Podcasts about employment division

High school French teacher Peter Vlaming was fired from his job in West Point, Virginia, for declining to refer to a female student using male pronouns. Vlaming filed suit in state court, alleging that the school board had violated his rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech under the Virginia Constitution. Late last year, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the Virginia Constitution provides more robust protections for religious freedom than the federal Free Exercise Clause as interpreted in Employment Division v. Smith. As the Court wrote, “the federal Smith doctrine is not and never has been the law in Virginia, and its shelf life in the federal courts remains uncertain.” In its place, the Virginia Supreme Court adopted a history-and-tradition approach that asks whether the religious claimant has committed or is seeking to commit “overt acts against peace and good order,” and whether the government’s interest in negating that threat could be satisfied by “less restrictive means” than denying a religious exemption. This opinion raises a host of interesting questions: Will the U.S. Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges be expanded to apply to other constitutional rights? Will other state courts follow the Virginia Supreme Court’s lead in applying it to their own state constitutions? Did the Virginia Supreme Court get its history right? Could its historical analysis serve as the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Smith? What rights should public schoolteachers have in the classroom? Should courts resolve conflicts between the alleged free-exercise and free-speech rights of teachers and the alleged rights of students to engage in their own forms of self-expression? Finally, what role, if any, does Title IX play in the analysis? This panel will address these and other questions raised by this important decision.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Kate Carté, Professor of History, Southern Methodist UniversityChris Schandevel, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Advocacy TeamAdam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLC(Moderator) Eric Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Law School

Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has grown, as wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex weddings pursuant to their consciences. On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which held that the free speech clause prohibits a state from forcing a website designer to create messages with which the designer disagrees. That said, the Court has yet to issue a clear decision that resolves these issues under the free exercise clause, even though wedding vendors almost invariably object to providing services on religious grounds. Indeed, when the free exercise question was addressed in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court largely punted on the issue and resolved the case on very narrow procedural grounds.Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.Featuring: Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of LawJonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee

Listen to the live launch of the EBRD Transition Report launch. The global shift to net zero will require major structural changes in economies, as well as extensive change in daily lives. The scale of the transition is unprecedented: from the rush to source critical raw materials to the reconfiguration of global supply chains; from the rise of green skills in the workforce to the development of environmentally sustainable housing markets. The EBRD Transition Report 2023-24: Transitions big and small, published today, offers revealing insights into the way macro-level trends leading to carbon neutrality impact the types of job sought, household management and, ultimately, the perceived level of happiness in the regions where the Bank operates. EBRD Chief Economist Beata Javorcik said: “The change and upheaval that stems from these trends will affect people's lives for the foreseeable future. Policymakers will need to establish a deep understanding of those effects in order to plan future stages of the green transition, as individual attitudes will both shape and be shaped by that transition process. […] “The success of the green transition will depend on winning their hearts and minds as we continue our journey towards a cleaner future. If there is one thing we have learned from 30 years of transition in the EBRD regions, it is that reforms will not last unless they have broad-based support.” The discussion features Charlotta Källbäck, Head of Internal Audit, Volvo Cars Sandra Bates, specialist on mining and clean energy with Executive and non-Executive Director experience Mark Keese, Head of the Skills and Employment Division, OECD Professor Beata Javorcik, Chief Economist, EBRD Moderated by Jonathan Charles

Alison, Liz, and Rebecca are joined by Professor Marci Hamilton, legal icon and leading expert on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and extreme religious liberty. Professor Hamilton explains the origin story of RFRA, how it has led us to the emerging theocracy we face, and what Americans can do to reclaim true religious liberty before it's too late.  Submit a question for the holiday mailbag episode here!   Background Professor Marci Hamilton's bio CHILD USA, Prof. Hamilton's think tank FFRF's FAQ on RFRA  Congressional Research Service primer on RFRA   Cases City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020)  FFRF's amicus brief, written by Marci Hamilton American Atheists and Center For Inquiry's amicus brief 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) U.S. Pastor Council (Braidwood Management) v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2023) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012)     Check us out on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

Dan Mickelson, Chief of the Immigration and Employment Division in the State Department's Visa Office, answers tough questions about visas for international travelers. Dan provides insight into the action plan for improving wait times, and shares upcoming innovations that will streamline the issuance of visas to millions of applicants.

More than 30 years ago, a Native American man named Al Smith was fired for ingesting peyote at a religious ceremony. When his battle made it to the Supreme Court, the decision set off a thorny debate over when religious people get to sidestep the law — a debate we're still having today. Voices in the episode include: • Garrett Epps — Professor of Practice at the University of Oregon Law School • Ka'ila Farrell-Smith — Al Smith's daughter, visual artist • Jane Farrell — Al Smith's widow, retired early childhood specialist • Galen Black — Al Smith's former coworker • Steven C. Moore — senior staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund • Craig J. Dorsay — lawyer who argued Al Smith's case before the Supreme Court • Dan Mach — director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief Learn more: • 1963: Sherbert v. Verner • 1990: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith • 2022: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis • Peyote vs the State: Religious Freedom On Trial, Garrett Epps • Factsheet: Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of 1993, The Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University • Our History, the Klamath Tribes   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

This case presents an intersection between Native Americans’ free exercise rights and the Government’s power to regulate its territories. In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world. Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine. Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful. The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month. Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible. The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng. At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world. To discuss this exciting en banc hearing, the Federalist Society is pleased to host an excellent debate team. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States. Featuring: Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts

Audio of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Majority Opinion (Foster Care, Same-sex Couples, Catholic Social Services) Because Philadelphia Catholic Social Services (CSS) had a policy against licensing same-sex couples to be foster parents, the City of Philadelphia pulled the organization's license to place children in foster homes in March 2018. So, CSS sued the City of Philadelphia. In asking the court to order Philadelphia to renew their contract, CSS argued that its right to free exercise of religion and free speech entitled it to reject qualified same-sex couples based solely on the fact the couples were gay. Three questions before the Court in this case were: 1. To succeed on their free exercise claim, must plaintiffs prove that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views, or only provide sufficient evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable? 2. Should the Court revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith? 3. Does the government violate the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency's ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency's religious beliefs? In a unanimous decision, the Court sided with Fulton, holding that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123

QUESTION PRESENTED: Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith. But the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) requires her to create custom websites celebrating same-sex marriage and prohibits her statement--even though Colorado stipulates that she "work[s] with all people regardless of ... sexual orientation." App.53a, 184a. The Tenth Circuit applied strict scrutiny and astonishingly concluded that the government may, based on content and viewpoint, force Lorie to convey messages that violate her religious beliefs and restrict her from explaining her faith. The court also upheld CADA under Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), even though CADA creates a "gerrymander" where secular artists can decline to speak but religious artists cannot, meaning the government can compel its approved messages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artist's sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. 2. Whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable under Smith, and if so, whether this Court should overrule Smith. GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER APPLYING A PUBLIC-ACCOMMODATION LAW TO COMPEL AN ARTIST TO SPEAK OR STAY SILENT VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-476.html

Audio of the 1990 opinion of the Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. Two Oregon men were fired from their jobs at the same organization when their employer learned that they had ingested peyote for religious purposes. When the two men later applied for unemployment benefits, they were denied because they had been fired over their criminal conduct. In this case, the Court was asked whether a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound.

