Podcasts about equal protection clauses

Individual Rights and Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment Source: ConLaw Lecture 2 of 5: Individual Rights and Due Process Main Themes: The Fourteenth Amendment as a cornerstone of individual rights: The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, serves as a "second constitution" safeguarding individual rights against state actions. It guarantees fairness, equality, and liberty through its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Due Process of Law: This clause mandates fair and legitimate government actions when impacting individual rights. It has both procedural (fair procedures like notice and hearing) and substantive (protection of fundamental rights regardless of procedures) aspects. Equal Protection of the Laws: This clause prohibits discrimination and ensures equal application of laws, playing a vital role in dismantling racial segregation, gender discrimination, and other inequalities. Incorporation Doctrine: This doctrine extends most Bill of Rights protections to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring consistent protection of fundamental freedoms across the nation. Fundamental Rights: Certain rights, considered essential to liberty and justice, are designated as "fundamental," requiring compelling justification for any government restriction. These include privacy, marriage and family, education, and voting rights. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Due Process Examples:Procedural: Gideon v. Wainwright (right to legal counsel) Substantive: Roe v. Wade (right to abortion as part of privacy) Equal Protection Examples:Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation of public schools) Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) Incorporation Examples:Gitlow v. New York (First Amendment's free speech applicable to states) Mapp v. Ohio (Fourth Amendment's unreasonable search and seizure protection applied to states) Privacy Rights: The right to privacy, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is inferred from several amendments and their "penumbras." Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptives) and Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex conduct) solidified this right. State Action Doctrine: This doctrine limits the application of constitutional rights to government actions, with exceptions for private entities performing public functions or heavily entangled with the state. Key Quotes: Fourteenth Amendment: "...one of the most important amendments...serving as a foundation for civil rights and liberties...aimed to protect the rights of formerly enslaved individuals and to extend the principles of liberty and equality to all citizens." Due Process Clause: "No state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'" Equal Protection Clause: "No state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'" Fundamental Rights: "The Supreme Court has recognized certain rights as so essential to liberty and justice that they are considered 'fundamental rights.'" State Action Doctrine: "The state action requirement means that purely private conduct, even if discriminatory or unjust, may not be subject to constitutional challenge." Conclusion: This lecture underscores the Fourteenth Amendment's pivotal role in shaping individual rights and ensuring fair treatment by the state. Its principles, including due process, equal protection, and the incorporation doctrine, have led to landmark legal decisions that protect fundamental freedoms and strive for a more just and equitable society. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 12: The Right to Privacy. Chapter 12 explores the evolving concept of privacy rights in the United States, covering its historical origins, key legal developments, and emerging challenges in the digital age. The chapter is divided into several key sections: 1. Origins and Development of the Right to Privacy. Privacy as a legal concept has deep historical roots, beginning with English common law's recognition of the home as a protected space. In the U.S., privacy rights began to take shape in the 19th century, as industrialization and urbanization raised concerns about personal autonomy and dignity. A seminal moment in privacy law came with Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis' 1890 article, The Right to Privacy, which argued for privacy as an independent legal right. This article became the foundation for the modern understanding of privacy, defined as “the right to be let alone.” The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy, but courts have interpreted various amendments to protect privacy in specific contexts. Landmark Supreme Court cases such as Griswold v Connecticut (1965), Katz v United States (1967), and Roe v Wade (1973) have established privacy as a constitutional right, particularly regarding personal decisions about marriage, reproductive rights, and bodily autonomy. 2. Reproductive Rights. The right to privacy has been particularly significant in the area of reproductive rights. Contraception: The Supreme Court first recognized the right to privacy in reproductive decisions in Griswold v Connecticut, which struck down a law banning contraceptives for married couples. This right was extended to unmarried individuals in Eisenstadt v Baird (1972), establishing reproductive autonomy as a matter of individual privacy. Abortion: In Roe v Wade (1973), the Court recognized a woman's right to choose to have an abortion as part of her privacy rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right was later modified in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), which introduced the "undue burden" test, allowing for state regulation of abortion as long as it does not place an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Current Challenges: Reproductive rights have faced increasing legal challenges, culminating in the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v Wade, returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states. 