Podcasts about Establishment Clause

In today's episode of the Atheist Experience, Secular Rarity and The Cross Examiner dismantle the legal myths of Christian nationalism and expose the tribalistic roots of biblical law. From the dark history of slavery in the Levant to modern-day "persecution" complexes, the hosts challenge believers to provide evidence that justifies merging church and state!Mason in OK argues the Bible guides morality. Hosts pivot to laws regarding chattel slavery in Leviticus 25, questioning why a good deity endorses owning people. They challenge the reliance on tradition to mask biblical cruelty. How does one choose which divine commands to follow?Emmanuel in TX proposes a theocracy where non-believers are taxed to incentivize conversion. Hosts identify this as a violation of the First Amendment and Establishment Clause. They warn against discriminatory policies that create second-class citizens. Would a just society ever benefit from state-sponsored religious extortion?Mike in SC fears hate speech laws are tools for Christian persecution. The Cross Examiner clarifies that hate crime enhancements require criminal acts and intent, not just offense. They debunk algorithm-driven misinformation regarding religious suppression. Is the perceived war on faith just a result of confirmation bias?Moises in CA questions the need for proof and miracle claims. Hosts apply theological non-cognitivism and note that miracles lack reliable eyewitness accounts. They also explore how faith healing leads to medical neglect. Can a story be a reliable pathway to truth if it cannot be verified?James in OH critiques states' rights rhetoric using the Articles of Secession. Discussion moves to the Insurrection Act and the dangers of religious exemptions in child protection laws. They highlight the struggle against abuse permitted by dogma. Will legal systems ever prioritize children over ancient dogmas?Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Fresno Unified School District Trustees will receive double the amount of pay after the recent passage of a state assembly bill. The pay is increasing from $ 2,100 a month to about $ 4,500 a month. This is a move that has not happened since the 1980’s. Fresno Unified denied allegations made by some retirees in a complaint letter and said that the 2023 health insurance changes do not constitute a loss of benefits or a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc heard consolidated challenges to Louisiana and Texas laws requiring display of a nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or coercing religious practice. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