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah's Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an exception for him? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? And that was bipartisan sentiment at the time. So Congress passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. And what RFRA did was take that compelling interest, strict scrutiny test that was used in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and say that's going to be the test for all religious freedom claims, including claims for an exception to a generally applicable law. Now, the federal RFRA only applies to federal laws, but almost half of the states enacted their own state level RFRA. That includes much of the south and also some deep blue New England states. The end result is that whether you are going to take more of a Smith approach or more of a church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye approach depends on where you live. I told you that RFRA was a bipartisan sentiment at the time. Not so much now. Over the years, increasingly high profile RFRA claims involve L G B T issues. For instance, conservative Christian florists seeking exceptions from anti-discrimination laws so that they can refuse to serve same sex weddings. RFRA itself didn't change, but it acquired this anti-gay connotation that left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths. And like so many other issues, opinions about RFRA grew more and more partisan, more and more polarized. And then the Supreme Court decided Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. This was a huge RFRA case. It was only eight years ago. It got a ton of press and I'm sure many of you already know all about it. But I'm gonna summarize it. So as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. Employers of a certain size were required to provide contraceptives — coverage for various contraceptives with no copay. Hobby lobby did not object to most of the contraceptive methods on the list, but it identified four that it said weren't really contraceptives, that that was a misnomer. These were really abortifacients. They weren't preventing conception, they were preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting. Hobby Lobby considered that to be an early abortion, and the company owners' Evangelical Christian faith would not allow them to be complicit in funding their employees abortions. Hobby Lobby brought a case under RFRA. The Supreme Court used that two part strict scrutiny test. Remember: compelling interest and narrowly tailored. The court assumed that the government does have a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. It was that second part of the test whether the law is narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests by the least restrictive means, which is where the contraceptive mandate failed. And that was largely because a religious exception already exists. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS had created an exception, had had given accommodations to churches and religious non-profits that had a problem with funding contraceptives. In those cases, the government covered the cost without the employer's involvement, thus advancing the compelling interest in contraceptive access without a religious burden. So the accommodation was obviously possible. It was being done. It's just that HHS would not extend that accommodation to Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby was a for profit company. A slim majority of the justices, five to four, said that under RFRA, that doesn't matter. For-profit or nonprofit status doesn't matter. So Hobby Lobby got its exception from the contraceptive mandate. The mandate itself was not struck down, by the way. It's still in effect, albeit with greater, broader, religious exceptions than HHS wanted. Women are still getting their pills. Sky didn't fall, but plenty of people were convinced that the sky was falling and RFRA took another hit in the court of public opinion. So the religious liberty challenges to pro-life laws that we're seeing today are largely RFRA lawsuits. When you read the press about them, the narrative is basically, Ha ha ha, conservatives we're using your religion law against you. Like it's some kind of Gotcha. Hopefully by virtue of this presentation, you understand why that take is ahistorical. But forget the press. Let's take a fair look at the lawsuits themselves, starting with the Satanists. First of all, to correct a myth, Satanists, do not literally worship Satan or even believe in the existence of Satan. Satanism is a naturalistic system, but you do not necessarily need a deity to qualify as a religion under the First Amendment. Sincerely held Moral beliefs will suffice. For purposes of today, satanism is a religion, and Satanists provide a useful public service, in my view, keeping local governments in compliance with the establishment clause. I see you've, put up a 10 Commandments monument. Where do we apply to erect our statue to Baphomet? It's those, it's those guys. You, you've seen the satanists. One of the better known Satanist communities is the Satanic Temple, which follows seven tenets. The first tenet is one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with roots, in accordance with reason. Unfortunately, that noble tenant goes straight out the window when it comes to abortion. In that case, they emphasize the third tenet: one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. Classic sovereign zone. The Satanic abortion ritual involves reciting and contemplating that third tenet while getting an abortion. For the purpose of casting off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the satanist may be experiencing about the abortion. So the argument is not that abortion is a required part of Satanic practice. It's not like making a hodge. They're not sacrificing babies to earn points. That's not what's going on here. The argument is just that if a satanist is going to have abortion, this is the ritual that goes along with it. And by restricting abortion, you're also restricting the ritual. The Jewish lawsuits, by contrast, Argue that Jewish law actually requires abortion, at least in some circumstances. For instance, the complaint brought against Florida's 15 week ban, which is still pending. That complaint asserts that late term abortion is required under Jewish law, if necessary, to promote the woman's mental wellbeing, which obviously goes far beyond Florida's normal health of the mother exception. To be abundantly clear, that is not a universal interpretation of Jewish law. Those plaintiffs do not speak for all Jews. There are pro-life jews, and Jews are welcome at this conference. Let's assume that we are in a RFRA jurisdiction. If a state wants its pro-life laws to apply universally without granting an exception to anyone who claims a religious freedom to abort, remember what the state has to. One, the law is supported by a compelling interest. And two, the law is narrowly tailored to advance that compelling interest with the least possible burden to religious exercise. We all know what the compelling interest is. It's human life. The plaintiffs will say, Not to our religion, it's not. And I say, Bring on that debate. The science of life at fertilization is settled. And when you read the Dobbs opinion, I don't think you can escape the conclusion that the government now has a legally compelling interest in preventing abortions. Is there any way to promote that compelling interest without creating a religious clash? Not that I see. One day with the development of artificial, artificial wombs? Maybe. That, that would be great. But with current technology, no. So I believe that anti-abortion laws should survive a RFRA challenge. They survive strict scrutiny. The lawsuits will fail. But Kelsey, someone asks, What about strict in theory, fatal in fact? Thank you, person who has been paying attention. You should be skeptical. Can I point to any specific legal precedent that a state's interest in, in protecting human life, and in particular young human life, and preventing human death, can trump a religiously motivated medical decision? Well, folks, I promised you Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm a woman of my word. Several bible verses prohibit eating blood and instruct Israelites to remove blood from their meat. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret those versions to prohibit not only eating blood through the mouth and digestion, but any consumption of blood, including taking blood intravenously. They oppose blood transfusions on that religious ground. This belief is very sincerely held. Many Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. Many have proved it. Normally, we trust parents to make medical decisions for their children, but when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to allow life saving blood transfusions for their kids, authorities often intervene. And when that happens, the parents go to court demanding vindication of their religious liberty. There's whole line of cases about this going back decades. And most of them cite this powerful quote from the Supreme Court case of Prince versus Massachusetts. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children. Oddly enough, Prince didn't involve blood transfusion or any other life or death issue. Prince was about a Jehovah's Witness who had her daughter, selling religious pamphlets late at night in violation of a child labor law. But the Supreme Court's rhetorical flourish about making martyrs of your children made it clear how it would come down in a blood transfusion case. And courts across the country took that unsubtle hint. For example, a Washington Court rejected a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion lawsuit on the compelling authority of Prince. An Ohio Court wrote, no longer can parents virtually exercise the power of life or death over their children. Nor may they abandon him, deny him proper parental care, neglect or refuse to provide him with proper and necessary subsistence education, medical or surgical care, or other care necessary for his health, morals, or wellbeing. And while they may, under certain circumstances, deprive him of his liberty or his property, under no circumstances, with or without due process, with or without religious sanction, are they free to deprive him of his life. That same court went on to say the parents in this case have a perfect right to worship as they please and believe what they please. They enjoy complete freedom of religion, but this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own. The right to live and grow up without disfigurement. Okay. You're thinking those were all born children. Okay. Allow me to introduce you to the New Jersey case of Hoener versus Bertinato. Mr. And Mrs. Bertinato were Jehovah's Witnesses. Mrs. Bertinato was pregnant with her fourth child. This was an issue of RH incompatibility. I am not qualified to explain that in any detail, so I'll just quote the court. Her first child was born without the necessity of blood transfusions and is a normal child. This accords with the medical testimony at the hearing that the mother's RH blood condition adversely affects the second and subsequent children, but rarely is harmful for the harmful to the first born. Second child needed a blood transfusion immediately. The parents refused and the baby's doctors filed an emergency petition. The court briefly placed that baby in state custody just long enough to accomplish the blood transfusion. The child survived, and the child was returned to the parents. I'll quote again. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who also — excuse me. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who admittedly also needed a blood transfusion to save its life, but defendants again refused to permit this on religious grounds. No legal proceedings were instituted to compel the transfusion. The infant died. For baby number four, the county would not allow that tragedy to be repeated. They were ready. Officials filed their lawsuit before the child was born, to ensure that a blood transfusion could occur. The lawsuit, quote, charges that the defendants, by their refusal to authorize the transfusions, are endangering the life of the unborn child, and are therefore neglecting to provide it with proper protection, in violation of New Jersey law. The court acknowledged that the parents' religious objections were sincere. But the parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the state to act in order to preserve the welfare of a child and its right to survive. The court cited Prince and various other Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases, and then it asked, should the outcome be any different because this child is still in the womb? And the answer was a resounding no. This was pre-roe. So the court embraced the science and stated medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception, and many branches of the law afford the unborn child protection throughout the period of gestation. Of course, in the Dobbs era, that protection is finally being restored. A pro-abortion American is free to embrace a religious belief that human life does not begin at fertilization, but she is not free to make a martyr of her child. That concludes my prepared remarks. