on how students should deal with free speech violations, and responding to common arguments from typically leftists defending free speech violations. Casey Mattox joined Alliance Defending Freedom in 2009 litigating cases to protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty at public colleges and universities across the nation. Since December 2016 he has served as Director of ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom, where he leads a team of attorneys that is one of the most active groups of litigators defending First Amendment rights on public university campuses. Casey has testified three times before House committees on a variety of First Amendment and other constitutional issues. He has also made numerous media appearances, and his work has been featured at USA Today, The Federalist, and Townhall, among others. Or if you prefer the 140 character versions, you can find him at @CaseyMattox_. He earned his J.D. from Boston College Law School in 2001, and clerked for the Alabama Supreme Court. Questions: How would you respond to someone who defends free speech violations by saying that the first amendment does not guarantee a right to be heard? How would you respond to someone who says, “If you go to a public area to express your free speech rights but get drowned out by someone else expressing their free speech rights, you don’t get to shut down someone else’s rights because you want to be heard”? Can you talk about the concept of a “heckler’s veto”? What should students do if they’re trying to have a dialogue event and the pro-choice crowd comes out with noisemakers to drown that out, and the campus administration won’t do anything about it? The First Amendment isn’t ambiguous about whether or not people can physically block people from a speaking event, so why is that still sometimes happening? Are the penalties not big enough? Is there any path forward at a legal level to get around this problem? A way that would cause universities to get penalized in a way that would incentivize them to follow the law? What is the difference between a case where you’re able to successfully sue the school versus a case where you don’t have enough evidence to move forward? What should students do to make sure that their cases don’t end up in the pile of cases where nothing happens? What are some red flags that students should look out for so they can know when to call ADF? How would you respond to someone who defends free speech violations based on the idea that if the speech in question is dangerous, like Naziism, then it’s good to block people from hearing that speech or even get violent in response to it?

Every other Wednesday we publish a new episode of the Equipped for Life Podcast, available to everyone who purchases our course, "Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations about Abortion." Generally, these podcast episodes won’t be available to the general public, but we plan on releasing short clips from the episodes every Thursday, to give you a sense of what these podcasts are like. In this episode of the Equipped for Life Course Podcast, Josh, Tim, and Rachel interview Casey Mattox from Alliance Defending Freedom on how students should deal with free speech violations and respond to common arguments from typical leftists defending free speech violations. In this clip, Casey gives advice to students about what to do if people try to silence your outreach event. ERI Website: https://EqualRightsInstitute.com ERI Blog: https://Blog.EqualRightsInstitute.com ERI Course: https://EquippedCourse.com

Casey Mattox serves as senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom. He focuses his efforts on working with allied attorneys to litigate cases to protect the rights of Christian students, faculty, and staff at public colleges and universities across the nation. He also has been active in defending freedom of conscience in the healthcare industry.

Members of Fresno State Students for Life were chalking positive, pro-life messages on the sidewalk leading up to the campus library when they saw other students erasing the messages. Because Fresno State Students for Life members had gotten permission from school administration to do so, this came as a shock. So, chapter president Bernadette Tasy started recording. Watch what happened: Yep, you heard right. Public health professor Gregory Thatcher told Bernadette that “college campuses are not free speech areas.” On top of that, he claimed that Fresno State Students for Life was only permitted to chalk messages in the speech zone on campus. Except that there are no speech zones on campus. The policies instead state that “freedom of expression is allowed in all outdoor spaces on campus.” Yet, he still took it upon himself to recruit his students to erase the messages, even erasing them himself. And he absurdly claimed that he was exercising his free speech rights by censoring the students’ speech. Yet even Fresno State’s policies state the obvious: “The right of self-expression does not extend to preventing self-expression by others.” Alliance Defending Freedom has filed suit against Professor Thatcher on behalf of Fresno State Students for Life. This professor is teaching his students that the proper response to someone you disagree with is to silence their speech, rather than countering it with your own. On Freedom Matters this week, we sat down with Bernadette and ADF attorney Casey Mattox to discuss the case.