i. Constitution We Believe 1. We believe the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was intended to prevent a federal government-sponsored or preferred religion, not to separate God from our government or to remove religion from public life; therefore, we affirm our right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to exercise our freedom of speech including religious speech. 2. We believe the Second Amendment is an individual right of the citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms; therefore, we oppose any attempts, whether by law or regulation at any level of government, to restrict any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (open or concealed), to restrict access to ammunition, or to record the purchase thereof. 3. We believe the United States Constitution directs the judiciary to interpret law, not make law or create law through judicial activism. 4. We believe in the concept that Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply to the Senators and Representatives. 5. We believe in the concept of nullification as a legitimate tool for adjudicating disputes between the states and the federal government when the federal government enacts a law clearly not in pursuance of the constitution and powers delegated in Art. I, Sec. 8. 6. We believe in the Tenth Amendment that provides "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," and we oppose any attempt by the federal government to intrude on state's rights. 7. We believe the Constitution provides for a clear and distinct separation of powers among the three branches of government. Any governmental action that tends to promote or allow one branch of government to practice the power or powers of the other branches of government is a violation of the limits placed on government by the people. 8. We believe in the duty and obligation of the federal government and the State of Oklahoma to adhere to and respect treaties between the federal government and the Indian tribes. We Support 1. We support the display of Judeo-Christian religious symbols, including the Ten Commandments in public places. 2. We support legislation that will protect gun and ammunition manufacturers or resellers from lawsuits attempting to hold the manufacturers or resellers liable for misuse of guns. 3. We support requiring that candidates for president present public proof of qualification in accordance with the Constitution at the time of filing, through the election board of each state. 4. We support a US Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. 18 5. We support a US Constitutional Amendment instituting term limits for all elected members of Congress. 6. We support a U.S. Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 7. We support a requirement that each piece of legislation only address one issue. 8. We support the review and minimization of the Endangered Species Act. 9. We support the abolishment, or reduction and restructuring, of the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, IRS, CIA, ATF, FBI, FEMA, NSA, DHS, CDC, and the Department of Labor and their powers and responsibilities distributed to state authority. 10. We support the protection of public and private sector whistleblowers who have firsthand information. 11. We support union's refunding dues used for partisan political activity. 12. We support the right of private associations to admit or deny membership based on what each association's conscience dictates. 13. We support an English Language Act, which would make English our official language in the United States. 14. We support the idea that when U.S. Conference Committees meet, they should consider only those terms submitted from the House and Senate, with no additional expenditures and items added. 15. We support the preservation of the National Day of Prayer. 16. We support legislation to limit the power of federal regulatory agencies. 17. We support the identification of persons as citizens or non-citizens in the census. We Oppose 1. We oppose any federal taxation on firearms, ammunition, or accessories and/or confiscation of firearms, ammunition, or accessories. 2. We oppose universal background checks and red flag laws for firearm purchases. 3. We oppose any legislation that would require the use of trigger or other locking devices on firearms. 4. We oppose any so-called "assault" weapons ban and any effort to register or restrict firearms, ammunition, or magazines. 5. We oppose legislation that would require gun owners to purchase insurance policies covering the misuse of their firearms. 6. We oppose the Patriot Act and the NDAA' s Sections 1021 and 1022, which allow American citizens, 19 except for enemy combatants, to be held indefinitely without due process, and call for its repeal. 7. We oppose court decisions based on any foreign law, such as Sharia Law, U.N. regulations and other international organizations, instead of U.S. law and Constitutional doctrine. 8. We oppose the creation of a new federal internal security force. 9. We oppose federal wage caps. 10. We oppose Statehood for the District of Columbia and allowing its representative a vote in Congress. 11. We oppose the appointment and funding of presidential "czars." 12. We oppose any attempts by the Federal Government to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" or institute "Net Neutrality." 13. We oppose the construct of "Free Speech or Safe Zones." 14. We oppose national injunctions by federal district courts. 15. We oppose the use and sharing of data from Automated License Plate Readers as an infringement on our 4th amendment protected rights. ii. Criminal Justice We Believe 1. The rights of victims and their families must be protected in criminal proceedings, with notice and opportunity to attend all proceedings related to the crime(s) against them. 2. Restitution by the convicted criminal should be ordered to be made to the victim (or his estate) to compensate for losses and damages incurred as a result of the crime(s) committed. 3. The death penalty must be retained as an available punishment in appropriate cases. 4. Inmates who abuse the legal system by filing repeated frivolous claims should receive appropriate punishments for their misconduct. 5. Decisions on prison reform should be made by the Legislature after consultation with district attorneys, prison officials, and other interested parties, with the view towards stopping criminal behavior early, rather than adopting permissive treatment of low-level crimes which may deceive or encourage a young adult to continue on the wrong path under the mistaken assumption that there will be no consequences for criminal behavior. Consideration of incentives for first-time or youthful offenders who refrain from further misconduct may be a useful option to be considered in designing such reforms. 6. We believe in due process and that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government or its agents without either being found guilty by a jury or pleading guilty of a crime. We therefore oppose the practice of civil asset forfeiture. 20 We Support 1. We support the repeal of The Oklahoma Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Diversion Program as it is unconstitutional at the state and federal level. We Oppose 1. We oppose the monitoring, surveillance and tracking of United States citizens without a lawfully obtained warrant. iii. Federal & State Elections Preamble: The foundation of our representative-republic is honest elections. The Oklahoma Republican Party is committed to preserving every legally eligible Oklahoman's right to vote. We support only day of in-person voting as written in the Constitutions with limited exceptions to protect voting rights for the elderly, the disabled, military members, and all other eligible voters. We urge all elected officials around our state to take all necessary steps to ensure that voters may cast their ballots in a timely and secure manner. Security and transparency shall take precedence over convenience to ensure honest and fair, local, state, and federal elections. We Believe 1. We believe in fair and honest election procedures. 2. We believe equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age. 3. We believe in the constitutional authority of state legislatures to regulate voting. We Support 1. We support a bit-by-bit forensic audit of all electronic devices, including but not limited to servers, ballot machines, and paper ballots throughout the state immediately before and after each election. 2. We support vigorous enforcement of all our election laws as written and oppose any laws, lawsuits, and judicial decisions that make voter fraud difficult to deter, detect, or prosecute. 3. We support full enforcement of all voter ID laws currently enacted. 4. We support felony status for willful violations of the election code and increasing penalty for voter fraud from a misdemeanor back to a felony. 5. We support consolidating elections to primary, runoff, special, and general election. 6. We support sequentially numbered and signed ballots to deter counterfeiting. 7. We support expanding the Attorney General's staff for investigating election crimes and restoring the ability of the Attorney General to prosecute any election crimes. 8. We support the ability for civil lawsuits to be filed for election fraud or officials' failure to follow the Oklahoma Election Code. 21 9. We support allowing trained poll watchers from anywhere in Oklahoma with local party or candidate approval. 10. We support creating processes that will allow rapid adjudication of election law violations. 11. We support requiring voters to re-register if they have not voted in a five-year period. 12. We support requiring proof of residency, citizenship, and voter registration via photo ID for each voter. 13. We support retaining the 25-day registration deadline. 14. We support requiring a list of certified deaths be provided to the Secretary of State for the names of deceased voters to be removed from the list of registered voters, with checks every third year of the voter rolls to ensure all currently registered voters are eligible. 15. We support giving the Secretary of State enforcement authority to ensure county registrar compliance with Secretary of State directives. 16. We support protecting the integrity of the Republican Primary Election by requiring a closed primary system in Oklahoma. 17. We support drawing districts based on eligible voters, not pure population. Districts should be geographically compact when possible 18. We support hand counting of ballots. 19. We support recalls, audits, recounts, and irregularity and fraud investigations requested within 45 days of an election. 20. We support verification of United States citizenship for voting or registering to vote. 21. We support elections run by United States citizens. 22. We support counts to be posted on Precinct doors. We Oppose 1. We oppose internet voting, the use of tabulation machines and electronic voting machines of any kind for public office and any ballot measure. 2. We oppose all motor voter laws, automatic voter registration (AVR), and all forms of electronic databases, such as ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) and all third-party registration vendors. 3. We oppose all federal legislation, including but not limited to the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, which nullifies the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. 22 4. We oppose unlawful voting, illegal assistance, or ineligible people voting in our national, state, and local elections. 5. We oppose ranked choice voting. 6. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, creed, sexuality, or lifestyle choices and oppose the use of any such identification for the purposes of creating voting districts. We urge that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 be repealed. 7. We oppose any redistricting map that is unfair to conservative candidates in the Primary or the General Election. 8. We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. 9. We oppose after-hours voting C. Natural Resources We Believe 1. We believe dependence on foreign energy sources is a national security issue. 2. We believe governments should ease restrictions in the search for energy and other natural resources. 3. We believe the federal agricultural appropriations should accurately show the percentage of money set aside for non-agricultural programs such as school lunch programs and food stamps. 4. We believe the responsible use of natural resources is essential for the benefit of future generations. We Support 1. We support the creation and enactment of a national energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign sources. 2. We support the private expansion of oil and gas exploration and refining capacity. 3. We support the exportation of U.S. petroleum products. 4. We support labeling of all food and fiber with country-of-origin labeling. Further, only products born, raised, slaughtered, and processed or sprouted, harvested, grown, and processed in this country should receive a U.S. label. 5. We support energy policy based on private development, efficient use and expansion of current resources such as fossil fuels, clean coal, and nuclear energy; and exploration and efficient use of other resources such as biofuels, wind, solar and water energy. 6. We support ending all federal and state subsidies, including tax credits, for industrial renewable 23 energy, including but not limited to, wind and solar. 7. We support the rights of individuals and businesses to refuse the installation of smart meters without penalties. 8. We support the right of states to provide water for present and future use within their borders by state residents before they can be designated for use to other states. 9. We support environmental recommendations that are based on sound science, that respect and protect the rights of property owners, and that do not impose unreasonable burdens on Oklahoma citizens or businesses. 10. We support more use of coal and natural gas to be used in the production of electricity. 11. We support the use of modular nuclear, or small natural gas fired generation facilities to be built close to high demand facilities to greatly reduce the need for long and expensive transmission lines. 12. We support mandatory country-of-origin labeling of meat products and that a country-of-origin label that states in any way that it is a product of the USA must be of the following requirements: Born, raised, harvested, packaged & processed in the USA. 13. We support The Packers and Stockyards Act and the enforcement of anti-trust laws. 14. We support private property rights and call for appropriate legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain by private companies. 15. We stand with Oklahoma and her property owners against the Green Agenda. We Oppose 1. We oppose government curbs, moratoriums, punitive taxes and fees on our domestic oil and gas industry. 2. We oppose states selling water rights to out-of-state buyers. 3. We oppose the use of eminent domain for any water sale. 4. We oppose human rights for animals. 5. We oppose livestock taxation. 6. We oppose legislation that restricts or regulates family farms or farmers' markets. 7. We oppose restrictive regulation of carbon and particulate matter emissions in agriculture. 8. We oppose the "Cap and Trade" system for carbon dioxide. 9. We oppose the UN's Agenda 21, aka UN 2030, as a coordinated effort to relinquish the sovereignty of the United States to foreign powers. 24 10. We oppose the purchase or ownership of land by a foreign government or entity. 11. We oppose the production, selling, and labeling of a product that is an alternative protein source claiming to be meat, otherwise known as or referred to as fake meat, and labeling such product as meat, beef, burger, steak, or any other name given to an actual meat protein source derived from the production and slaughter of livestock. 12. We oppose current regulations that allow foreign beef to enter the U.S. and be packaged, repackaged, or commingled with domestic product and then labeled a product of the USA. 13. We oppose the theory that cow flatulence, belching, or any process of enteric fermentation that is said to emit methane or a greenhouse gas that some link to the theory of global warming is some sort of detriment threat to the environment. 14. We oppose any form of carbon tracking solutions imposed on farmers and ranchers that will ultimately lead to more costly and burdensome regulations. 15. We oppose NACs (natural asset companies) or similar companies derived by investors, the SEC, or any other entity that wishes to monetize, trade natural outputs, or otherwise maximize ecological performance in such a way that any company can control the management of public or private lands quantifying outputs of natural resources such as air and water. 16. We oppose any effort of the federal government to have any role in animal care or husbandry. 17. We oppose mandates or restrictions on the use of antibiotics for farm or veterinary use. 18. We oppose mandatory Electronic Identification device (EID) tags on livestock, birds, and animals. D. National Issues i. Defense We Believe 1. We believe that a strong national defense should be fully funded, provide sufficient compensation, educational opportunities, quality training, and the best equipment for our armed forces. 2. We believe any educational institution that inhibits the normal operations of ROTC or military recruiters should be ineligible for government funding. 3. We believe foreign enemies who have committed or planned acts of aggression against the U.S. are unlawful enemy combatants and are not entitled to citizenship rights under the U.S. Constitution. We believe they should be held in detention facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, not the U.S. Prisons Systems, and their cases adjudicated by military tribunals, not by U.S. Criminal Courts. 4. We believe Congress and the President should refrain from weakening the military through changes to the Uniform Coe of Military Justice. The military should be allowed to maintain its high level of honesty, integrity, morality, and operational capabilities. 25 5. We believe in the complete accounting of all MIAs and POWs that were engaged in military actions by the United States. We Support 1. We support maintaining a strong national defense and advocate "peace through strength", with a combat ready and capable force. 2. We support the right of the military's internal determination of who is qualified to perform the various roles and functions of each branch of the uniformed armed services. 3. We support veterans' and survivors' benefits, and to receive top quality health care. We support the reform of the Veteran's Administration and the use of private facilities when appropriate. 4. We support helping our veterans to succeed in their return to civilian life in medical care, mental health care, education, housing, and employment assistance. 5. We support the freedom of military chaplains to provide religious services including freedom of worship according to their faith. 6. We support and encourage continued public and privately funded exploration of space. 7. We support returning to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for the military of the United States. We Oppose 1. We oppose re-instituting the draft except in time of war as declared by Congress. 2. We oppose drafting females into U.S. military service. 3. We oppose the military use of U.S. troops under foreign command except joint operations. 4. We oppose the erosion of our military's readiness through "gender norming" for training and promotion. 5. We oppose the further reduction of benefits and entitlements to service members, former service members, and their families. 6. We oppose halting military pay during US government shutdowns. ii. Foreign Relations We Support 1. We support economic stability be it in the U.S. or Internationally 2. We support the dollar as the principal currency of the world. 3. We support equal access of U.S. products to global markets and the elimination of trade barriers. 26 4. We support withdrawing from treaties and agreements, such as the Kyoto Treaty, and the Paris Climate Accord, that hamper the U.S. economy and compromises freedoms We Oppose 1. We oppose the Chinese Communist Party and any other governments that are manipulators of the U.S. dollar and exchange rates at the expense of U.S. National Security as well as economic stability. 2. We oppose paying into UN programs that are against American principles and freedoms. 3. We oppose any doctrines that infringe upon U.S. Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of U.S. allies such as Israel, the Ukraine, and Taiwan. 4. We oppose terrorism and any nations that sponsor terroristic organizations and groups that are anti-U.S. such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 5. We oppose the sale of technology by U.S. Corporations to terrorist and enemy nations. 6. We oppose the transfer of U.S. taxpayer wealth to any foreign governments under the umbrella of foreign, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and military assistance for non-U.S. interests. 7. We oppose the principles of the World Economic Forum to devalue the U.S. dollar and do not accept them as a body of global governance. 8. We oppose the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market 9. We oppose any United Nations Programs that seek a "world order" over the Earth's population and U.N. policies that are forced over the world's nations. 10. We oppose the World Health Organization's policies over U.S. citizens and setting precedent for the U.S. medical community. 11. We oppose foreign control over any ports or bases within the jurisdiction of the United States. 12. We oppose any actions taken by previous administrations that relinquish U.S. sovereignty and control over U.S. data and private communications. iii. Immigration We Support 1. We support limited legal immigration and embrace legal immigrants who choose to assimilate to our American culture, language, and values. 2. We support securing our borders against illegal immigrants and potential enemies of the United States including building a wall or barrier on our southern border. 3. We support legal requirements for citizenship, excluding provisions for birthright citizenship to children of illegal residents. 27 4. We support a strictly regulated and enforced guest worker program. Legal guest workers should assume social costs, such as education and health care for themselves and their dependents. 5. We support the method for determining the number of immigrants and temporary visa holders allowed in the United States should be revised to prevent an adverse effect on our national security, wages, housing, environment, medical care, or schools. 6. We support that the U.S. government should vigorously enforce and demand that all local law enforcement agencies uphold and enforce all federal laws concerning illegal immigration. We particularly support the work of the men and women of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) and US Border Patrol and Protection. 7. We support the elimination of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens and the defunding of any government entity which declares itself a sanctuary city. 8. We support strong enforcement of state and federal laws dealing with illegal aliens. 9. We support substantial state fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. 10. We support issuing driver's license only to citizens and others who reside here legally, and not to illegal aliens. We Oppose 1. We oppose illegal aliens being given the same privileges as U.S. citizens or legal aliens, including entitlements such as Social Security, health care (excepting trauma care), education, and earned income tax credits. State government social programs should be available only to citizens and legal residents of the United States. 2. We oppose any form of blanket amnesty. 3. We oppose legal immigrants overstaying their visas. 4. We oppose a "path to citizenship" that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means. E. State Issues i. State Legislature We Believe 1. We believe all bills should be limited to one issue. 2. We believe that it is the responsibility of individual legislators to read and to be knowledgeable of all pieces of legislation prior to voting. 3. We believe that all state-tribal compacts and agreements should require the approval of both houses of the legislature in addition to the ten-member Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations. 28 4. We believe Oklahoma shall participate only in programs or plans that protect private property rights and encourage citizens to develop their property in a manner that does not harm others. 5. We believe Oklahoma should not participate in any global ID initiatives and should prohibit the introduction of a radio frequency identification device (RFID) in any state-issued identification card. 6. We believe the Oklahoma Lottery should be repealed. 7. We believe a fee shall be defined as funds collected for voluntary use of government service, be used exclusively for that service, and not to exceed the cost of that service. We Support 1. We support any legislation that protects our rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 2. We support an explanation of the specific Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutional authority when filing a bill. 3. We support full funding of all state retirement systems. 4. We support legislation rescinding Oklahoma's previous calls for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. 5. We support the state and any county, municipality, city, town, school or any other political subdivision to display, in its public buildings and on its grounds, replicas of United States historical documents including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Oklahoma Constitution and other historically significant documents in the form of statues, monuments, memorials, tablets or any other display that respects the dignity and solemnity of such documents. Such documents shall be displayed in a manner consistent with the context of other documents contained in such display. 6. We support full protection of U.S. Second Amendment rights in Oklahoma by amending the Oklahoma Constitution to mirror the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. 7. We support maintaining the Constitutional Carry law in Oklahoma statute. 8. We support the ability of state law enforcement to restore the peace and protect Oklahoma citizens through the arrest and prosecution of any persons/agents attempting to inflict unconstitutional laws/mandates on its citizens. 9. We support the fundamental right to own and to enjoy our private property and we oppose restrictions or losses of that right. 10. We support fair, just, and timely compensation for property owners when governmental regulations limit property use. 11. We support driver's license photos of a lower resolution that is perfectly adequate for visual identification, but not for biometric tracking. 12. We support the repeal of mandatory fingerprinting or other traceable biometric information, and 29 we oppose the maintenance of a biometric database, in connection with an application for a driver's license or government ID. 13. We support lawsuit reform including but not limited to "loser pays". 14. We support amending the current Right to Farm law to explicitly allow for expansion, production, technological changes, and measures to protect these activities. 15. We support the Unmanned Surveillance Act which prohibits the use of a drone when no warrant has been issued. 16. We support a state constitutional amendment requiring judges to inform jurors of their duty to judge the law (nullification); and prohibiting judges and district attorneys from infringing on the rights of the defense to inform the jury of this duty. 17. We support amending the Oklahoma Constitution to remove the unelected Judicial Nominating Commission and adopt the federal model authorizing the Governor to appoint Oklahoma appellate judges with confirmation by the Oklahoma State Senate. 18. We support the oversight and regulation of the medical marijuana industry for medical purposes only. 19. We support the state and its citizens maintaining control of all transportation instead of selling or leasing control of that right to foreign entities, corporations, private/public partnerships, or other states. 20. We support efficient and necessary spending on our state, county, and local roads and bridges because they are essential for economic growth and development. 21. We support a moratorium on creation of additional turnpikes in Oklahoma until existing turnpikes in Oklahoma have generated enough toll revenue based upon an independent audit to repay their original costs, are conveyed to state ownership, and converted to toll-free roads. 22. We support the elimination of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and all tolls. We Oppose 1. We oppose the final passage of any legislation before the full text has been read. 2. We oppose the concept of claiming property as "blighted" as a reason for taking land. 3. We oppose allowing state agencies to hire lobbyists to lobby other state agencies or the legislature. 4. We oppose animal ID programs by the government, leaving it up to the free market. 5. We oppose the expansion of gambling in any form in Oklahoma. 30 ii. State Agencies, State, County, and Local Government We Believe 1. We believe in transparent and honest government in the Oklahoma Legislature, all legislative committees, and in state and county agencies. 2. We believe all state agencies should be made accountable for maintenance of their records and accurate enforcement of rules, policies, and regulations. 3. We believe all government officials, including judges, who act in violation of the U.S. or Oklahoma Constitution should be impeached and removed from office in a timely manner. 4. We believe the Attorney General should be removed from the District Attorney's Council so that locally elected officials have the proper degree of autonomy. 5. We believe that no governmental agency or private business should require from any citizen any information that is not essential to the direct performance of the agency's/ business's operation or mandate. We Support 1. We support reducing the size of state government to allow citizens to do those things that people can do best for themselves. 2. We support legislative efforts to repeal outdated and irrelevant statutes in keeping with the philosophy of smaller government and support the elimination or consolidation of redundant authorities, boards, commissions, and agencies. 3. We support providing an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the Open Meetings and Records Act and with audit findings. 4. We support external annual performance and financial audits. The auditor shall not be selected by the audited agencies. 5. We support public disclosure of all financial records of public institutions including trusts, authorities, libraries, community foundations, all state retirement funds, and teacher retirement funds. 6. We support the Whistleblower Act which protects all public employees, including higher education employees. 7. We support all elected and appointed officials to aggressively uncover, remedy, and prosecute all waste, fraud, and abuse in government including the elimination of all unnecessary state agencies. 8. We support the repeal of Title 11, Section 22-104.1 of the OK Statutes, which enables a municipal corporation to engage in any business it is authorized to license. 9. We support mandatory random drug testing for all employees of the State of Oklahoma and recipients of public assistance with sanctions for positive test results. 31 10. We support and call on the Attorney General to vigorously enforce Article XXII, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits foreign governments from owning businesses or real estate in Oklahoma. 11. We support that the state of Oklahoma shall not exercise any eminent domain action until at least 90% of affected property holders/interests has been acquired without the threat of eminent domain. 12. We support enforcement of state and federal Anti-Trust laws regulating the mergers of domestic and foreign corporations that create monopolies resulting in a loss of competition, and detrimental to Oklahoma entities. We Oppose 1. We oppose any exemptions to the current Open Meetings and Open Records Act. 2. We oppose unfunded mandates by the State Legislature and state agencies. 3. We oppose the declaration of a United Nations Day in Oklahoma. 4. We oppose legislative actions that would alter current county government structures (i.e. Home Rule). 5. We oppose self-serving legislation and conflict of interest legislation. 32   2025 Oklahoma Republican Party Platform Committee Casey Wooley, Chair Lori Gracey , Vice-Chair Patricia Pope – Blaine Bryan Morris – Canadian Rachel Ruiz – Canadian John Spencer – Canadian LeRoss Apple – Cimarron Bruce Fleming – Cleveland Sherrie Hamilton – Haskell Gary Voelkers – Kay Julie Collier – McClain Leslie Mahan – Oklahoma Ruth Foote – Oklahoma Mark Harris – Oklahoma Robert Scott – Okmulgee Jason Shilling – Payne Mishela DeBoer – Rogers Patricia Lyle – Rogers John Doak – Tulsa April Dawn Brown – Garvin Amanda Bergerson – Logan Michelle Wax – Carter Jana Belcher – Grady