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Um, Elizabeth asked, what was the name of this case? I don't know which case you're referring to. All of the cases are in that citation, that link I gave at the beginning. And you should be able to, hold on. Are you talking about the most recent case I was talked? The, the last case I mentioned, Hoener, H O E N E R, versus Bertinato was the case with the, the unborn child of Jehovah's Witness. Love all the jokes in geek. Thank you, . I, I know that we, we cover some dark topics at the Rehumanize Conference. I'm a big believer in, trying to lighten the mood. I don't see much in Q and A tab, so I'm just gonna scroll back through the chat tab. Let me see if there's anything here. , As a fellow lawyer, I feel that caveat to my core. Yes. Thank you, Leah. Um, Oh my God. . Sorry. The poor, poor dog. Okay. Jews have been pro-life for millennia, so Yeah. I, I agree. Joey. Thank you, joey, for rick rolling us . Okay. Um. Ben says, these seem like really strong precedents, especially because some of them are arguably about letting die rather than killing and are thus even stronger than what you'd need in the abortion case. Excellent point, Ben. Yes, I, I certainly, hope that the courts see it the same way. The, the downside to the Jehovahs Witness precedence is that they are older and they are not Supreme Court precedents. But as I mentioned, the, the Supreme Court precedent in Prince, although not about blood transfusions, has, has largely been, taken up in that line of cases. And I think it would, still function in the same way in the unlikely event that one of these religious freedom abortion cases makes its way all the way to our highest court. How would you summarize this to say 240 characters? Like to tweet at Catholics for Choice? You might need a thread , or you can just, link to the eventual video of this presentation. I believe Rehumanize is going to make this footage available, and then we'll get the closed captions going and put it up on YouTube, hopefully within the next few weeks. But yeah, more, more generally, I think, the, I don't know, maybe I should start tweeting at Catholics for Choice about this. What are you seeing in the legal field regarding RFRA changing its function post Roe? I don't know that it's really changing its function necessarily. So some of the plaintiffs, and particularly the satanist plaintiffs, I think are bringing these lawsuits, not solely because they're pro-abortion, although they are — I think they would also, as a, as a strategic matter, like to push on RFRA. I think I, and I think that's why we're seeing the press around it that we're seeing. This is like — even if they were to lose and they, they have to know that they're likely to lose, this is, this is a press thing and this is a, a matter of, trying to, get, get some more public opposition to RFRA. So. I, I don't, I haven't seen a whole lot of traction on that front. I haven't seen any legislatures, taking RFRA off their books, but you never know. . David asks, How long, how do you do your legal prep? Sorry, I'm struggling to read this because other things keep popping up. How do you do your legal research and how long does it take? Did you know most of these cases offhand or did you have to look them up? So I knew some of the big ones offhand. I knew. Employment Division v Smith. I knew Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I knew Prince vs. Massachusetts. I knew Hobby Lobby. You know, like I, I refreshed my memory by rereading those opinions, but I knew that that was where I needed to start. And then I did have to do some additional research, when it came to the, the pen — the pending lawsuits, and also the Jehovah's Witness line of cases. I, I, because I am a practicing attorney, I have access to Westlaw, which is the, legal database. That was very helpful. And, you know, also just, I, you know, I started by just doing a general search for law review articles about Jehovah's Witness of blood transfusion that compiled some of the cases. And that was, that was a good start. And I, was definitely working on this presentation as late as last night. So , I'm glad it came together. I am a better procrastinator. But that's, yeah, that's how it all happened. Let's see. Ben asks, Apart from law, what do you think about the ethical argument from religious freedom or religious pluralism, that being pro-life depends on controversial slash contested views about the grounds of personal identity and dignity. And so no one view should be legislated for by a pluralist society. The problem is that your, your law is going to pick a line. That's what laws do. If. That, that that argument, that poor pluralism argument treats birth like it's a neutral line. It's not. The, the law is gonna pick a line and every line is gonna offend somebody . That, that's just, that's just life in a democracy. So I don't, I don't find that argument particularly, persuasive from our loyal opposition. My, I would go a step farther and say that the only neutral way to go about this is to say that, you know, human rights begin when human life begins. And that that has to be defined in a scientific way, rather than a philosophical way because, there, there's, you know, you all of these, different guideposts that are being posed. Bear a lot of resemblance to ensoulment, which would be an establishment of religion. I hope that makes sense. , Given your rationale, how would any abortion be legal without demonstrating an exceptional need such as life of the mother? I, I do oppose abortion other than for the life of the mother. Mother, excuse me. Under Dobbs, the state, it, it is still a state by state thing. I'm getting into — the 14th Amendment argument is definitely beyond the scope of what I can do in the next nine minutes. But the, so, the idea is that you're, you know, the people of a state, through their legislatures, demonstrate what the interests of the state are. Right? So Florida or, you know, let's, you know, take, take like Alabama, right? Alabama has, an active, pretty, pretty strong anti-abortion legislation post Dobbs. That is an indication that the state of Alabama has a compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting human life. California obviously does not think that it has that compelling interest, so that — I, I don't know if I'm answering your question. But I, I hope, I hope that helps. How can interested people get involved with Secular Pro-life and what are your current needs? Yeah, definitely you can get involved in Secular Pro-life. We are always in need of volunteers. We, look for people to write guest pieces on our blog. We look for translators. We wanna get our message out in languages other than English. You can email me, info@secularprolife.org, or you can email our executive director Monica at Monica, secularprolife.org and, get connected to some volunteer opportunities that way. And you can also donate, via our website or our Facebook page. In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the honor killing of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter, but the majority in Canada, fortunately in the case of that issue, and unfortunately perhaps some other issues imposed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to impose views — not a question, a comment supporting something you said. I, yeah, that, that's an excellent example. I would stick with the Jehovah's witness example, just because it's a little less inflammatory. . I, I'm not in the habit of, comparing pro-choice people to supporters of honor killings if I don't have to. I think the Jehovah's Witness comparison is, more diplomatic and civil. But on principle, yes, you are correct. The the same reasons that, you shouldn't be able to, claim a religious exemption to commit an honor killing are, are the same reasons that you shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption to have abortion. Um, Yeah, neutrality just seems impossible here. No neutrality when lives are on the line. Oh. Maria wrote, We will be publishing a handful of the session recordings on our YouTube in the coming weeks, but all attendees should have immediate access to all the recordings for rewatch and hopin on Monday, and that access will last for a full year. All right. Thank you. Maria. I don't. I'm, I'm guessing that's only for people who bought a ticket, though. I don't think Catholics for Choice bought a ticket. It's their loss. It's their loss. Okay, we've got about five more minutes together and I think I went through everybody's questions we might end earlier, which is, a secular miracle for a conference like this. I see Leah is on Team Westlaw. Yes, Westlaw all the way. I don't use Lexus. Never have. Um, oh. And Herb says, Thank you. All right. Herb, did you wanna come into the presentation and say anything? I was gonna do that, and then I just realized I'm in the same room as Kane who is on a panel right now, so nevermind. I'm leaving Yes, Secular Miracle would be a great band name, absolutely Ray. Hmm. Can you maybe conscience rights for physicians? Oh, can I comment on that? It's a big problem here in Canada. I unfortunately don't know much at all about Canadian law. I don't, to my knowledge, Canada doesn't have something like RFRA. So I am unfortunately not the person to ask. But, yeah, RFRA certainly can be used, for conscience protections in, in some situations. That wasn't within the scope of what I was researching, for this presentation, but I have seen that anecdotally. Um, the danger there, of course is that, you're treating, objection to abortion as inherently religious, which it isn't , but, Okay. Anything else? Always heard Canada is pretty bad for conference rights. Yeah. Yeah. That, that's what I've heard also. Oh, something in the Q and A. Thank you. What do you think of efforts to argue for pro-life conclusions within religions on specifically religious grounds? Eg. Do you think Catholic should be arguing against Catholic for Choice? Primarily just using general moral argument. To avoid creating the impression that it's really a religious issue, or do you think there's a role for intra religious debates to be more well religious? I, I think that if you are part of a religious community, and members of your community are out doing stupid things or unethical things, you should go get your guy. That's, I, I have no problem with you using a religious argument with someone that you know to be religious. Now if you're in a public Twitter argument with Catholics for Choice, then maybe consider that you're not so much trying to persuade them. You're trying to persuade the audience. So in that case you might take a more ve route, but yeah, individually, like in a one on one or small group setting, if you are speaking with co-religionists, I don't have a problem with you, using a religious argument. That's your business. I'm, I'm an atheist. That's, that's not my realm at all. So something came up in chat. Con — that's the problem we're having. Conscience is always being framed as religious, but conscience is not itself exclusive to religion. Yeah. And so that kind of gets back to my point earlier about, satanism being considered a religion. And you, you can see that also in, consci— conscientious objector rules for military, you do not have to be, religious to, to claim, an interest in pacifism. I read about a pastor who has a ministry flying women from places where abortion is illegal to get abortions legally. That's just gross. Okay. I think we are done. Thank you all so much for your time. I am going to maybe hang out a little bit at the Secular Pro-Life Expo booth if anybody wants to continue this conversation. And, yeah. Thank, thank you so much for, for dropping in. I really, and, and for, for asking such thoughtful questions.  