3. Right to Marry and Family Autonomy. The right to marry and family autonomy are also protected under the umbrella of privacy rights. The Right to Marry: The Supreme Court has long recognized marriage as a fundamental right. In Loving v Virginia (1967), the Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right. This was further expanded in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), where the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, grounding this decision in both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Family Autonomy: Privacy rights also protect family autonomy, particularly parents' rights to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children. In Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925) and Troxel v Granville (2000), the Court ruled that the government cannot interfere with parents' fundamental rights to direct their children's upbringing, unless there is a compelling state interest. 4. Emerging Issues in Privacy Law. As society evolves, so too does the concept of privacy. Emerging issues in privacy law include: Digital Privacy and Technology: The rise of digital platforms has introduced new privacy concerns, particularly regarding the collection, storage, and use of personal data by both governments and private companies. Issues of data privacy and government surveillance, as seen in cases like Carpenter v United States (2018), highlight the need for updated legal protections in the digital age. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Day in Legal History: Pivotal LGBTQ+ Rights DecisionsOn this day, June 26th, in legal history, two pivotal Supreme Court decisions significantly advanced the cause of marriage equality in the United States.On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in United States v. Windsor. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union between a man and a woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been denied a spousal tax exemption after her same-sex spouse's death, prompting her to challenge the law. The Court held that DOMA's definition of marriage was unconstitutional as it violated the principles of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. This landmark decision allowed same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples, marking a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights and equality.Two years later, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued another historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. In another closely divided 5-4 decision, the Court declared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. The case consolidated several challenges from same-sex couples who had been denied the right to marry or have their marriages recognized by their home states. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, same-sex couples cannot be denied that right. This ruling effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, ensuring that all states must perform and recognize marriages between individuals of the same sex.These decisions on June 26th were monumental in affirming the rights of same-sex couples and dismantling legal barriers to marriage equality, marking significant victories for the LGBTQ+ community and setting precedents for future civil rights advancements.Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently surprised defense attorneys with her unexpected votes against criminal defendants, despite her background as a former federal defender. In two cases decided at the end of the term, Jackson broke from her liberal colleagues. She joined the majority in a case broadening expert witness testimony and dissented in another that reinforced the right to a jury trial.President Joe Biden highlighted Jackson's unique experience as a public defender when nominating her in 2022. In Diaz v. United States, a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with prosecutors on expert witness testimony, allowing experts to discuss what most defendants generally know. Jackson joined Justice Clarence Thomas's majority opinion and wrote separately, suggesting the rule could benefit both prosecutors and defendants.In Erlinger v. United States, the Court ruled 6-3 to apply the Apprendi v. New Jersey precedent broadly, requiring juries to decide facts that could increase sentences. Jackson dissented, arguing that Apprendi limits legislative efforts to create fairer sentencing systems. She suggested overturning Apprendi, which surprised many in the defense community given its importance to defendants' rights.Some notable defense attorneys have expressed disappointment in her positions, though acknowledging that public defender views are not monolithic.Justice Jackson Takes Unexpected Positions in Criminal CasesA recent study by Georgetown University's Center on Education and Workforce revealed that law school graduates earn a median salary of $72,000 after debt payments four years into their careers. However, this figure varies significantly depending on the law school attended. Graduates from seven elite law schools, including Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard, have median earnings of over $200,000 after debt. In contrast, graduates from 33 lower-ranking law schools earn $55,000 or less.The report, titled "A Law Degree Is No Sure Thing: Some Law School Graduates Earn Top Dollar, but Many Do Not," shows that law graduates typically leave school with a median debt of $118,500. Columbia Law School offers the highest return on investment with net median earnings of $253,800 after four years, followed by other top-tier schools. These elite institutions account for about 20% of law students and tend to send over half their graduates to high-paying jobs at large law firms.Conversely, 20 law schools have graduates with median net earnings of $50,000 or less after debt payments, including Cooley Law School and Atlanta's John Marshall Law School. The study utilized data from various sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Bar Association, to assess employment outcomes, salaries, bar passage rates, and debt.The report underscores a significant disparity in financial outcomes between graduates of top-ranked law schools and those from lower-ranked institutions.Law grads' median earnings of $72,000 after debt show 'vast gulf' in pay, study finds | ReutersLawmakers in the United States are pushing for the first major federal data privacy legislation, the American Privacy Rights Act, which has bipartisan support. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell and Republican Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, aims to establish a national data privacy standard. This would allow individuals to access, delete, and opt out of their data being used for targeted advertising, and would create a national data broker registry.The U.S. has lagged behind other regions like the European Union, which implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and TechNet, argue that the bill lacks safeguards to prevent states from adding their own regulations, which could complicate compliance for businesses. They advocate for a unified national standard without additional state-level regulations.Privacy advocates, however, contend that the bill would hinder states from addressing new technological developments and responding to emerging privacy issues. They fear that federal pre-emption could stifle the progressive influence of states like California, which often leads in privacy regulations. Ashkan Soltani, from the California Privacy Protection Agency, warned against setting static regulations given the rapid pace of technological advancements.Democratic Representative Suzan DelBene supports the bill, citing the current "patchwork" of state laws as problematic for small businesses. The bill will undergo a markup hearing on Thursday, a crucial step before potentially advancing to a House vote.US lawmakers push for federal data privacy law; tech industry and critics are wary | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Walt Disney Co. must face an antitrust class action lawsuit filed by 25 subscribers to YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. The subscribers allege that Disney's agreements with rival streaming TV providers, which included access to ESPN content, restrained trade and led to higher prices. Judge Edward J. Davila of the US District Court for the Northern District of California found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged Disney's conduct harmed competition in the streaming live pay TV market (SLPTV).The lawsuit claims Disney's agreements prevented other streamers from offering lower-priced bundles excluding ESPN, thus raising subscription costs and protecting Disney-owned Hulu from competition. Despite partially dismissing the initial complaint, the judge allowed an amended complaint to proceed, alleging violations of the federal Sherman Act and state antitrust laws. While the court dismissed claims for damages under the Sherman Act, limiting potential relief to an injunction, it allowed most state antitrust claims to continue, except for those under the Illinois Antitrust Act and Tennessee Trade Practices Act.The decision follows the Justice Department's plans to review a proposed new streaming service by Disney, Fox Corp., and Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. for potential consumer harm. The case, Biddle et al v. Walt Disney Co., continues to highlight concerns over anticompetitive practices in the streaming industry.Disney Must Face Antitrust Class Suit by TV Streaming Consumers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Chinese Exclusion Act is one of our most undiscussed tragedies. Despite the bad, Chinese immigrants pushed through to help shapes these United States. Today's episode crosses paths with Bruce Lee, Teddy Roosevelt, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Bing Cherry, the Valencia Orange, the Citizenship Clause and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, Oldsmobile, the TaiPing Revolution, the Gold Rush, the Transcontinental Railroad, Wong Kim Ark, Grover Cleveland, the NY Sun and the Statue of Liberty.

Each year, the United States celebrates Pride Month in June as a remembrance of the Stonewall riots in New York City. However, the LGBTQ+ story in the United States extends far before the Stonewall Uprising.   In 1953, President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 which precluded lesbian and gay people employment in the federal employment. Frank Kameny led the first documented and organized gay rights picket at the White House in 1965. Lilli Vincenz produced "The Second Largest Minority Film," shot at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, in 1968. In 1977, Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 1993 and 1996 brought "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. In 1998, Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming, was brutally attacked and tied to a fence in a field outside of Laramie, WY and left to die. And in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v Hodges that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.   Join the C-SPAN Education team as we recognize LGBTQ+ Pride Month with an examination of the history of LGBTQ+ activism, the contributions of key people, and the significance of notable events.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gun control laws, the power of federal agencies to enforce regulations, the First Amendment's Religion and Equal Protection Clauses are just a few of the major issues at stake during this Supreme Court term. We talk with James Romoser, editor of SCOTUSblog, about some recent decisions and what to expect from the ones we're still waiting on.