This Day in Legal History: Federal Court Strikes Down “Balanced Treatment” Law in ArkansasOn January 5, 1982, a federal district court in Arkansas issued a landmark ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, striking down a state law that required public schools to give “balanced treatment” to both evolution and creation science. The law, known as Act 590, had been passed in 1981 and mandated that schools teach creationism—defined in the statute as a scientific model based on a literal interpretation of the Bible—alongside evolution. The law was immediately challenged by a coalition of clergy, educators, and scientists who argued that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.Judge William Overton ruled that Act 590 was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious viewpoint under the guise of science. In his decision, Overton provided a clear and influential definition of what constitutes science, stating that scientific theories must be guided by natural law, testable, and subject to falsification. He found that “creation science” failed all of these criteria and was therefore religious in nature, not scientific. The court also concluded that requiring its teaching in public schools constituted state endorsement of religion.The ruling marked one of the first major judicial rejections of efforts to include religious doctrine in public school science curricula following the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier decision in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), which struck down laws banning the teaching of evolution altogether. McLean v. Arkansas would go on to shape the legal and educational landscape in future church-state separation cases, including the pivotal 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard, which similarly invalidated a Louisiana law promoting creationism in schools.Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro appeared in a New York court after a surprise U.S. military operation captured him in Caracas. The high-stakes raid, likened to the 1989 Panama invasion, involved U.S. Special Forces breaching Maduro's security and flying him to Manhattan, where he faces drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. His wife, Cilia Flores, was also captured. Maduro is accused of running a cocaine network in collaboration with major criminal groups like Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's FARC.The capture sparked international outrage. Russia, China, Cuba, and other allies condemned the raid, while U.S. allies cautiously emphasized legality and diplomacy. The U.N. Security Council is set to review the operation's legality. Meanwhile, Venezuela's acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, shifted from initial outrage to signaling willingness for cooperation with the U.S., a notable pivot considering her past as a fiery Chavista loyalist.President Trump justified the move as a counter to drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the past nationalization of U.S. oil assets. He also made clear his aim to reopen Venezuela's oil sector to U.S. companies. However, he has sidelined Venezuela's opposition leaders, disappointing figures like María Corina Machado. Despite Maduro's removal, his political allies remain in power, and the military's loyalty appears unchanged. Venezuelans at home are wary, bracing for possible unrest.Venezuela's Maduro due in court, loyalists send message to Trump | ReutersTrump's efforts to further reshape the federal judiciary in 2026 are facing a slowdown due to a shortage of vacancies. After returning to office in 2025, Trump secured the confirmation of 26 judicial nominees—more than in the first year of his initial term. However, only 30 new judicial seats have opened since then, compared to the 108 vacancies available when he first took office in 2017. This is largely due to aggressive judicial appointments by both Trump and former President Biden over the past decade, which filled many potential retirements with younger judges.Some judges eligible for senior status—a form of semi-retirement—have opted to remain active. Experts suggest this could be due to either personal preference or distrust among conservative judges about Trump's choices for replacements. The appellate court nominations have particularly slowed, with only three judges announcing retirements in 2025. Still, Trump managed to flip the balance of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and strengthen conservative influence in district courts across states like Missouri, Florida, and Mississippi.Despite the low number of available seats—currently 49—Trump still has opportunities to make appointments, especially in Republican-led states. However, 13 of those vacancies are in states with at least one Democratic senator, triggering the “blue slip” custom, which allows senators to block judicial nominees from their states. While this tradition doesn't apply to appellate courts, it still limits district court nominations. Senate Republicans remain divided on whether to uphold the blue slip norm.Trump's ability to further reshape judiciary in 2026 hindered by few vacancies | ReutersIn 2026, U.S. law schools are facing a mix of rising interest in legal education and mounting regulatory and financial pressures. A major shift comes from President Trump's 2025 budget, which capped federal loans for professional degrees at $50,000 annually and $200,000 total. With many law schools charging over $50,000 per year (excluding living costs), incoming students may need to seek private loans, which often come with higher interest rates and stricter credit requirements. In response, some schools—like Santa Clara University—are offering across-the-board scholarships to help bridge the gap.Law school accreditation is also in flux. The American Bar Association (ABA), traditionally the primary accreditor, is facing political attacks over its diversity standards and regulatory burden. Texas is planning to develop its own law school approval system for bar eligibility, and other states like Florida and Ohio are exploring similar options. The ABA is now working to streamline its standards amid this pressure.July 2026 will also see the debut of the “NextGen UBE,” a shorter, skills-focused national bar exam that replaces some memorization with practical assessment. Some states, however, are opting out or creating their own licensing alternatives.Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is gaining traction in legal education. A growing number of law schools are integrating AI training into their curricula, and platforms like Harvey are being adopted by faculty and students alike.Despite the looming challenges, interest in law school remains strong. Applicant numbers rose 20% over the previous year, building on an 18% increase in 2024, and first-year enrollment is also trending upward.US law schools face loan limits, oversight pressures in 2026 | ReutersU.S. courts are poised to play a decisive role in shaping how copyright law applies to generative AI this year, as lawsuits from major publishers, creators, and tech companies come to a head. At issue is whether AI developers like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and others can invoke the legal doctrine of fair use when training models on copyrighted materials, or whether they must pay license fees—potentially amounting to billions.The legal landscape shifted dramatically in 2025. A class action by authors against Anthropic resulted in a $1.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind, while The New York Times, Disney, and other major rights holders filed fresh lawsuits. Judges began issuing preliminary rulings on whether AI training qualifies as transformative fair use, with conflicting outcomes. One judge called AI training “quintessentially transformative,” supporting tech companies' claims, while another warned that generative AI could harm creators by saturating the market with competing content.Several high-profile cases remain active in 2026, including those involving AI-generated music and visual art. Meanwhile, some copyright holders are choosing collaboration over litigation. Disney, for example, invested $1 billion in OpenAI and granted use of its characters, while Warner Music dropped lawsuits against AI firms to co-develop music tools. These deals hint at possible industry-wide licensing frameworks, though ongoing litigation could still dramatically reshape the economic and legal norms governing AI.AI copyright battles enter pivotal year as US courts weigh fair use | Reuters 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