Members of Fresno State Students for Life were chalking positive, pro-life messages on the sidewalk leading up to the campus library when they saw other students erasing the messages. Because Fresno State Students for Life members had gotten permission from school administration to do so, this came as a shock. So, chapter president Bernadette Tasy started recording. Watch what happened: Yep, you heard right. Public health professor Gregory Thatcher told Bernadette that “college campuses are not free speech areas.” On top of that, he claimed that Fresno State Students for Life was only permitted to chalk messages in the speech zone on campus. Except that there are no speech zones on campus. The policies instead state that “freedom of expression is allowed in all outdoor spaces on campus.” Yet, he still took it upon himself to recruit his students to erase the messages, even erasing them himself. And he absurdly claimed that he was exercising his free speech rights by censoring the students’ speech. Yet even Fresno State’s policies state the obvious: “The right of self-expression does not extend to preventing self-expression by others.” Alliance Defending Freedom has filed suit against Professor Thatcher on behalf of Fresno State Students for Life. This professor is teaching his students that the proper response to someone you disagree with is to silence their speech, rather than countering it with your own. On Freedom Matters this week, we sat down with Bernadette and ADF attorney Casey Mattox to discuss the case.

Attorney Casey Mattox Discusses the Climate of #Freespeech Since Matal v. Tam by Lawyers For Jesus

On today’s show we have Casey Mattox, from Alliance Defensing Freedom, on to discuss the Fresno State Case where Fresno State pro-life students had their display vandalized by a professor.  We also take a closer look at the Charlie Gard case.  National Catholic Register Article: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/who-guards-the-gards

Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom, joins the show to explain how members of a Young Americans for Liberty club were arrested for passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution on a college campus. The arrests were captured on video that also show campus officials telling the YAL supporters that “engaging [students] in conversation on their way to educational places” is a violation of the Solicitation Policy because it is an “obstruction to their education” to ask them questions like, “Do you like freedom and liberty?,” adding that he was concerned that the students from “rural farm areas…might not feel like they have the choice to ignore the question.” Also, for the first time, a President submitted a budget to Congress that directs federal funding away from Planned Parenthood to local health care clinics that outnumber the abortion giant 20-1. This is just the latest example of the Trump Administration’s willingness to act in support of the sanctity of life. Just two weeks ago, the President expanded the Mexico City Policy to stop any U.S. government funding from going to international organizations that commit or advocate for abortion. Casey testified before Congress in support of redirecting funds from Planned Parenthood to thousands of health care clinics across America that actually provide health services for women.

Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom, joins the show to explain how members of a Young Americans for Liberty club were arrested for passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution on a college campus. The arrests were captured on video that also show campus officials telling the YAL supporters that “engaging [students] in conversation on their way to educational places” is a violation of the Solicitation Policy because it is an “obstruction to their education” to ask them questions like, “Do you like freedom and liberty?,” adding that he was concerned that the students from “rural farm areas…might not feel like they have the choice to ignore the question.” Also, for the first time, a President submitted a budget to Congress that directs federal funding away from Planned Parenthood to local health care clinics that outnumber the abortion giant 20-1. This is just the latest example of the Trump Administration’s willingness to act in support of the sanctity of life. Just two weeks ago, the President expanded the Mexico City Policy to stop any U.S. government funding from going to international organizations that commit or advocate for abortion. Casey testified before Congress in support of redirecting funds from Planned Parenthood to thousands of health care clinics across America that actually provide health services for women.

Jonathan takes an in-depth look at the growing attacks on free of speech at college campuses. He investigates the recent viral video documenting the censorship of the Fresno State Students for Life club by a rogue professor. Jonathan then interviews constitutional attorneys John Gerardi of Right to Life of Central California and Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending Freedom and brings you their expert analysis. Finally, CFC's Greg Burt joins us from Sacramento with the latest news inside the Capitol.