Gun control laws, the power of federal agencies to enforce regulations, the First Amendment's Religion and Equal Protection Clauses are just a few of the major issues at stake during this Supreme Court term. We talk with James Romoser, editor of SCOTUSblog, about some recent decisions and what to expect from the ones we're still waiting on.

SCOTUS Decision on Armed Career Criminal Act The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that William Dale Wooden's ten burglary offenses arising from a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). John examines Wooden v. United States and what “occasion” means for ACCA. Rhode Island Arbitrarily Shuts Down Medical Facility After Ignoring Natural Immunity Mark discusses NCLA's most recent Lunch & Law speaker series: “When Bureaucrats Won't Let Doctors Practice Medicine.” NCLA has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Skoly, a highly experience oral maxillofacial surgeon, challenging Rhode Island's irrational policies that violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dr. Skoly made the decision not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination due to the uncertainty regarding the risks involved because of a medical condition. He retains antibodies after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection. At the Lunch & Law, NCLA's Brian Rosner and Jenin Younes sat down with Dr. Skoly to discuss his case against the state for arbitrarily shutting down his practice. You can watch the event at NCLA's YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNHt9iTrzTk See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Facts of the case In 1994, a Mississippi Chancery Court terminated M.L.B.'s parental rights to her two minor children. M.L.B. filed a timely appeal from the termination decree, but Mississippi law conditioned her right to appeal on prepayment of record preparation fees estimated at $2,352.36. Because she lacked the funds, M.L.B. sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court of Mississippi denied her application on the ground that, under its precedent, there is no right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil appeals. In front of the U.S. Supreme Court, M.L.B. argued that a State may not, consistent with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, condition appeals from trial court decrees terminating parental rights on the affected parent's ability to pay record preparation fees. No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that, just as a State may not block an indigent petty offender's access to an appeal afforded others, so Mississippi may not deny M.L.B., because of her poverty, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on which the trial court found her unfit to remain a parent. "We place decrees forever terminating parental rights in the category of cases in which the State may not 'bolt the door to equal justice,'" wrote Justice Ginsburg, "recognizing that parental termination decrees are among the most severe forms of state action." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring:- James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School- Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring:- James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School- Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. In 2016, the district court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. After many twists and turns (including unusual mandamus proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court), the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in late 2018. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring: Prof. James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolDamien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. In 2016, the district court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. After many twists and turns (including unusual mandamus proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court), the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in late 2018. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring: Prof. James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolDamien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On April 19, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. The Learning Center is a licensed preschool and daycare that is operated by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc (Trinity). Though it incorporates religious instruction into its curriculum, the school is open to all children. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) offers Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grants to organizations that qualify for resurfacing of playgrounds. Trinity’s application for such a grant was denied under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, which reads “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” Trinity sued, arguing that DNR’s denial violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and speech. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Trinity moved for reconsideration, amending its complaint to include allegations that DNR had previously funded religious organizations with the same grant, but the district court denied again. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the decision, agreeing with both the dismissal and denial of motions. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has, according to the petitioner church, no valid Establishment Clause concern. -- To discuss the case, we have Hannah C. Smith, who is Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

October 4th will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2016 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving insider trading, the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, criminal law, IP and patent law, the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, the Fair Housing Act, and voting rights. -- The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- This event was held on September 27, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Thomas C. Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell PC; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown Law Center; Ms. Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network; and Hon. George J. Terwilliger, McGuireWoods LLP. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, The Washington Post.

October 4th will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2016 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving insider trading, the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, criminal law, IP and patent law, the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, the Fair Housing Act, and voting rights. -- The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- This event was held on September 27, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Thomas C. Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell PC; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown Law Center; Ms. Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network; and Hon. George J. Terwilliger, McGuireWoods LLP. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, The Washington Post.