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding the First Amendment: Speech and ReligionThis conversation delves into the complexities of the First Amendment, focusing on the distinctions between various types of speech, the legal frameworks for analyzing free speech cases, and the evolving interpretations of the Establishment Clause. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding state action, the differences between content-based and content-neutral regulations, and the implications of strict and intermediate scrutiny. It also explores the chilling effects of vague laws, the significance of forum analysis, and the historical context of religious freedom in America. The conversation concludes with key takeaways for law students preparing for exams, highlighting the shift from viewing speech as individual expression to understanding it as a vital process of communication in a democratic society.Navigating the complexities of the First Amendment can feel like a daunting task, especially when preparing for law school exams or the bar. The First Amendment encompasses a wide range of issues from political speech to religious freedom, and its doctrines are constantly evolving. This blog post aims to provide a clear framework to help you understand and analyze First Amendment issues effectively.The Framework for Analyzing Free Speech: The First Amendment's protection of free speech is not just about an individual's right to express themselves. It's about safeguarding a process of communication that is essential for democracy. The key is to distinguish between content-based and content-neutral regulations. Content-based laws, which regulate speech based on its topic or viewpoint, are subject to strict scrutiny and are often deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, content-neutral laws, which regulate the time, place, or manner of speech, are subject to intermediate scrutiny.The Role of Historical Practices in Religion Clauses: The Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion, has undergone significant changes. The Supreme Court has moved away from the Lemon test, which focused on the effects of a law, to a new standard based on historical practices. This shift emphasizes the importance of understanding historical context when analyzing Establishment Clause issues.Key Takeaways for Law Students:Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral: Understand the difference and apply the appropriate level of scrutiny. Historical Practices: Use historical context to analyze Establishment Clause issues. Communication Model: Consider the broader impact of speech on communication and democracy.The First Amendment is a dynamic area of law that requires a nuanced understanding of both historical context and modern applications. By using the frameworks and models discussed, you can approach First Amendment issues with confidence and clarity. Remember, it's not just about protecting individual expression, but about preserving the vital process of communication that underpins our democracy.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and analysis.TakeawaysThe First Amendment encompasses a wide range of speech-related issues.Understanding state action is crucial for analyzing free speech cases.Content-based regulations trigger strict scrutiny, while content-neutral regulations face intermediate scrutiny.The chilling effect can deter individuals from exercising their free speech rights.Forum analysis helps determine the level of protection for speech on government property.The Establishment Clause has evolved, moving away from the Lemon test to a historical understanding.The neutrality principle mandates that religious groups cannot be excluded from public benefits.First Amendment, free speech, state action, content-based regulations, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, chilling effect, forum analysis, establishment clause, neutrality principle

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation's highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O'Connor's appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O'Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public's view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O'Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O'Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O'Connor's presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman's voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O'Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB's website, end the agency's oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump's lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | Reuters 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

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the First Amendment, focusing on its key principles, historical context, and the evolution of its interpretation. The discussion covers the incorporation doctrine, freedom of speech, the distinction between content-based and content-neutral restrictions, and the various tiers of scrutiny applied in legal analysis. Imagine sitting in your constitutional law class, surrounded by casebooks and notes, with the First Amendment staring back at you like a complex puzzle. This cornerstone of our legal system is not only fundamental to understanding American law but also a critical component of law school exams and the bar. Let's delve into the key principles of the First Amendment and how they apply in legal exams.Understanding the Text: The First Amendment guarantees fundamental freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law," explicitly limiting federal legislative power. However, the Supreme Court has recognized implied rights beyond the explicit text, such as the freedom of association and belief, which are crucial for exam analysis.Incorporation Doctrine: Initially, the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applied only to the federal government. The incorporation doctrine, through the Fourteenth Amendment, extended these protections to state and local governments. Understanding this historical context is vital for a complete legal analysis.Freedom of Speech: The bedrock principle of freedom of speech is that it is generally presumed to be protected unless it falls within specific exceptions. This presumption is rooted in the idea of a marketplace of ideas, where the government cannot restrict expression based on its message, ideas, subject matter, or content.Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Restrictions: A critical aspect of First Amendment analysis is distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral restrictions. Content-based restrictions regulate speech because of its message and are presumptively unconstitutional, facing strict scrutiny. Content-neutral restrictions regulate something other than the content and are subject to intermediate scrutiny.Forum Analysis: The physical location of speech profoundly impacts its protection. Traditional public forums, like streets and parks, receive the strongest protections, while non-public forums, like military bases, receive the least. Understanding forum analysis is crucial for setting up exam analysis.Exceptions to Protected Speech: Certain categories of speech, such as incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and obscenity, receive no or limited First Amendment protection. Knowing these exceptions is essential for tackling First Amendment hypotheticals.Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment also encompasses the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, which have evolved significantly. The Establishment Clause prohibits government promotion of religion, while the Free Exercise Clause protects individual religious liberty. Understanding the dynamic interpretation of these clauses is key for exams.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and exam tips!TakeawaysThe First Amendment is foundational to American law.Historical context is crucial for understanding constitutional rights.Incorporation doctrine applies federal rights to state actions.Freedom of speech is generally protected unless it falls into specific exceptions.Content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny, while content-neutral ones face intermediate scrutiny.Forum analysis is essential for determining speech protections.Certain categories of speech are unprotected or less protected.First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, constitutional law, legal analysis, incorporation doctrine, speech restrictions, public forums, commercial speech, government speech

The Supreme Court used the shadow docket to legalize racial profiling, although only Justice Kavanaugh was dumb enough to admit it out loud. It also overturned Humphrey's Executor, but this time even Kav wouldn't cop to it. Meanwhile at the White House, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought discovers ONE WEIRD trick to steal Congress's power of the purse. And the Second Circuit confirms, Alina Habba is still very bad at her job.   Links:   White House Prayer Executive Order https://www.whitehouse.gov/america250/america-prays/   SCOTUS Shadow Docket Order Trump v. Slaughter https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/090825zr_4f15.pdf   Second Circuit Order Carroll v. Trump 1 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf   SCOTUS Docket Trump v. Vasquez Perdomo https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a169.html   White House “pocket rescission” announcement (Aug. 29, 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/historic-pocket-rescission-package-eliminates-woke-weaponized-and-wasteful-spending/   AIDS Vaccine Coalition v. State https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333.145.0_4.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether the operation of charter schools by religious entities was constitutionally permissible (or even required). The Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving in place a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violated the Establishment Clause. This forum will take up the questions left unanswered in Drummond and what the next phase of the debate over religious charter schools will look like, including whether charter schools should be considered state actors and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from prohibiting religious operators from forming charter schools.Featuring:Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and StateProf. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

This Day in Legal History: Alabama Ten commandments MonumentOn August 28, 2003, the Supreme Court of Alabama removed a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse in Montgomery. The monument had been installed two years earlier by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who argued it reflected the moral foundation of U.S. law. However, its religious nature sparked immediate controversy and litigation. In Glassroth v. Moore, three attorneys sued in federal court, asserting that the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court ruled in their favor, ordering the monument's removal.Moore refused to comply with the court's order, prompting further legal and administrative actions. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, finding the monument's placement unconstitutional. When Moore continued to defy the federal ruling, the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama brought ethics charges against him. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary subsequently removed Moore from office for failing to uphold the rule of law.The case underscored the constitutional limits on religious expression by public officials and reinforced federal supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation. It also intensified national debates over the role of religion in public life and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Moore would later regain the position of Chief Justice in 2013, only to be suspended again for defying federal law, this time over same-sex marriage.You will, of course, also remember that Roy Moore–in addition to being a huge fan of the Ten Commandments–is plausibly accused of misconduct involving multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault by three women—two of whom were minors at the time. Leigh Corfman alleged Moore assaulted her when she was 14 and he was 32, and Beverly Young Nelson accused Moore of assaulting her when she was 16. Six additional women have described Moore as behaving inappropriately when they were between 14 and 22 years old. Moore has denied all allegations of misconduct, though he admitted to knowing some of the women and, at times, dating teenagers while in his 30s. Dating teenagers while in his 30s. No criminal charges were filed, so of course all of these are merely allegations, but the accusations were widely reported during his 2017 Senate campaign, which he lost in a historic upset in deeply Republican Alabama.As President Trump threatens to deploy National Guard troops and ICE agents to Chicago, city and state leaders are scrambling to prepare. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are working closely to coordinate a response, despite acknowledging that their legal options are limited. The move would follow similar deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., both cities led by Black Democratic mayors. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul is crafting a legal strategy, and immigrant advocacy groups are ramping up legal training in anticipation of increased enforcement. Community leaders worry that a federal presence could disrupt efforts to build trust in high-crime neighborhoods and further strain relationships between residents and law enforcement.Trump claims the intervention is necessary to combat crime, but critics point out that shootings and homicides in Chicago have actually declined significantly this year. Despite the progress, public perceptions of danger persist, with many residents still feeling unsafe at night. Some, including Republicans and a few city residents, support Trump's plan, citing frustration with issues like homelessness and crime. Others view it as a political stunt, especially in light of recent federal cuts to violence prevention programs.Trump has also focused on Chicago's status as a sanctuary city, which has drawn national attention amid the city's efforts to house tens of thousands of migrants. The fear of federal enforcement has spread beyond undocumented immigrants to Latino citizens and residents. Legal experts suggest any unilateral deployment of the National Guard could violate the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act. Local protest groups are preparing for nonviolent resistance, framing the potential deployment as authoritarian overreach aimed at intimidation.In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump's possible deployment of National Guard | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department staffer arrested for allegedly throwing a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during President Trump's law enforcement crackdown in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors had pursued felony assault charges, citing video evidence and statements that Dunn called the agents "fascists" and yelled, “I don't want you in my city!” before hurling the sandwich. The rejection is notable given the typically low threshold required for grand jury indictments and the prosecutorial control over such proceedings.The case has become symbolic of broader tensions surrounding the Trump administration's deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to address what it calls a crime surge in the capital—claims contradicted by police data showing a decline in violence. The grand jury's decision reflects growing prosecutorial challenges in securing high-level charges amid political pressure to appear tough on crime.Dunn, who has not entered a plea, was featured in a White House video showing his arrest, part of a broader narrative emphasizing law-and-order policies. The Justice Department has 30 days from arrest to secure an indictment and may attempt to present the case to another grand jury. A similar recent case against a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent was also downgraded to a misdemeanor after multiple failed attempts to indict.The ham sandwich indictment jokes write themselves. Grand jury declines to indict man arrested for throwing sandwich at US agent, source says | ReutersA federal judge has extended an order blocking the deportation of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case tied to President Trump's enforcement crackdown. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that Abrego must remain in the U.S. at least through October while she considers his legal challenge against a planned deportation to Uganda—a country where he has no connections. The judge also restricted ICE from moving Abrego more than 200 miles from her courthouse in Maryland, where a final hearing is set for October 6.Abrego's case drew national attention in March when he was deported to El Salvador despite a judge's order forbidding it. U.S. officials had accused him of gang affiliations, which he denies. After being imprisoned in El Salvador, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue the prosecution is retaliatory and politically motivated.Abrego had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, all of whom are U.S. citizens, before his arrest. His legal team plans to seek asylum through separate immigration proceedings and has criticized the Trump administration's handling of the case as an attempt to erode due process protections in immigration law.Judge extends block on Trump administration's efforts to deport migrant Abrego | Reuters 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