In this episode, we bring you another installment of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame series, this time dealing with 1990's Employment Division v. Smith – in which the Court's desire to prevent people from using drugs creates some very real problems for the First Amendment.After that, we bring you the very first part of our (probably) short series on the Roman Republic, “The Fall of Rome” (get it?... because it's Fall!). We start things off with a look at the way the Romans handled voting, which just goes to show you that wrangling over voting districts and procedure is a very old problem, indeed.Finally, because we went a bit over time, we take the quickest of trips to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we'll learn about this one weird trick for handling a bar investigation. (Spoiler: it doesn't work all that well.)Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Employment Division v. Smith (1:00)Fall of Rome – Roman Voting (27:15)Captain Kangaroo Court (1:01:45)

Linda Hynes, Partner at the Employment Division of law firm Lewis Silkin

Alison, Rebecca and Monica discuss another tool in our kit to keep religion and government separate: legislative advocacy. Alison, as our resident policy expert, guides us through the many bills that threaten church/state separation wending their ways through state legislatures this year. Background Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) BlitzWatch Relevant Cases Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Tandon v. Newsom (2021) Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)   Check us out on Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

Accommodationists Accommodationists, in contrast, argue along with Justice William O Douglas that "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Furthermore, as observed by Chief Justice Warren E Burger in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) with respect to the separation of church and state: "No perfect or absolute separation is really possible; the very existence of the Religion Clauses is an involvement of sorts—one that seeks to mark boundaries to avoid excessive entanglement." He also coined the term "benevolent neutrality" as a combination of neutrality and accommodationism in Walz to characterize a way to ensure that there is no conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Burger's successor, William Rehnquist, called for the abandonment of the "wall of separation between church and State" metaphor in Wallace v Jaffree (1985), because he believed this metaphor was based on bad history and proved itself useless as a guide to judging. David Shultz has said that accommodationists claim the Lemon test should be applied selectively. As such, for many conservatives, the Establishment Clause solely prevents the establishment of a state church, not public acknowledgements of God nor 'developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals'. In Lynch v Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court observed that the "concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor, but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any." Free exercise of religion. The acknowledgement of religious freedom as the first right protected in the Bill of Rights points toward the American founders' understanding of the importance of religion to human, social, and political flourishing. The First Amendment makes clear that it sought to protect "the free exercise" of religion, or what might be called "free exercise equality." Free exercise is the liberty of persons to reach, hold, practice and change beliefs freely according to the dictates of conscience. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." The Free Exercise Clause offers a double protection, for it is a shield not only against outright prohibitions with respect to the free exercise of religion, but also against penalties on the free exercise of religion and against indirect governmental coercion. Relying on Employment Division v Smith (1990) and quoting from Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v Hialeah (1993) the Supreme Court stated in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v Comer (2017) that religious observers are protected against unequal treatment by virtue of the Free Exercise Clause and laws which target the religious for "special disabilities" based on their "religious status" must be covered by the application of strict scrutiny. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Religious Liberty after Fulton v. City of Philadelphia."Fulton v. City of Philadelphia was a victory for religious liberty, but it is unclear how broad its implications will be for other cases and what the opinions in Fulton portend for the future of Employment Division v. Smith. The Court’s majority opinion relied on provisions of Philadelphia’s foster care agency contracting process, but the majority also potentially reworked Smith’s understanding of when government regulation is "generally applicable." Meanwhile, several justices indicated a willingness to revisit Smith altogether, though what a post-Smith free exercise jurisprudence would look like remains unclear. This panel will explore these and other questions raised by Fulton and the future of religious free exercise.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMs. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyModerator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Protecting the free exercise of religion is a key aspect of fighting antisemitism. Regrettably, modern discourse often restricts the notion of antisemitism to those acts that deliberately target the Jewish people because they are Jewish. This approach overlooks the potential for facially neutral, general laws that burden Jewish religious practice under current free exercise doctrine from the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith. This discussion will consider the legal arguments needed to restore a robust understanding of free exercise, an important bulwark against antisemitism. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr Jake Greenblum joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Dr Ryan Hubbard: "Should Employment Division v Smith Be Overturned?" Recorded August 19, 2021 