In this episode, Jonathan and Johnny talk to ADF's Casey Mattox about how California's Department of Managed Healthcare forces all California insurance policies to cover abortion, in violation of federal law. Yes, if your church has an insurance plan, it is paying for elective abortion coverage.

From the Texas pro-life laws in the Supreme Court to the fight to defund Planned Parenthood in D.C., the Pro-Life cause is facing many major battles recently. This week, Noel Sterett interviews one of the leading defenders of life on the legal front in Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

NC Family president John Rustin talks with Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), about why the United States Senate should wait until after the 2016 Presidential election to hold hearings to find a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who passed away in February.

Frank Sontag turned to Jon Eareckson Tada to discuss the potential of California legalizing assisted suicide (1:15). Warren Smith of World Magazine says that Donald Trump will not last (8:05). Tim Goeglein of Focus on the Family argues that Carly Fiorina hit a grand slam at the last debate (13:00). Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending Freedom brings us up to date on Planned Parenthood (16:35). Andy Bales has been serving "the least of these" for over 25 years on skid row in Los Angeles (21:30). Gary Chapman talks about his book "Anger: Taming a Powerful Emotion" (27:30). Albert Mohler weighs in on Pope Francis' view of divorce (35:30).See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michael Medved talks with Alan Dershowitz, author of "The Case Against the Iran Deal." Bill Bennett turns to Weekly Standard columnist and Fox contributor Stephen Hayes for analysis on the Iran nuke deal. Casey Mattox, Sr. Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, speaks with Bill Bennett about Planned Parenthood's grisly practices. Carly Fiorina tells Hugh Hewitt that she would shut down the government to end funding of Planned Parenthood. Professor Owen Strachan shares thought from his book, "The Colson Way." The former president of Greenpeace left the organization because it became to radicalized, focusing on saving the earth rather than bringing peace to humans. He talks to Dennis Prager. Prager wraps up the discussing the EPA.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending Freedom examines Planned Parenthood's legal situation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is the world burning down around me? I’m looking across the news today, I’ve got people chasing down cops with hatchets, I’ve got new ebola scares, I’ve got British governments attacking Christian schools for not having imams teaching lessons.Have we all gotten stupid?We got some interesting stuff. Anderson Cooper, poor Anderson, some idiot in Canada wanted a selfie with him at the murder site of the soldier that was killed by the terrorist. We’ll get to that in a minute.All that and a lot more on today’s show. Welcome to The Live Show. My name is Jason Stapleton. If you want to be part of the show, you can email Jason@TheLiveShow.TV.Royals play again tonight in San Francisco. We’re going to hopefully have another great day. Game kicks off at around 7pm. It seems to me as though, everywhere I’m looking now, I pay pretty close attention to the news and there’s been some very unfortunate things that I’m seeing.And I don’t want to get on this bandwagon about government intrusion and be one of those people. There are some serious issues that are happening here in the United States.I got two stories here: one out of Great Britain and one out of the U.S. where you have governments that are basically punishing schools for practicing their Christian beliefs and their value system. They’re doing it in the United Kingdom under the guise of tolerance and individual liberty. And somebody in Great Britain needs to explain to those in their government what exactly individual liberty is because I don’t think any of them understand it.And, then you’ve got the stock market is looking like it might be down again today. Dow futures pointing down 11 because of an apparent ebola scare. I don’t know what else it could be.Now, we’ve got a guy in New York back from Guinea who tested positive for the ebola virus. If you notice, the people that are getting ebola are coming from outside the United States who contracted it or people who worked closely with someone who is being treated for ebola in the late stages. Now this, of course, holds true to what we believe and what we understand about ebola is that it is not highly contagious until the very late stages.Yesterday, we talked about the shooting that happened in Canada, with a terrorist on the loose. Let me define terrorism for you because people are trying to say that it wasn’t terrorism, that it was an isolated incident.Again, it’s either people who don’t really understand what terrorism is or people