Lawyer and legal scholar Timon Cline joins the podcast to share his ambitious proposal to revisit and overturn the Supreme Court's 1947 ruling on the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education. Drawing on his recent Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, "Everson Must Fall," co-authored with Josh Hammer (James Wilson '21) and Yoram Hazony, Cline explains the role that the opinion has played in misshaping our culture and a potential path to its reversal. Timon Cline is the Editor in Chief at American Reformer. He is an attorney and a fellow at the Craig Center at Westminster Theological Seminary and the Director of Scholarly Initiatives at the Hale Institute of New Saint Andrews College. His writing has appeared in Anchoring Truths, the American Spectator, Mere Orthodoxy, American Greatness, Areo Magazine, and the American Mind, among others.The episode is adapted from a webinar the James Wilson Institute hosted with the Center on Religion, Culture, and Democracy of First Liberty Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that could reshape the debate over faith-based charter schools. They explore the constitutional questions at the heart of the case, including the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and why a 4–4 split leaves the door open for future challenges. The conversation covers the potential role of religious organizations in public education, the importance of accountability in school choice programs, recent legal battles in Missouri and Wyoming, and how shifting public opinion may change the K–12 landscape in the years ahead. Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

This podcast explores the legal concept of standing, which dictates who is eligible to bring a lawsuit before a court. They highlight that standing typically requires a concrete, particularized injury that is traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by a court, as emphasized in U.S. federal law. However, the articles also discuss challenges and criticisms of this doctrine, including concerns about limiting access to justice for public interest issues, inconsistent applications in various legal contexts like reproductive rights or anti-corruption efforts, and the debate around third-party or public interest standing in different jurisdictions. Potential solutions are also considered, such as using institutional plaintiffs or expanding standing through legislative action.The fundamental purpose of the standing doctrine is to limit federal courts to adjudicating "cases or controversies" involving actual injuries. It upholds the separation of powers by preventing courts from issuing advisory opinions or overstepping into political or hypothetical grievances."Injury-in-fact" requires a plaintiff to show they have suffered a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent. "Concrete" means the injury is real, even if intangible (like reputational harm), while "particularized" means it affects the plaintiff individually, not merely as part of the general public.The "causation" element ensures the alleged injury is directly attributable to the defendant's conduct, and not to actions by independent third parties not involved in the case. This establishes a clear and logical link, preventing speculative claims where the defendant's role in the harm is unclear."Redressability" means it must be likely that a favorable court decision will remedy the plaintiff's injury. It does not require that the court's judgment completely eliminate the harm; incremental redress is sufficient to satisfy this requirement.Prudential standing requirements are judicially created limits on federal court jurisdiction, such as prohibitions on third-party standing or generalized grievances. Unlike the constitutional elements, Congress can modify or override these prudential doctrines through legislation.The general rule is that federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government expenditures based solely on their taxpayer status because the injury is too speculative and widely shared. A narrow exception exists for challenges under the Establishment Clause to specific congressional taxing and spending measures.Associational standing allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members if its members would individually have standing, the interests are relevant to the organization's purpose, and the claim or relief does not require individual member participation. This enables collective representation for shared harms within a group.TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez clarified that for intangible harms to be "concrete," they must have a "close historical or common-law analogue." This limits Congress's ability to define new intangible harms for standing purposes, leading to continued ambiguity and circuit splits on how to apply this historical analogy test.State standing is often easier to establish due to the "special solicitude" afforded to states as sovereigns and their broad array of proprietary and quasi-sovereign interests. States can sue parens patriae to protect the health and well-being of their residents, unlike private citizens who must show a particularized injury.Qui tam actions allow private individuals (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government for injuries suffered by the government, often in exchange for a financial reward. This expands standing by effectively assigning the government's injury-in-fact to the relator, rooted in a long historical practice.

What happens when a nation forgets its spiritual foundation? In this soul-searching episode, Jesse Cope challenges listeners to examine their daily priorities and whether they truly align with their professed faith."Have you made time for God today? Have you made time for Jesus Christ? Have you made time for your spouse?" These aren't just rhetorical questions, but a mirror held up to our collective conscience. As Christians, we claim God is our top priority, yet our schedules often tell a different story. Cope thoughtfully explores how prayer shouldn't be a checkbox item but an ongoing conversation throughout our day—whether we're working a fence line, teaching in a classroom, or serving in the military.The discussion on marriage strikes a particularly resonant chord. Using the powerful analogy of a bank account, Cope points out that we would naturally pay more attention to an account with $50 million than one with mere pocket change. Shouldn't we then invest more attention in our marriages with each passing year, not less? He challenges the notion that the "honeymoon period" should end, arguing instead that the same level of attentiveness should characterize the entire relationship.Diving into historical wisdom, Cope examines why our founders deliberately established a republic rather than a democracy. With quotes from James Madison, John Adams, and Fisher Ames (who wrote the First Amendment's Establishment Clause), he demonstrates how pure democracy inevitably leads to mob rule and self-destruction. These warnings seem eerily prophetic when considering today's social unrest and political turbulence.The episode culminates with a fascinating look at the "committees of correspondence" established before the American Revolution—networks that enabled colonies to coordinate their response to British tyranny. Cope makes a compelling case that Christians and conservatives need similar networks today to effectively stand against cultural and governmental overreach. When faithful communities work in concert rather than isolation, their impact is exponentially greater.Share this episode with someone who needs a spiritual wake-up call, and join us in reclaiming America's soul through the timeless values that once made our nation great.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Abington School District v. SchemppOn this day in legal history, June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Abington School District v. Schempp, a landmark case concerning the constitutional boundaries between church and state. The case arose when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian from Pennsylvania, challenged a state law that required public schools to begin each day with Bible readings. The Schempp family argued that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing religion.In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the Schempps, holding that the mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government must remain neutral toward religion, the school's policy amounted to state-sanctioned religious exercise. The ruling did not ban the Bible from public schools altogether but clarified that its use must be educational, not devotional.This decision built on the precedent set in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down mandatory prayer in schools, and it reinforced a broader interpretation of the separation of church and state. The ruling provoked strong reactions across the country, with many viewing it as an attack on traditional religious values, while others saw it as a vital protection of individual liberties in a pluralistic society.The case remains a cornerstone in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping debates over religion in public education for decades. It also marked a pivotal moment in the Warren Court's broader effort to expand civil liberties through constitutional interpretation.The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using executive orders to intimidate major law firms based on their past clients and hiring choices. Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution and have created a chilling effect on the legal profession. The ABA claims Trump's actions hindered its ability to secure legal representation, especially in cases opposing the federal government.The suit comes after four law firms successfully challenged similar executive orders, with judges temporarily or permanently blocking enforcement. One of these firms, Susman Godfrey, is now representing the ABA in this new case. Despite court setbacks, nine firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration to avoid similar targeting.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the ABA's lawsuit as “frivolous,” asserting presidential authority over security clearances and federal contracting. The ABA also alleges the administration has threatened its accreditation authority and slashed funding, particularly in areas like training legal advocates for domestic violence victims.American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice is undergoing a significant restructuring under the Trump administration, marked by mass resignations, staff reductions, and departmental overhauls. Approximately 4,500 DOJ employees have accepted buyouts through the administration's deferred resignation program, known as “Fork in the Road,” which allows for paid leave through September before official departure. These exits, along with planned eliminations of 5,093 positions, are expected to save around $470 million and reduce the DOJ's workforce from roughly 110,000.The administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year aims to reshape the DOJ in line with conservative priorities. This includes dismantling the tax division—once staffed by over 500 people—and distributing its enforcement functions across the civil and criminal divisions. Despite some added funding to these divisions, they are also set to reduce attorney headcounts. The move has drawn backlash from former DOJ and IRS officials, who warned it could undermine tax enforcement. The DOJ's top tax official resigned earlier this year in protest.Political leadership changes have also prompted an exodus from the civil rights division, where two-thirds of career attorneys have either resigned or been reassigned. Cuts are also planned for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and other oversight bodies, such as the DOJ Inspector General's office and the Community Relations Service.Other structural shifts include folding INTERPOL's U.S. office into the U.S. Marshals Service, closing multiple field offices, and launching a new firearm rights restoration initiative. The administration has also proposed merging the ATF with the DEA and cutting the FBI's budget by over half a billion dollars.Justice Department to Lose 4,500 Staffers to Buyout Offers (1)Justice Department to Eliminate Tax Unit as Workforce ShrinksThe NCAA's $2.8 billion settlement—approved earlier this month—has reignited momentum in Congress for national legislation to address key issues in college athletics, particularly around antitrust liability, name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, and student-athlete classification. Beginning July 1, colleges can directly pay athletes, marking a historic shift that has intensified calls for a federal framework to standardize these changes.The settlement, which also includes back pay for nearly 400,000 athletes, has been described as a stabilizing force in the chaotic NIL landscape. It is now being used by the NCAA to push Congress for a liability shield to prevent further antitrust lawsuits. Although several NIL reform bills have been proposed in the past, none have passed. Two current bills—the bipartisan SPORTS Act and the GOP-led SCORE Act—aim to balance athlete rights with regulatory uniformity while clarifying that student-athletes are not employees.The SCORE Act would create revenue-based limits on athlete pay and involve multiple House committees, while the SPORTS Act focuses on educational support and fair market value benchmarks for NIL deals. Both would preempt state laws and address core NCAA concerns.Despite the settlement, legal uncertainty remains. Female athletes have already filed appeals challenging the deal under Title IX, and further litigation is expected. Experts note that any legislation granting an antitrust exemption—similar to the unique one held by Major League Baseball—would face judicial skepticism and political resistance.NCAA's $2.8 Billion Settlement Gets Congress Moving Toward FixesIn my column this week I write a bit about how a tax amnesty program in Illinois might provide a roadmap for the rest of the nifty fifty. Illinois' new remote seller amnesty program offers a strategic and replicable model for encouraging tax compliance among previously noncompliant businesses. By waiving penalties and interest and applying a simplified, flat 9% tax rate across the state's many local jurisdictions, the program lowers the barriers to voluntary disclosure. This approach addresses the core problem of the “compliance paradox,” where businesses avoid coming clean for fear of triggering audits. In contrast to fear-based enforcement, Illinois' model promotes intelligence-based compliance, exchanging amnesty for valuable insights into evasion tactics and tools.The program's design could be adapted to brick-and-mortar businesses engaged in sales suppression through tools like zapper software. If these businesses were offered amnesty in return for disclosing how they evaded taxes—such as revealing the software they used and methods employed—states could use this intelligence to improve enforcement. Such disclosures would turn voluntary compliance into a form of strategic reconnaissance, identifying enforcement blind spots and bad actors.Illinois' policy doesn't just recoup lost revenue; it also creates opportunities to map the ecosystem of tax evasion tools and techniques. By incentivizing transparency and simplifying compliance, the initiative provides a blueprint for other states facing fiscal pressure and looking to modernize tax enforcement.Illinois Remote Seller Amnesty Program Offers Roadmap for States 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