Fulton v City of Philadelphia (2021) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania due to the agency's refusal to provide service to married same-sex couples on religious grounds. In a unanimous judgment on June 17, 2021, the Court ruled that the city's refusal due to the agency's same-sex couple policy violated the Free Exercise Clause. The case was decided on narrow grounds outside of the Supreme Court's prior decision in Employment Division v Smith, which had previously ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged for violating religious exemptions. Instead, in Fulton, the court ruled that services like foster care contracting were not public accommodations covered by Smith, and thus were subject to strict scrutiny review. Because the city allowed for exceptions to be made in its anti-discrimination policy for foster care certification, the Court deemed the city's policy to violate the foster case agency's free exercise of religious under Smith. Background. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia runs the Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (CSS), which has operated a foster care agency in Philadelphia for over 100 years. The foster care agency had been registered with the city up through 2018. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article on March 13, 2018, which described the experience of a same-sex couple that went to an information session at Bethany Christian Service, which operated its own foster care service separate from CSS. At the session, the couple were told they would be wasting time because there was a policy for refusing to serve same-sex couples. In following up, the reporter discovered that CSS held a similar policy, and had spoken to the city's Department of Human Services, which oversaw regulating foster care services, to notify them of these issues. The Commissioner of Human Services for the city, Cynthia Figueroa, followed up on the report with both CSS and Bethany Christian Services to confirm its veracity towards discrimination against same-sex couples. Figueroa also reviewed the standard with other registered foster care agencies for the city, many also who were also run by religious organizations, but found none of the others had similar restrictions against same-sex couples. Within a few days of the article's publication, the city suspended CSS's contract; the Bethany Christian Service had been able to work a deal to accept foster care from same-sex couples to maintain theirs. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this episode of The Interview, Hugh speaks with Ken Starr at the ADF Conference in Orlando FL about a number of topics and legal issues as well as his latest book, "Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode, Chris is joined by Christopher Dodson, J.D., executive director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference.  Christopher unpacks the development of Free Exercise clause cases in the 20th century, culminating in the Smith v. Employment Division decision in 1990.  Chris then gives a high-level overview of the recent Fulton v. Philadelphia case, which avoids using the Smith standard, but gives us good reason to believe Smith is on shaky ground.

On this episode, Chris is joined by Christopher Dodson, J.D., executive director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference.  Christopher unpacks the development of Free Exercise clause cases in the 20th century, culminating in the Smith v. Employment Division decision in 1990.  Chris then gives a high-level overview of the recent Fulton v. Read more…

On May 19, 2021 the Nashville and Chattanooga Lawyers Chapters co-hosted a discussion on the free exercise clause from Employment Division v. Smith to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.Featuring: Lori Windham, Senior Counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (lead counsel in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School v. EEOC)Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law and Political Science & Director, Program on Church, State & Society, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Kody Cooper, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and Public Service, University of Tennessee at ChattanoogaModerator: Hon. Katherine A. Crytzer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of TennesseeIntroductions: Alan Jackson, Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, P.C.; The Federalist Society's Chattanooga 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 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

In this episode, Joe interviews author of Psychedelica Lex, general counsel to the Peyote Way Church of God, founder and president of the Arizona Cannabis Bar Association, and practicing attorney for nearly 30 years, Gary Michael Smith, Esq.  Smith talks about what he specializes in- the law and how it relates to psychedelics, and what's happening most in his world right now: people trying to create new religions, people fighting for their religions to be legally permitted to use entheogens, and investors rapidly trying to push psilocybin and MDMA through the FDA as prescribable medications. He also talks about the Peyote Way Church of God, the history of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (often referred to as RFRA), the problems with banks and dealing with money attached to illegalities, the complications of fighting for legal drug use and the importance of having established history with entheogens, the antihero aspects and deification of Timothy Leary, Nixon and the scheduling of cannabis, federal patent law, today's speed of knowledge and the youth’s resistance of what they’re being told, and how there's an argument to be made that many of today's existing religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam, of note) have a right to use entheogens due to their somewhat newly discovered historical use. Notable Quotes “The short story is, I went looking for this book and I couldn’t find it. It didn’t exist. So I figured well, heck, if I’m going to have to pull and do all this research, I might as well assemble it into a book and fill the void. So that’s how the book came about- written because nobody else wrote it.” “There aren’t really any psychedelic lawyers yet. I’m probably the first one to publicly come out and say that I am. And for good reason: there’s really not a lot of business right now that attracts this. But seeing cannabis unfold over the last decade, as I have- it doesn’t really take a genius to figure out that the law is way behind the curve on this, and lawmakers even more behind the curve, and there’s no shame in trying to catch up, or, Heaven forbid, get ahead.” “I’m advocating a middle ground position where I think that these companies absolutely have a place, I think that they absolutely can do good (it’s not the tool that’s bad, it’s how you use the tool), so what I’d like to see is both the fostering of this licit market where there are companies that can mass-produce and also give people in the West what they’re comfortable with, which is a Western model of medicine. ...I think as long as there is an across-the-board decriminalization so people can still do freely for themselves, let the medical model grow up next to it. There’s no contradiction as far as I’m concerned.”  Links Psychedelicalex.com Peyoteway.org (Peyote Way Church of God) Guidant.law/gary-smith Youtube: Interview with Brad Stoddard on Psychedelica Lex (part 1) Psychedelics Today: Uniform Model Law on Plants and Fungi Medicines: A Better Path to Reregulation, by Gary Michael Smith, Esq. Wikipedia.org: Religious Freedom Restoration Act The Sherbert Test info Wikipedia.org: Employment Division v. Smith Wikipedia.org: Federal Analogue Act Youtube: Nixon being a piece of trash The Most Dangerous Man in America: Timothy Leary, Richard Nixon and the Hunt for the Fugitive King of LSD, by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis Autobiography Of A Yogi, by Paramahansa Yogananda The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East, by John M. Allegro The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity, by Jerry and Julie Brown About Gary Michael Smith, Esq.     Support the show Patreon Leave us a review on Facebook or iTunes Share us with your friends Join our Facebook group - Psychedelics Today group – Find the others and create community. Navigating Psychedelics  