who are just trying to water down the fact that this was a Muslim extremist who ended up going and shooting soldiers at a memorial and then going on to a government building and shooting up that place as well.A terrorist is someone who performs a terrorist action in order to influence the political and cultural decisions of the governments in that area. So, I don’t care if this guy is attached to a larger cell and there’s evidence that he was, that his dad use to fight in the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi before he came to Canada. And so there’s all kinds of evidence that this guy is tied directly back to the same militant fighters who ultimate established a stronghold in Iraq and Syria.But let’s leave all of that aside. Let’s say he was just some nut job out there who took a little too seriously the good book written by Mr. Muhammad. And he just decided that he was going to start killing people. That is a terrorist act. He did it for no other reason than to terrorize. He was trying to create fear and panic in society. That’s terrorism no matter how you look at it.And, we talked about it yesterday on the show. Wouldn’t you know it, of course there’s a lot of press and stuff down there, and Anderson Cooper was down there doing a report on the event. And a young aspiring journalist from the Sun News, Vandon Gene, ends up asking Anderson Cooper for a selfie. Reporter’s ‘Completely Inappropriate’ Request Leaves Anderson Cooper Stunned: ‘I Can’t Believe Any Station Employs You’http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/22/reporters-completely-inappropriate-request-leaves-anderson-cooper-stunned-i-cant-believe-any-station-employs-you/Anderson Cooper tweeted out scathing criticism of a reporter Wednesday night after the journalist asked for a photograph at the same site a Canadian soldier was killed hours earlier.Video of the incident showed Cooper tell “aspiring journalist” and Sun News contributor Vandon Gene that the request was “wildly inappropriate.”Gene initially uploaded the footage and then turned to Twitter to skewer Cooper.Cooper was not afraid to fire back on Twitter, reiterating that he found his request “completely inappropriate” and even said it surprised him anyone would hire him as a reporter.Anderson Cooper responded that he was not going to take a picture with him near where someone just died. And the reporter gets pissed, he really gets angry at Anderson Cooper for not being willing to take a selfie with him near the recent and tragic death site of this soldier who was murdered. He ends up sending out some tweets going after Anderson. Anderson’s response to Vandon Gene is classic. Kudos to Anderson Cooper for doing the right thing. -----If you would like to discuss anything with John about the show, email him at Jason@TheLiveShow.TVYou can also use the hashtag #TheLiveShowFollow Jason on Twitter: www.Twitter.com/TheLiveShowTVFollow Us on Facebook: www.Facebook.com/TheLiveShowTV-----If you are really enjoying the show and would like to support what we're doing at The Live Show, please consider donating to our cause. You can do that at www.Patreon.com/TheLiveShow-----Are you interested in advertising on The Live Show?Reach out to us at Advertising@TheLiveShow.TVWe’d love to talk with you.-----SponsorsTrade Pro Futures: http://tradeprofutures.com/The industry's top futures and forex trading platforms.Trade Empowered: http://www.tradeempowered.com/Learn how to day-trade, swing-trade, or become a profitable long term trader.Main Street Alpha: http://mainstreetalpha.com/A social site that links up professional successful traders with verifiable track records to capital.----- The religion of peace is at it again! Apparent Muslim Suspect Viciously Attacks NYC Officers With a Hatchet; Possible Ties to Radical Islam Revealedhttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/23/hatchet-wielding-man-shot-and-killed-after-vicious-attack-on-officer-in-nyc/A hatchet-wielding man attacked a group of patrol officers in a busy commercial district in Queens on Thursday, injuring two before the other officers shot and killed him, New York City police said. A bystander was wounded in the gunfire.The deceased suspect has been identified in multiple reports as 32-year-old Zale Thompson, an apparent Muslim who lived in Queens.At a news conference at a hospital where one officer was being treated for a serious head wound, Police Commissioner William Bratton said that investigators were still trying to determine a motive. New York police officer critically wounded in hatchet attackhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/24/us-usa-newyork-hatchet-idUSKCN0IC2RG20141024A hatchet-wielding attacker charged a group of New York City police officers posing for a photograph on Thursday, wounded two, one critically, before the assailant was shot dead, police said.The officers were on foot patrol when they were asked by a freelance photographer to pose for a picture on a Queens street