What happens when a nation forgets its spiritual foundations? The American Soul Podcast tackles this question head-on, examining how modern interpretations of "separation of church and state" have strayed dramatically from our founders' intentions.Through a powerful reading of Revelation 6, Jesse Cope reminds listeners that "there's going to come a point when all the second chances are over," urging spiritual preparedness while there's still time. This urgency underscores the episode's exploration of America's Christian heritage and how it's been systematically erased from public consciousness.Drawing from historical sources including Supreme Court opinions and founding-era commentaries, Cope demonstrates that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in our founding documents. Instead, it was a concept meant to prevent any single denomination from controlling government—not to remove Christianity from public life. Joseph Story's commentary reveals the founders believed "Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state" and that attempting to "level all religions" would have provoked "universal indignation."The discussion deepens when examining education, where Fisher Ames—the very author of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause—advocated for the Bible as "the primary text in our schools." This historical reality stands in stark contrast to modern interpretations that have stripped both biblical teaching and proper civic education from American schools.Between readings from Foxes Book of Martyrs and Medal of Honor citations, Cope weaves a compelling narrative about sacrifice, courage, and the consequences of abandoning our nation's foundational principles. The episode concludes with a sobering reflection on how America cannot continue to violate God's moral law—particularly through abortion—without facing consequences.Whether you're a history buff, a person of faith, or simply concerned about America's future, this episode offers historical context often missing from contemporary discussions. Subscribe now and join the conversation about reclaiming America's soul through an honest examination of its past.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

The Declaration of Independence uses the words 'God,' 'the Creator,' and 'Divine Providence,' but many of the Founders were highly skeptical of both Christianity and also organized religion, preferring the scientific and rational ideals of the Enlightenment. In this episode, we explore the tensions between religion and reason in the Declaration of Independence. Topics include the following: -Theistic and deistic beliefs in the Founders, including Franklin and Jefferson -The different religious groups in the Colonies, from Baptists and Catholics to Anglicans and Quakers -Biblical and theological arguments for and against revolution as well as submission to the King -Grievance #20 in the Declaration, which references the Quebec Act of 1774, which allowed for the establishment of Catholicism in the Canadian colony of Quebec -Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779) -The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson previews the Supreme Court's most anticipated pending cases as the term nears its end. She highlights upcoming decisions on nationwide injunctions, Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, evolving standards in discrimination lawsuits, and major cases involving religious exemptions and parental rights in education. Jessica offers her predictions and insight on how these rulings could shape the law and impact daily life, setting the stage for a dramatic finale to the Supreme Court term.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Nationwide Injunctions – Trump v. Washington/New Jersey/California: This case tackles whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, as opposed to limiting decisions to just the plaintiffs in the case. The backdrop is Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which attempts to limit who qualifies as a citizen by birth.Transgender Rights and Equal Protection – Skrmetti: The Court is considering whether Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The predicted outcome is that the Court may allow such state restrictions, but notes there could be future challenges regarding parental rights under a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment.Religious Objections in Public Schools – Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum: A Maryland case considers if public schools must offer opt-outs for parents whose religious beliefs conflict with LGBTQ-inclusive materials and lessons. The prediction: the Court may require such opt-outs under the Free Exercise Clause, but will need to write the opinion carefully to avoid overly broad exemptions.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, a terrorist executed two Israeli Embassy employees, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez said he acted for Palestine and for Gaza and was arrested on scene after discarding a 9mm handgun. He is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. We have this fusion of Marxist and Islamist ideologies threatening the West and antisemitic incidents globally. Weak Western policies, foreign funding from Qatar and China, open borders, and ineffective legal systems are enabling this internal threat. This Marxist-Islamist alliance aims to undermine Western civilization from within, exploiting universities where ideological conformity stifles academic freedom, funded by taxpayers and parents. The ongoing internal war, evident in cities like London, Paris, and Washington, threatens national survival, with some political defenses and isolationist views exacerbating the crisis. Also, the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 split with Justice Barrett recusing herself, failed to rule on a case from Oklahoma, effectively blocking a proposed Catholic charter school due to Chief Justice John Roberts likely siding with the liberal justices. This upheld a lower federal court's decision against state funding for religious charter schools - such funding does not breach the Constitution's Establishment Clause. Later, Erin Molan calls in to discuss her horror and anger at the global rise of the Marxist Islamist movement, particularly in the U.S., Australia, and Europe. Molan condemns Qatar's role in funding terrorism and spreading harmful narratives.  Finally, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Leiter calls in to explain that the terrorist in D.C is an evil nexus of Marxism and Islamism – the Red Green Alliance. This alliance is a dangerous, totalitarian fusion responsible for significant historical and ongoing violence, particularly Iran's role in promoting a death cult with nuclear ambitions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

It's been another wild week of injunctions, executive orders, and just plain insanity from the Trump administration. Then, we'll let Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni teach us about civil procedure. And for a deep dive, we discuss a surprising recusal from Justice Barrett that preserves what's left of the separation of church and state.   Links:   How Trump Officials Debated Handling of the Abrego Garcia Case: ‘Keep Him Where He Is' https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-deportation.html   Judge James Ho Public Meltdown https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.224134/gov.uscourts.ca5.224134.25.1.pdf   D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/   Somerville Public Schools v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69778837/somerville-public-schools-v-trump   US v. McIver [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70317726/united-states-v-mciver/   Trump v. Wilcox [Supreme Court order granting stay] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf   Oklahoma Statewide School Board v. Drummond [Supreme Court per curiam order] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-394_9p6b.pdf   Lively v. Baldoni (SDNY) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc&page=2   We Can Bury Anyone': Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine, New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

The Fox News Supreme Court is a political weapon, and it's being wielded to wreck what remains of American democracy. What happens if Trump declares martial law?  This week on Gaslit Nation, Andrea interviews Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, co-host of the award-winning Strict Scrutiny podcast, and author of the new book LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. This Court is a multi-decade effort by conservatives to seize power they couldn't win through democratic means. Litman warns about what the Fox News Court is up to. If you thought things were bad, we're staring down a term packed with cases that could fundamentally rewrite public education, religious liberty, and basic civil rights. Take Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. This case actually asks whether the Constitution requires states to allow religious public charter schools. Yes, you read that right: requires. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from funding religious education. But now, thanks to the conservative justices' persecution complex, where white Christian nationalism is the most oppressed identity in America, obviously, the Court may rule that denying public funding to religious schools is unconstitutional discrimination. Then there's the challenge to a Maryland school district's decision to include LGBTQ+ inclusive books in elementary schools. A group of religious parents is arguing that merely exposing children to stories with queer characters violates their religious freedom. If the Court agrees, it could hand conservative parents a veto power over what public schools teach, effectively outlawing inclusive education if it makes anyone clutch their pearls. What Litman makes clear is that these cases are about redefining public life, turning schools into vehicles for a theocratic agenda. And let's be honest: they're not talking about funding schools for Wiccans or the Church of Satan. This is about establishing a Christian nationalism dictatorship. Yes, it can happen here. Yes, it's happening here. But we are not powerless. Reform is not a fantasy. Term limits. Ethics rules. Court expansion. These are tools, if we find the courage to use them. Because democracy doesn't die in darkness. It's strangled in broad daylight by men in robes, funded by billionaires, and broadcast live on C-SPAN. And if we don't fight back? We're just letting them get away with it. EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: May 26 4pm ET – Book club discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Stride Toward Freeom: The Montgomery Story Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon.  Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community The recent storms have devastated so many in St. Louis, and the Urban League needs our help now more than ever. Please donate what you can to support their relief efforts and help communities rebuild: https://www.ulstl.com/#/   What's as gratifying as a Tesla Takedown protest? A Fox News Takedown protest! https://www.foxtakedown.com/