On today’s holiday mailbag edition of the podcast, David and Sarah answer a series of listener questions ranging from legal history to college football. Do you have to admit guilt to accept a pardon? Are there any wrongfully decided Supreme Court cases that are still on the books? Is there a secular argument for prohibiting abortion or does restricting the practice entirely depend on adopting religious doctrine in the public square? Are tier 2 or tier 3 law schools worth attending? What are the best books of the year? What is the constitutionality of factoring race into vaccine distribution? And MORE! Tune in to hear the breakdown.   Show Notes: -A brief history of pardons from Smithsonian magazine. -Korematsu v. United States, Buck v. Bell, Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London, Schenck v. United States, Employment Division v. Smith, Monell v. Department of Social Services, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Trump v. Hawaii. -38 states with fetal homicide laws. -Qualified immunity doctrine. -“Books to Read If You’re Tired of Hearing About Impeachment” by Sarah Isgur in The Dispatch. -Sarah’s book recommendations: The Witches: Salem, 1692 by Stacy Schiff, She Has Her Mother's Laugh: The Powers, Perversions, and Potential of Heredity by Carl Zimmer, How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom by Matt Ridley, Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill by Candice Millard. -David’s book recommendations: Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation by David French, Rhythm of War: The Stormlight Archive, Book 4 by Brandon Sanderson, The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against (i.e. temporarily blocked) New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on attendance at houses of worship (pending further litigation), siding with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two orthodox Jewish synagogues, who argued that the restrictions violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Constitutional law experts Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and David French of The Dispatch join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack the decision, the restrictions at issue, and broader questions including: Has the Supreme Court become more open to claims of religious discrimination? And, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, does and should the Supreme Court still apply its usual judicial tests to determine if something is constitutional? They also explain the role of prior cases crucial to understanding the modern debate in the area of religious freedom law—from Employment Division v. Smith to Masterpiece Cakeshop and beyond. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against (i.e. temporarily blocked) New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on attendance at houses of worship (pending further litigation), siding with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two orthodox Jewish synagogues, who argued that the restrictions violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Constitutional law experts Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and David French of The Dispatch join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack the decision, the restrictions at issue, and broader questions including: Has the Supreme Court become more open to claims of religious discrimination? And, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, does and should the Supreme Court still apply its usual judicial tests to determine if something is constitutional? They also explain the role of prior cases crucial to understanding the modern debate in the area of religious freedom law—from Employment Division v. Smith to Masterpiece Cakeshop and beyond. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This teleforum reviews the November 4 oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In March 2018, Philadelphia’s Department of Health and Human Services stopped placing foster children with families certified and supported by Catholic Social Services because the agency, as an arm of the Catholic Church, has a sincere religious objection to endorsing same-sex or unmarried heterosexual relationships. Three foster families supported by Catholic Social Services sued, seeking to continue partnering with their chosen agency and challenging the city's decision on religious free exercise and free speech grounds. The issues before the Supreme Court involve the appropriate standard for a free-exercise claim, reconsideration of the Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and the grounds on which a government can condition foster-care participation.Mark Rienzi, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, joins us to discuss oral arguments. Becket is representing plaintiffs in this case. Featuring: -- Mark L. Rienzi, President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

On November 4, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. There were three questions before the court. The first was whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim — namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views — as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held. The second was whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited. The third was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.Mark Rienzi joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Mr. Rienzi is President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

What’s at stake in the high-profile religious liberty case at the Supreme Court this term? Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman break down the oral arguments in Fulton v. Philadelphia, which centers on whether a religious organization can apply its religious criteria to discriminate when operating as a government contractor delivering foster care services. They share four takeaways and speculate about what sort of decision we might see in the case. Plus, they take a look at how religion has been discussed in terms of voting this week, including problematic implications of a religious test for office.     Segment one: What are the religious liberty issues at play in Fulton v. Philadelphia? (starting at 1:05) For more on Employment Division v. Smith (1990) and the legislative response, visit BJConline.org/RFRA Holly mentioned this story in the Washington Post by Michelle Boorstein: Religious conservatives hopeful new Supreme Court majority will redefine religious liberty precedents BJC has a page dedicated to the Fulton v. Philadelphia case: BJConline.org/Fulton Read BJC’s brief in the Fulton case at this link.   Segment two:  Four takeaways from the oral arguments (starting at 19:32) You can listen to the oral arguments in Fulton v. Philadelphia via CSPAN at this link.   We played three clips from the arguments: Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaking with Lori Windham, the advocate for Fulton (around 16:25 into the argument) Neal Katyal, the advocate for Philadelphia, talking about how Fulton’s position can lead to religions being against each other (around 1:18:04 into the argument) Justice Samuel Alito expressing outrage at government actors trying to impose their beliefs on religious actors (around 1:04:17 into the argument) Learn more about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case on our website: BJConline.org/Masterpiece   Segment three: Religion and the election (starting at 44:56) For more on the “no religious test” principle, read this article from Amanda Tyler, written in advance of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. 

QUESTION PRESENTED: The City of Philadelphia chose to exclude a religious agency from the City's foster care system unless the agency agreed to act and speak in a manner inconsistent with its sincere religious beliefs about marriage. The Third Circuit upheld that action under Employment Division v. Smith.

Twitter is brewing with wildly unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud as election officials in battleground states continue to count ballots. For today’s myth busters edition of the podcast, David and Sarah discuss the nitty gritty details surrounding ballot-counting processes and whether the conspiratorial claims surrounding voter fraud allegations have any merit. “If voter fraud is a religion for you,” Sarah warns, “go find yourself another pod today.” They wrap things up with a conversation about exit polls and some Supreme Court punditry. Show Notes: -The Sweep: “Your 2020 Election Night Guide,” Employment Division v. Smith. -Join The Dispatch for a post-election gathering featuring congressional leadership and top policy experts November 9-10: Sign up here! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A case in which the Court will decide several questions arising under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and whether to revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

The ladies unpack a ruling from 30 years ago involving religious liberty, a shocking majority opinion, a surprising dissent, and peyote. The decision has been called a travesty, a tragedy, and a sweeping disaster. Will the justices overrule that case—Employment Division v. Smith—this term? And more importantly, will that help or hinder Americans’ freedoms? Tune in to find out. Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! Tweet at us @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org Creative Commons Attribution: Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27, Third Movementhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beethoven_Moonlight_3rd_movement.ogg See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the freedom of religion is protected by two separate guarantees: a prohibition on the establishment of an official church and an individual right to the “free exercise” of religion. The First Amendment thus protects not only the right of the faithful to believe as their consciences dictate, but also the right to live their lives in accordance with these beliefs. Since 1990, the legal contours of the free exercise clause have been defined by a landmark Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith, which significantly narrowed the protections afforded to people of faith. In the time since, both the legal and the cultural landscape have changed significantly, and the Court will have a chance to revisit Smith’s holding in the upcoming case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In this podcast, Jonathan Silver is joined by Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford University, a constitutional scholar and former judge, for a timely discussion on the history of religious liberty in the United States and the future of the free-exercise clause. 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.