at about 2 p.m., a New York Police Department spokesman said.Suddenly a man carrying a hatchet charged the officers, swinging it and striking one officer in the right arm and then swinging it again and striking a second officer in the head, the spokesman said.The remaining two officers fired their weapons at the man, hitting him. The suspect, whose identity was not yet confirmed but who was said to be approximately 32 years old, was pronounced dead at the scene.What are we coming to? New York City, here’s the thing: you can’t own a gun in New York City. You really can’t. To get a concealed carry permit, to get a weapon into New York City is extremely difficult. Huge gun laws preventing that and so what happens? This guy has a hatchet. And he just comes at officers with a hatchet, critically wounding one of them before they finally get their guns out and shoot him.We could make this about gun crime. The thing is, removing guns don’t stop crime. All it does is prevents honest people from protecting themselves. This time, the cops were caught off guard by a hatchet wheeling man who apparently is upset at White people, who made hateful remarks on YouTube.And we talked about this on the show yesterday during the Michael Brown incident. I said, guys, there is likely legitimacy to the argument, there is police brutality that happens all the time. There are cops who create wild injustices in America all the time. But go after them. Go find those actual cases. Don’t spend your time on the Michael Brown thing because Michael Brown was not a good guy. He was not a good person. He was a criminal. He attacked a police officer and he was shot dead for it. That’s not the guy you want to hitch your cause to. You find somebody else.Most recently, we found this today. There was a situation where, we don’t know what happened before but, there is a cop and a suspect wrestling and they’re kind of rolling around, where it looks as though the police officer is trying to arrest this individual and then this individual is resisting. NYPD cop kicks fellow officer in the head during arrest - thinking he is the suspecthttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806101/The-moment-NYPD-cop-kicks-fellow-officer-head-arrest-thinking-suspect.htmlThis is the moment an undercover cop kicked a fellow officer in the back of the head after apparently mistaking him for a suspect.Video footage from DNAinfo New York shows the plain-clothed NYPD officer rush to the aid of a uniformed colleague, who was wrestling a suspect with the help of another undercover officer.But the officer, who is seen wearing a grey jumper and jeans, immediately kicks the undercover cop in the back of the head after joining the struggle at Coney Island's Stillwell Avenue station.Here’s the thing: the difference between this situation and the Michael Brown situation is that this officer is going to lose likely his badge. They’re talking about firing this officer and rightly so. The guy came in, had no idea what was going on, ended up first kicking another officer in the back of the head, and then later punching the suspect in the nose.I will tell you right now, there is some justification for him hitting the suspect because if the suspect was tangled up with the officer and was not complying with the officer’s orders to give then he does have the ability to use physical force in order to move him.But that’s the kind of thing that you can take out. You can say ‘look at what this cop did, this guy ought to be punished and this is evidence of a system problem inside the police force.’ Now, whether or not that’s true, it’s very difficult to prove but certainly this is a much better case for you to protest against. But not the Michael Brown case.I want to switch over and talk about what’s happening in the school system and really in government. And I’m going to use something that’s going on in the U.K. and tie that to a battle a church in California is having. Christian school 'downgraded for failing to invite an imam to lead assembly'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11173102/Christian-school-downgraded-for-failing-to-invite-an-imam-to-lead-assembly.htmlA successful Christian school has been warned it is to be downgraded by inspectors and could even face closure after failing to invite a leader from another religion, such as an imam, to lead assemblies, it is claimed.The small independent school in the Home Counties was told it is in breach of new rules intended to promote “British values” such as individual liberty and tolerance in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, involving infiltration by hard-line Muslim groups in Birmingham.So you have a Christian school in the United Kingdom that’s been downgraded by the government and they’re facing potential closure because the Christian school will not bring in Imams or some other religious group to lead assemblies.Let me set this up for you. The Trojan Horse Scandal was a situation where some Muslim based schools were used as breeding grounds to spread hate and discontent. There is evidence that they were attempting to get rid of all non-muslim staff in order to teach radical ideas to children. And the British government was upset about this so they put together a law that says you have to provide a well balanced education. Inspectors are going around schools now say that they will consider the effectiveness of a school’s provision for a pupil’s spiritual, moral, social, cultural development and how the schools leadership and management ensures that the curriculum’s activities promote British values.Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want to explain to you a very simple principle that is overlooked. There is no such thing as British values. There is no such thing as American values or French values. There are only individual values. And individual values vary from person to person, from household to household, across the country. So the very idea that you are going to create a law that focuses on promoting British values is to suggest that individual values have no place and that there is some sort of collective value system across the whole of Britain. And that simply can’t be true. That’s the first thing that we really need to understand.The second thing is this law is designed to promote individual liberty. But if the government is placing laws on people preventing them from the free practice of their own religion and choosing how they are going to educate children seems to me a violation of liberty, not a support of.The most troubling piece of this is the tolerance piece. This idea of tolerance on an international scale has become one that says you have to be accepting of everyone’s religion, you don’t have a choice. Tolerance means total acceptance, allowing all people special privileges, forcing people to accept your way of life. That is not tolerance.True tolerance is you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. We may very well disagree but as long as you stay on your side and you don’t infringe on my right to practice what I believe, I will not infringe on your right to practice what you believe.For example, the gay marriage topic we talked about yesterday where this gay couple walk into a chapel and says we’d like you to marry us. And the individual says I’m sorry that goes against our religion and our faith so we simply can’t do that for you. I’m not going to perform this ceremony. Well, under this new concept of tolerance, somehow this pastor ought to be forced to provide chapel services to this gay couple, even if it goes against what he believes. So it’s okay if it infringes on his individual liberty, on his individual right as long as it’s tolerant of someone else’s opinion. Where is the tolerance of this pastor? Where is the tolerance for this school? Churches in California Battle State Gov’t After Being Forced to Cover ‘Elective Abortion’http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/23/look-closely-at-these-govt-letters-the-elective-abortion-mandate-could-have-major-implications-for-california-churches/A recent regulatory change in California now requires all employer health plans in the state — including those offered by churches and faith-based organizations — to cover elective abortions, according to a conservative legal firm.Casey Mattox, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told TheBlaze Thursday that the regulatory amendment requiring abortion coverage was made by California’s Department of Managed Health Care.The abortion policy immediately took effect August 22, with the government giving 90 additional days for the language in health care plans to officially change, according to state documents.Mattox explained this week in a story for The Federalist that the change resulted from “the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union,” with California officials subsequently deciding that elective abortion now falls under “basic health services” in the state.But Mattox told TheBlaze that this regulatory situation is curious, as churches are now exempt from providing contraception, but not abortion.“Churches are exempt from both state and federal … mandates,” he said. “They don’t have to provide contraception, but they have to provide abortion.”Support the show.

Casey Mattox of the Alliance Defending Freedom joins Andrew and Matt to discuss the Houston religious liberty fiasco, the SCOTUS non-decisions, along with challenges in Idaho and California. The post E12: Casey Mattox and the triple threat: Houston, Idaho, California appeared first on Canon and Culture.

Senator Tom Coburn and Casey Mattox join David Steven, MD to discuss the on going battle over Conscience Rights in the public square.

M. Casey Mattox is litigation counsel at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society. Casey earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia in 1997 and his J.D. in 2001 from the Boston College Law School.