(00:00:00) The Atheist Experience 29.20 with The Cross Examiner and Dave Farina @ProfessorDaveExplains 2025-05-18 (00:10:31) Neil-WA - Deconversion Responsibilities (00:19:26) Andrew in CA- AI Is Conduit To Source (00:25:18) Jason-CA - God Existing Outside Space And Time (00:58:44) Mike-SC - Sharia Law Or Christian Nationalism? (01:27:48) Steve-NE - Star Being Slowed Down By Artificial Force In today's episode of the Atheist Experience, The Cross Examiner and Dave Farina, discuss topics of AI, deconversion, deceleration of stars, and church and state separation. Andrew in CA has a conduit of contact with AI and the source of all existence. How do you know this is the source of existence? What reason is there  to treat AI as the god of honest truth?Jason in CA says that matter, space and time had to come to being at one point and there can't be an infinite regression. What evidence do you have that we didn't see an infinity before the moment of creation and that there is a creation to begin with? If god exists outside of time, how did the realm where god existed change when the universe was created? What evidence do you have that this realm or state of being even exists? Every time we see consciousness, we see a physical entity, the brain. Why would we believe there is a consciousness outside the universe? We do not fully understand the origin of the universe or consciousness. We just don't have evidence for the claim of a deity that fills in these lack of knowledge gaps. Neal in WA grew up as a Mormon and has been wondering if as an atheist he should be doing more to help deconvert people. If you could help make a different path available to people, you may help them from taking on beliefs that are harmful. There is no reason to feel guilty for beliefs that you were indoctrinated to have when on this long journey of deconversion. You are accountable for your own actions, not the beliefs of others. Mike in SC wants to know if between Sharia Law or Christian Nationalism, what is more dangerous for atheists. Which of these two movements do you think is dismantling The Constitution? Anybody can be corrupted by financial, political, or religious power. The answer to the question depends on where you live and who is in power. Using religious ideas to take away freedom and change federal law is where the danger is. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District shows how the Lemon Test, that determines if there has been violations of the Establishment Clause, has been abandoned by the Supreme Court. If people are being locked up simply for praying, we have an objection to that. Anytime you see a story where this is happening, go read the actual case and original source to learn what really happened. Steve in NE wants to talk about the star that is supposedly being slowed down by an artificial force. This is something we can't explain and need evidence to support what is causing this deceleration. Thank you for tuning in this week! Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

The five men on the Supreme Court are so easily triggered and seem to be making law based on their emotional needs. Meanwhile, they also see discrimination in some of the best things about America—like equality or the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. And at the White House, the press office got totally bored with the worshipful questions from MAGA media and invited The Bulwark's Andrew Egger over—so Karoline Leavitt could mix it up with a reporter who'd definitely ask tough questions. Plus, Trump's crypto grift reaches new heights, Gorsuch is oddly obsessed with the EPA, and the toadies are getting whipsawed by the constant tariff adjustments. Leah Litman and Andrew Egger join Tim Miller. show notes Leah's book, "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes" Leah's "Strict Scrutiny" podcast Tuesday's "Morning Shots" newsletter

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

For most of the second half of 20th century, the Supreme Court has wrestled with finding a balance between the Free Exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause, offering several tests to test the limits of permissible accommodation without the undue appearance of government endorsement. Among those tests has been a little-thing called the “play in the joints,” famously introduced in Walz v. Tax Commissioner of New York (1970). In this episode, I explore this concept with Falco Anthony Muscante II, whose paper in the Ave Marie Law Review is called “Play in the Joints” Among the Religion Clauses: Rebuilding the Strong Joints the Framers Formed. In our conversation, we discuss the history of the religious clause and what the framers intended, how the concept emerged and became weaponized in Locke v. Davey (2003), why the Court has latched on to the idea of state neutrality and how that impacts religion, and more. Falco Anthony Muscante II earned his J.D. in 2023 from the Duquesne University School of Law, where he served on the executive boards for the Law Review and Appellate Moot Court Board. He is an alumnus of Grove City College, where he graduated summa cum laude with a B.S. Management, minor in Pre-Law, and concentration in Human Resources. Falco is a litigation associate at a big law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, soon headed to clerk for the Third Circuit. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento

Is this the term when the Court says “see ya” to the Establishment Clause? Leah, Melissa and Kate consider that question in their recap of this week's religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. Also covered: Advocate Lisa Blatt's run-in with Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments for a disability rights case, opinions concerning SSI benefits and the Department of Transportation, and the Trump administration's absurd investigation into the Harvard Law Review.Hosts' favorite things:Kate: Sinners; Is It Happening Here? by Andrew Marantz (New Yorker)Leah: Girl on Girl How: Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves, Sophie Gilbert; The Tide is Turning, Dahlia Lithwick (Slate); Trump & Bukele's Concentration Camp, Andrea Pitzer (NY Mag); Just Security Litigation TrackerMelissa: The Secret History of Home Economics: How Trailblazing Women Harnessed the Power of Home and Changed the Way We Live, Danielle Dreilinger; The Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

2:30 From 9/11 Truther to Tattoo Truther: CON-servative Mocks Those Who Expose Knuckleheaded IgnoranceWATCH cynical sycophant Scott Jennings lie about his clueless leader as Reason gives other examples and asks “how will we know if Trump is senile?” 24:49 Trump Crowned a WEF Demon in CanadaTrump came out of the closet in support the World Economic Forum's elite central banker of central bankers Mark Carney—more dangerous than Klaus Schwab himself—to seize Canada's helm. 29:36 Trump and His Influencers Push Suspending Habeas CorpusAll the best presidents do it, we're told.  Problem/solution.  Rinse/repeat 38:27 A Cabinet of Sycophants, A Ship of Fools To celebrate his first 100 days, WATCH Trump's top brass grovel at his feet, showering him with praise while unveiling a reckless agenda as Rubio boasts they don't bother with studies — warp speed ahead! 42:34 Cabinet Member's Plans Show WHY Washington Won't Be FixedAn example of how we've lost the plot — of the Founders.     From half-hearted CAFE standard cuts to swapping Biden's carbon tax for Trump's crippling 25% steel tariff, the Dept of Transportation is just one example of the uni-party plot to centrally control Americans with federal money under the guise of “following the law.” 54:20 New AG Secretary is Doubling Down on Egg Subsidies Even as DOJ Investigates the Cartel for Price Fixing     Prepare to be shell-shocked by a scandal that cracks open the rotten core of Trump's agricultural policy! Brooke Rollins, the USDA Secretary, gloats about lower egg prices while hiding a sinister truth: Big Egg companies like Cal-Maine are raking in record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts after the senseless slaughter of 110 million chickens under a bogus “bird flu” pretext.     So what is she doing about it?  The WRONG thing 1:01:04 Fowl Play: USDA's Chicken Massacre vs. the Wild Geese Explosion     The USDA show be tarred and feathered for slaughtering 110 MILLION chickens for “bird flu” nonsense.      We're told that there must be more “bio-security”, code for mRNA jabs, yet wild geese and pigeons thrive with Michigan's exploding goose populations facing gas chambers 1:18:17 Senate CommitteePushes Back on “Antisemitism Awareness” Censorship     The Antisemitism Awareness Act, a chilling scheme led by vaccine-shilling, free-speech-hating Senator Bill Cassidy to silence criticism of Israel.     Cassidy, a pawn of BigPharma and foreign interests, pushes censorship legislation to protect Israel's actions in Gaza while protecting BigPharma from scrutiny.     Has Israel's continued attacks on civilians turned public opinion against Netanyahu's government? 1:31:19 LIVE audience comments 1:33:48 Dr. Phil and Mike Lee Expose the Federal Hijacking of Both State Power and Religious Freedom     As the Supreme Court considers arguments about whether a state can get public funding to a religious school, Dr. Phil exposes how the Supreme Court twisted the Establishment Clause to crush state power and individual religious freedoms in a war on Christian values.     Do states have the power to fund religious schools?  Should they? 1:42:16 AI's Corporate Classroom Conspiracy OR God's Gift of Freedom: Homeschool     Celebrate the divine gift of homeschooling.  Don't settle for your kids getting a “gold star” from an AI instructor pushing Common Core, DEI, CRT, LGBT!     Trump and corporations want you in on the latest fad as corporate money-making franchises spring up.  It's interesting that ALL the benefits touted by this “AI school” are REAL benefits of homeschooling!     Embrace the God-given right to raise your children in truth! 1:59:21 World on the Brink: War Drums, Economic Collapse, Supply Chain, Media Circus of Lies      Gerald Celente of TrendsJournal.com unleashes a fiery takedown of fluff-filled ‘news' like Breitbart's 71-page Melania Trump fashion show to the New York Times' picture-book business section, journalism is DEAD—replaced by corporate propaganda and war-mongering lies.   The Decline of Mainstream JournalismGlobal War and Geopolitical TensionsGold Prices and Economic InstabilityCrony Capitalism of U.S. Foreign PolicyThe Vietnam War and Lessons Ignored            Discover why Trends Journal is your last bastion of truth in a world drowning in ‘slime' and deception—subscribe now and save 10% with code KNIGHTIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show  Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7 Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT For 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