The new U.S. Supreme Court term is set to begin Monday, October 5, the first day of remote oral arguments. To preview what’s ahead, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, and Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court correspondent for the Center’s blog Constitution Daily and Chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, joined host Jeffrey Rosen. They explored how the election and the forthcoming confirmation battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination might affect the Court, how the Court might shift with the addition of a new ninth justice, and the key cases to be heard this term including: California v. Texas (the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act) Fulton v. Philadelphia (a case asking whether religious organizations must allow same-sex couples to become foster parents, and whether the Court should revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith) Torres v. Madrid (a police violence case asking when physical force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment) Tanzin v. Tanvir (a lawsuit related to the “no-fly list” and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows lawsuits for money damages against federal agents) Carney v. Adams (a case about the First Amendment and state judges’ partisan affiliations) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The new U.S. Supreme Court term is set to begin Monday, October 5, the first day of remote oral arguments. To preview what’s ahead, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, and Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court correspondent for the Center’s blog Constitution Daily and Chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, joined host Jeffrey Rosen. They explored how the election and the forthcoming confirmation battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination might affect the Court, how the Court might shift with the addition of a new ninth justice, and the key cases to be heard this term including: California v. Texas (the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act) Fulton v. Philadelphia (a case asking whether religious organizations must allow same-sex couples to become foster parents, and whether the Court should revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith) Torres v. Madrid (a police violence case asking when physical force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment) Tanzin v. Tanvir (a lawsuit related to the “no-fly list” and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows lawsuits for money damages against federal agents) Carney v. Adams (a case about the First Amendment and state judges’ partisan affiliations) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement? This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre DameModerator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University BloomingtonIntroduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers ChapterIntroduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago 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.

What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement? This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre DameModerator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University BloomingtonIntroduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers ChapterIntroduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago 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.

A former business owner, Debbie has spent over 20 years advocating for societal change and creating pathways to make it happen. In addition to building vision and aptitude within Easterseals Southern California’s Employment Division, she works with stakeholders throughout the country to build capacity, and create urgency, around customized employment and employment first. Her concurrent roles as an Easterseals Vice President, board member on both CA APSE and Foundation for Developmental Disabilities boards of directors, and membership in numerous coalitions connect Debbie with some of the country’s best minds and allow her to continue working with, and on behalf of, others committed to ending segregation and building brighter futures for people with disabilities.

Colleen Calandra heads up the Employment Division of Ramos Law. She has her finger on the pulse of how COVID-19 is affecting employers and employees, the changes in laws related to unemployment, real-life issues like taking care of a family member with COVID-19, and business interruption insurance.

Colleen Calandra heads up the Employment Division of Ramos Law. She has her finger on the pulse of how COVID-19 is affecting employers and employees, the changes in laws related to unemployment, real-life issues like taking care of a family member with COVID-19, and business interruption insurance.

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

In 1990, the Supreme Court startled the nation with a decision in Employment Division v. Smith that upended the long-established understanding of the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections. Rather than subjecting all government burdens on religion to strict scrutiny, as had been done in the past, the Court announced that burdens resulting from neutral and generally applicable laws are not barred by the Free Exercise Clause. Religious exercise would be protected only against laws specifically targeting religion. The decision immediately sparked condemnation from civil rights groups across the political spectrum, was rejected by Congress and 32 states, and has been criticized by prominent scholars and at least ten Supreme Court Justices. Recently, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh suggested that Smith should be “revisited,” noting that it “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause.” George Ricks has spent forty years as a construction worker in Idaho, and in 2014, sought to register as a general contractor so he could run his own business. Ricks, however, has religious objections to using his Social Security number to obtain work, and the State of Idaho—even though it can access his number in other ways—refuses to let him register without providing it himself. After Ricks sued, the Idaho courts applied Smith to deny him relief. Eric Baxter, counsel for Ricks, will discuss the merits and procedural posture of Ricks v. Idaho Contractors Board.Featuring:-- Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

In 1990, the Supreme Court startled the nation with a decision in Employment Division v. Smith that upended the long-established understanding of the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections. Rather than subjecting all government burdens on religion to strict scrutiny, as had been done in the past, the Court announced that burdens resulting from neutral and generally applicable laws are not barred by the Free Exercise Clause. Religious exercise would be protected only against laws specifically targeting religion. The decision immediately sparked condemnation from civil rights groups across the political spectrum, was rejected by Congress and 32 states, and has been criticized by prominent scholars and at least ten Supreme Court Justices. Recently, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh suggested that Smith should be “revisited,” noting that it “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause.” George Ricks has spent forty years as a construction worker in Idaho, and in 2014, sought to register as a general contractor so he could run his own business. Ricks, however, has religious objections to using his Social Security number to obtain work, and the State of Idaho—even though it can access his number in other ways—refuses to let him register without providing it himself. After Ricks sued, the Idaho courts applied Smith to deny him relief. Eric Baxter, counsel for Ricks, will discuss the merits and procedural posture of Ricks v. Idaho Contractors Board.Featuring:-- Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Coach Kennedy, a high school football coach in Washington, was fired for taking a knee and saying a silent prayer after football games. First Liberty fought this case all the way to the Supreme Court and despite the troubling decision, they declined to review his case. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Coach Joe Kennedy’s petition to review his case. That’s a setback, but one with a silver lining. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement accompanying the denial.  In one part, Justice Alito explained that the court requires additional information that further litigation should supply. In another, he criticized the Ninth Circuit’s decision, characterizing it as “troubling.”  But then the Justices noted that the petition rested solely on a free speech claim, and not a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  As he explained, that is likely “due to certain decisions of this Court,” namely the 1990 decision of Employment Division v. Smith.  Justice Alito observed that the effect of that decision has been to “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause.” As Coach Kennedy’s attorneys, First Liberty Institute is eager to return to the District Court, answer the questions the justices raised in their statement, and give the Court another opportunity to protect the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of getting fired. Thankfully, the Supreme Court seems to understand that banning all coaches from praying just because they can be seen is wrong and contradicts the Constitution. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Jack Phillips’ case may be over but the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a lasting impact through the case of ‘Sweetcakes by Melissa.” Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Jack Phillips’ long ordeal appears to be over.  But, as Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Jack’s case, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”  That includes First Liberty’s clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein. The State of Oregon shut down Aaron and Melissa Klein’s “Sweetcakes by Melissa,” penalizing them $135,000 for the simple act of declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Oregon rests all of its actions on a law that theoretically applies generally to everyone and, on its face, treats religious exercise neutrally.  That position is grounded in the 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court called Employment Division v. Smith.  The product of the late-Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority opinion in Employment Division has been roundly criticized through the years.  The danger of Employment Divisionis that it allows laws that doburden one of the key provisions of the First Amendment—namely, the free exercise of religion—to escape meaningful judicial review. Aaron and Melissa’s case provides the Court an opportunity to correct that. Jack Phillips’ case left American business owners wondering whether the government can prescribe what they believe and force them to confess accordingly.  The Constitution prohibits government officials, high or petty, from compelling small business owners to create a message contrary to their religious beliefs.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

 A dispute over the firing of a high school football coach who refused to stop praying on the field after games reached the Supreme Court this term; last week, the justices said they would not hear the case until its facts were better established by lower courts. Justice Alito concurred but, joined by three other conservative justices, indicated that he might be sympathetic to Kennedy’s claim that his actions were protected by the First Amendment, should his case eventually return to the Court. Justice Alito also suggested that he and some of his colleagues may be willing to overturn Employment Division v. Smith in order to bolster free exercise and religious exemption claims under the First Amendment. Religion law experts Stephanie Barclay of BYU Law School and Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss Coach Kennedy’s case, whether Smith should be overturned, and how such changes might affect people like public school teachers and coaches. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

 A dispute over the firing of a high school football coach who refused to stop praying on the field after games reached the Supreme Court this term; last week, the justices said they would not hear the case until its facts were better established by lower courts. Justice Alito concurred but, joined by three other conservative justices, indicated that he might be sympathetic to Kennedy’s claim that his actions were protected by the First Amendment, should his case eventually return to the Court. Justice Alito also suggested that he and some of his colleagues may be willing to overturn Employment Division v. Smith in order to bolster free exercise and religious exemption claims under the First Amendment. Religion law experts Stephanie Barclay of BYU Law School and Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss Coach Kennedy’s case, whether Smith should be overturned, and how such changes might affect people like public school teachers and coaches. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This month on Impolite Conversation, we dive into the recent headlines to talk about religious freedom and what Jeff Sessions' Department of Justice really means when it uses that term. Then we turn our attention to Arkansas, where Satanists--or really, "Satanists"--erected a goat-headed idol on the statehouse grounds in Little Rock. And in One Last Thing, Dan has been reading a book-length history of Batman and Tim has been reading stories so short, they fit into a single tweet. Some of the things we discussed in this episode: The executive orders that frame the first topic are cataloged at the White House web site. You can read more about the Religious Liberty Summit here. Two books worth reading on church and state issues: Founding Faith by Steven Waldman and The Culture of Disbelief by Stephen Carter. Three court cases integral to this conversation: Reynolds v. US, Sherbert v. Verner, and Employment Division v. Smith. There were many articles about the protest in Little Rock, but this may be the best one. Oh, and here's the petition to name a piece of a septic system after an Arkansas state legislator. Dan's OLT was The Caped Crusade by Glen Weldon. He recommends the audiobook. Tim's OLT was the Micro Flash Fiction account on Twitter. 0:00-1:34: Introductions 1:35-27:24: Religious Liberty Task Force 27:28-44:47: Protest in Little Rock 44:52-48:32: Dan's OLT 48:33-51:23: Tim's OLT 51:24-52:31: Credits 52:35-53:00: Outtakes

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not provide an exemption from drug laws for religious practices. In its wake, Congress passed RFRA, which has changed the landscape of religious freedom in America.

In September, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report entitled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties. In the report, the USCCR concluded that religious exercise is in tension with individual rights of certain subsections of the American population. It then went on to make a number of recommendations that suggest that that religious exercise must give way to civil rights protections when the two come into conflict: -- Narrow Tailoring of Religious Exceptions: Federal and state courts, lawmakers, and policy-makers at every level must tailor religious exceptions to civil liberties and civil rights protections as narrowly as applicable law requires. -- Protections of Beliefs Over Conduct: The recognition of religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws and policies should be made pursuant to the holdings of Employment Division v. Smith, which protect religious beliefs rather than conduct. -- Amending the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (“RFRA") (and State equivalents): Federal legislation should be considered to clarify that RFRA creates First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights only for individuals and religious institutions and only to the extent that they do not unduly burden civil liberties and civil rights protections against status-based discrimination. States with laws similar to RFRA should similarly amend their laws. -- This panel will first explore whether the USSCR Report is correct that there is, in fact, an irreconcilable tension between religious liberty and civil liberties. And second, if there is a conflict between religious liberty and civil liberties, the panel will debate whether the recommendation by USCCR to limit religious exemptions is the best way to navigate such conflict. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Bill Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina; Prof. Michael Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas; Prof. Marci Hamilton, Fox Family Pavilion Distinguished Scholar, University of Pennsylvania; and Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law; University of Virginia Law School; Professor of Religious Studies, University of Virginia. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.

In his seminal decision in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the First Amendment typically does not authorize courts to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. This decision altered the 1963 Sherbert v. Verner test which had given courts the power to strike down any law that (1) if it substantially burdened religious practice, was not (2) based on a compelling government interest, and (3) narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Rather, Scalia said that religious adherents should look to the political process for accommodation, and he consistently supported the constitutionality of such accommodations. In response to Smith, a primary means of such accommodation has been the passage of state and federal Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which codify the Sherbert test. However, in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges (or Hobby Lobby), RFRAs have become the focus of intense political controversy. What do these laws actually do in practice? Are they a good idea? Would a different approach to protect religious liberty be better? -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor, Concurrent Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame Law School; Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; and Prof. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre Dame. Moderator: Prof. Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy/SPE, Claremont Graduate University. Introduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life.

We are joined by budding media celebrity, Sonja West, who got her start on Episode 1 of Oral Argument. We again turn to the Hobby Lobby decision and the Supreme Court’s odd epilogue. With Sonja’s expert guidance we try to make sense of the web of religious liberty. Also, war on women or the century of gender equality? This show’s links: Sonja West’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 1: Send Joe to Prison, guest Sonja West Sonja West’s appearance on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores The full but brief text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Oral Argument 25: Normal Religions, in which we first discussed and set out the basics of the Hobby Lobby decision Wheaton College v. Burwell, granting a temporary injunction pending full appellate review Wheaton College, the one in Illinois, and its Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose Form 700 Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West, Quick Change Justice: While You Were Sleeping, Hobby Lobby Just Got So Much Worse Marty Lederman, What Next in Wheaton College? Is It Also a “Win/Win” Compromise? University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, Posner’s Seventh Circuit opinion on Notre Dame’s objections to filling out Form 700 Michael Dorf, Hobby Lobby Post-Mortem Part 2: The Wheaton College Stay Reprieve, Gitmo Detainees Demand Same Religious Rights as Hobby Lobby Employment Division v. Smith, the case that launched RFRA Boy Scouts of America v. Dale Dahlia Lithwick, After Hobby Lobby, Dahlia’s analysis of the gender divide evident in and exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s end-of-term decisions (posted after we recorded) Special Guest: Sonja West.

The real first episode of Oral Argument doesn’t hold back. Prof. Sonja West joins us to talk about the the press, the First Amendment, and other cool things. We discuss Supreme Court justices’ getting to talk about whatever they want, the Press Clause, the religion clauses (and even the quartering clause), Judith Miller and the Iraq War, peyote, bathrobed bloggers, the Twitter, who the press might be, Sonja’s press test, press access to prisons, why Joe should got to prison, religious and secular orthodoxy, bong hits for Jesus, student newspapers and local versions of the controversies over the Washington football team, and Christian’s “profoundly stupid” proposal. This show’s links: Sonja West’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/sonja-r-west), writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=518870), and Twitter stream (https://twitter.com/sonjarwest/) Sonja West, Press Exceptionalism (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2228813), 127 Harv. L. Rev (forthcoming 2014) Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalism and History (http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/JPS%20Speech(Georgia)_11-06-2013.pdf), text of address at University of Georgia, Nov. 6, 2013 New York Times v. Sullivan (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207) Branzburg v. Hayes (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11598860258825518787) (the Supreme Court on the reporters’ privilege) In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6530900504914793267) Employment Division v. Smith (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10098593029363815472) (the peyote case) Houchins v. KQED (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17191976500273269128) (the Supreme Court on press access to prisons) Neshaminy student newspaper to resume ‘redskin’ ban (http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-25/news/45541924_1_playwickian-student-editors-student-newspaper), Philly.com Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2391207692241045857) Morse v. Frederick (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10117776825257150184) (the BONG HiTS 4 JESUS case) Special Guest: Sonja West.