2:30 From 9/11 Truther to Tattoo Truther: CON-servative Mocks Those Who Expose Knuckleheaded IgnoranceWATCH cynical sycophant Scott Jennings lie about his clueless leader as Reason gives other examples and asks “how will we know if Trump is senile?” 24:49 Trump Crowned a WEF Demon in CanadaTrump came out of the closet in support the World Economic Forum's elite central banker of central bankers Mark Carney—more dangerous than Klaus Schwab himself—to seize Canada's helm. 29:36 Trump and His Influencers Push Suspending Habeas CorpusAll the best presidents do it, we're told.  Problem/solution.  Rinse/repeat 38:27 A Cabinet of Sycophants, A Ship of Fools To celebrate his first 100 days, WATCH Trump's top brass grovel at his feet, showering him with praise while unveiling a reckless agenda as Rubio boasts they don't bother with studies — warp speed ahead! 42:34 Cabinet Member's Plans Show WHY Washington Won't Be FixedAn example of how we've lost the plot — of the Founders.     From half-hearted CAFE standard cuts to swapping Biden's carbon tax for Trump's crippling 25% steel tariff, the Dept of Transportation is just one example of the uni-party plot to centrally control Americans with federal money under the guise of “following the law.” 54:20 New AG Secretary is Doubling Down on Egg Subsidies Even as DOJ Investigates the Cartel for Price Fixing     Prepare to be shell-shocked by a scandal that cracks open the rotten core of Trump's agricultural policy! Brooke Rollins, the USDA Secretary, gloats about lower egg prices while hiding a sinister truth: Big Egg companies like Cal-Maine are raking in record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts after the senseless slaughter of 110 million chickens under a bogus “bird flu” pretext.     So what is she doing about it?  The WRONG thing 1:01:04 Fowl Play: USDA's Chicken Massacre vs. the Wild Geese Explosion     The USDA show be tarred and feathered for slaughtering 110 MILLION chickens for “bird flu” nonsense.      We're told that there must be more “bio-security”, code for mRNA jabs, yet wild geese and pigeons thrive with Michigan's exploding goose populations facing gas chambers 1:18:17 Senate CommitteePushes Back on “Antisemitism Awareness” Censorship     The Antisemitism Awareness Act, a chilling scheme led by vaccine-shilling, free-speech-hating Senator Bill Cassidy to silence criticism of Israel.     Cassidy, a pawn of BigPharma and foreign interests, pushes censorship legislation to protect Israel's actions in Gaza while protecting BigPharma from scrutiny.     Has Israel's continued attacks on civilians turned public opinion against Netanyahu's government? 1:31:19 LIVE audience comments 1:33:48 Dr. Phil and Mike Lee Expose the Federal Hijacking of Both State Power and Religious Freedom     As the Supreme Court considers arguments about whether a state can get public funding to a religious school, Dr. Phil exposes how the Supreme Court twisted the Establishment Clause to crush state power and individual religious freedoms in a war on Christian values.     Do states have the power to fund religious schools?  Should they? 1:42:16 AI's Corporate Classroom Conspiracy OR God's Gift of Freedom: Homeschool     Celebrate the divine gift of homeschooling.  Don't settle for your kids getting a “gold star” from an AI instructor pushing Common Core, DEI, CRT, LGBT!     Trump and corporations want you in on the latest fad as corporate money-making franchises spring up.  It's interesting that ALL the benefits touted by this “AI school” are REAL benefits of homeschooling!     Embrace the God-given right to raise your children in truth! 1:59:21 World on the Brink: War Drums, Economic Collapse, Supply Chain, Media Circus of Lies      Gerald Celente of TrendsJournal.com unleashes a fiery takedown of fluff-filled ‘news' like Breitbart's 71-page Melania Trump fashion show to the New York Times' picture-book business section, journalism is DEAD—replaced by corporate propaganda and war-mongering lies.   The Decline of Mainstream JournalismGlobal War and Geopolitical TensionsGold Prices and Economic InstabilityCrony Capitalism of U.S. Foreign PolicyThe Vietnam War and Lessons Ignored            Discover why Trends Journal is your last bastion of truth in a world drowning in ‘slime' and deception—subscribe now and save 10% with code KNIGHTIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show  Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7 Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT For 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract violated the Establishment Clause.The United States Supreme Court is hearing this case to address 1) if the teaching decisions of a private school are considered state action when the school contracts with the state to provide free education and 2) if a state is prohibited from excluding a religious school from its charter school program because of the Free Exercise Clause or if it can justify the exclusion under the Establishment Clause. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.Featuring:Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg 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

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school's educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.

This Day in Legal History: Louisiana PurchaseOn this day in legal history, April 30, 1803, the United States signed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty with France, dramatically altering the legal and territorial landscape of the country. The treaty, signed in Paris by American envoys Robert Livingston and James Monroe, officially transferred approximately 828,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River from French to American control. President Thomas Jefferson, though uncertain whether the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorized such a land acquisition, ultimately supported the deal, citing the necessity of expanding the republic and securing trade access to the port of New Orleans.The purchase, which cost $15 million (roughly four cents an acre), effectively doubled the size of the United States and set a precedent for executive power in foreign affairs. It raised important legal questions regarding the role of the executive branch, the powers of Congress, and the interpretation of constitutional authority in territorial expansion. The acquisition also intensified debates over the expansion of slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples, both of which would become central legal and political issues throughout the 19th century.In addition to expanding national territory, the Louisiana Purchase laid the groundwork for the exploration and legal organization of new states. Soon after, Congress passed legislation governing how the territory would be divided and admitted into the Union. This required new legal frameworks for property rights, governance, and federal versus state authority in previously foreign lands.The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on whether Oklahoma can fund a religious charter school—the first case of its kind. At issue is the state's attempt to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a K-12 online institution run by two Catholic dioceses, using public funds. A state court previously blocked the school, ruling it would act as a “governmental entity” and violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion.The school's supporters, including Oklahoma's governor and President Trump, argue that denying the school solely because it is religious constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, opponents, including the state's attorney general, warn that the move would amount to taxpayer-funded religious indoctrination and could erode public education standards, particularly around non-discrimination.Charter schools in Oklahoma are considered public entities, which complicates claims that St. Isidore would operate as a private, independent institution. Organizers maintain that contracting with the state doesn't make the school an arm of the government. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could redefine the boundaries between church and state in education.The legal element worth highlighting here is the Establishment Clause vs. Free Exercise Clause tension—the case tests how far states can go in accommodating religious institutions without endorsing them. This clash sits at the core of modern debates about public funding and religious liberty. Under the current Supreme Court composition, it is likely we will see an expansion of the former at the cost of the limits in the latter. US Supreme Court mulls legality of milestone religious charter school | ReutersGoogle CEO Sundar Pichai is set to testify in a high-stakes antitrust trial where the U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to break up parts of Google's business to restore competition in online search. The DOJ is urging the court to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and stop paying major tech partners like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their devices. Prosecutors argue these deals entrench Google's monopoly and hinder innovation, especially as search overlaps more with emerging generative AI tools like ChatGPT.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has already found that Google maintains a dominant position in the search market with no real rivals. The government is also asking the court to make Google share search data with competitors to level the playing field. Google, in response, claims that such measures would harm user privacy and undercut smaller partners like Mozilla that depend on Google funding.Pichai is expected to argue that the proposed remedies would have unintended consequences across the tech ecosystem. Google has already made some adjustments, allowing phone makers to pre-install alternative search and AI apps, but it still plans to appeal any adverse ruling. The case could have sweeping implications for the future of search, digital competition, and AI integration online.Google CEO Sundar Pichai to take the stand at search antitrust trial | ReutersPresident Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to coordinate free legal defense for police officers accused of misconduct. The order calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to organize pro bono support from private law firms, aiming to protect officers who, in the administration's view, face "unjust liability" for actions taken in the line of duty. Though the order doesn't name specific firms, it expands Trump's broader effort to harness the legal industry to support his administration's priorities.This follows recent agreements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms—including Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis—to commit $940 million worth of pro bono work to causes the administration endorses, such as veterans' services and combating antisemitism. Critics, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and 20 Democratic state attorneys general, have raised concerns about political pressure and lack of transparency in how these firms were selected and what they've agreed to.The order also calls for improved pay and training for police while denouncing efforts to “demonize law enforcement.” Critics warn this could undermine accountability and place pressure on firms to align their legal services with political goals. Meanwhile, some firms have publicly stated they will maintain control over their pro bono work, even as Trump claims the right to “use” them for administration-selected causes.Trump executive order seeks law firms to defend police officers for free | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I examined President Trump's renewed push to replace income taxes with tariffs, particularly targeting relief for Americans making under $200,000. The idea sounds populist, but it's economically misleading. Tariffs, after all, are simply hidden taxes that show up in the form of higher prices on imported goods. For lower- and middle-income Americans—those Trump claims to want to help—this shift would likely increase, not reduce, their financial burden.The proposal doesn't change the amount of money the government needs—just where it's extracted. Instead of the IRS, the “bill collector” becomes stores, suppliers, and foreign producers, with consumers footing the bill at checkout. Trump's approach, I argue, banks on the psychological difference between writing a tax check and absorbing incremental price hikes, though the economic effect is the same.Historically, tariff-based revenue systems led to inequality and volatility—conditions that helped inspire the adoption of the income tax through the Sixteenth Amendment. And practically speaking, tariffs simply cannot generate the hundreds of billions needed to sustain modern federal programs. Relying on them also cedes revenue control to foreign exporters, which undermines national fiscal stability.Ultimately, this policy doesn't tackle the real issue—Americans' frustration with a high cost of living. Instead, it disguises taxation while dodging the deeper structural question of who should be paying more. I emphasized that real reform must address not just how taxes are collected, but also the fairness of who bears the burden.Trump Continues To Push Idea Of Replacing Income Tax With TariffsSpecial ThanksStephanie Himel-Nelson, Jennifer Porter Law, PLLC 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

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson goes solo to break down the latest in legal and political news. She starts by analyzing fresh polling data on President Trump's approval ratings at the 100-day mark of his second term, noting significant public disapproval and discussing what drives this administration's bold use of executive power. Jessica then turns to the Supreme Court's current docket, spotlighting two major education-related cases: one about the legal standard for disability discrimination in schools, and another questioning whether a religious school can be established as a taxpayer-funded charter school. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential Approval Down, But Base Remains Loyal: Despite approval ratings hovering around 39–43%, President Trump's core supporters (about 33–35%) aren't likely to abandon him, illustrating a growing divide between the general public and a steadfast political base.Economic Policies & Tariffs Fuel Discontent: Many respondents reported feeling worse off economically since Trump's reelection and a majority expressing disapproval of new tariffs and federal agency cuts.Supreme Court Watch—Education and Religious Freedom on the Line: Two major cases could redefine legal standards for disability discrimination in schools and determine whether religious institutions can operate publicly funded charter schools.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Unleashed! The Political News Hour with Mayor Deb – This motto was officially adopted in 1956 and intended to signify that the political and economic prosperity of the nation is in God's hands. Over time, this motto has faced legal challenges. However, courts have consistently ruled that it does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing or...

What if everything you've been taught about America's founding was incomplete? What if our monuments, buildings, and founding documents contain evidence of a deeply Christian heritage that has been systematically erased from public education?This episode takes listeners on a fascinating journey through America's architectural treasures – from the biblical inscriptions inside the Washington Monument to the Ten Commandments engraved above the Supreme Court chamber, from paintings of prayer and Bible reading in the Capitol Rotunda to the towering Forefathers Monument in Plymouth that few Americans even know exists.The evidence is literally carved in stone: America was founded as a Christian nation. Fisher Ames, who worded the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, believed the Bible should be the primary textbook in schools. John Jay, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice, stated that Christians have both the privilege and duty to elect Christian leaders. These weren't religious extremists but the very architects of American liberty.As we explore these forgotten monuments, we also examine how Bible illiteracy has allowed revisionist history to flourish. Without knowledge of Scripture, we miss countless biblical references in our founding documents, presidential addresses, and national symbols. This knowledge gap has enabled the false narrative of America as a secular nation from its inception.The episode weaves together this historical exploration with timeless spiritual wisdom from the book of Philemon about free will, love, and our relationship with Christ. Jesse emphasizes that just as Paul wouldn't force Philemon to free his slave but appealed to his heart, God doesn't force our love either – He offers it freely, waiting for our response.Whether you're a history enthusiast, a person of faith concerned about America's direction, or simply someone who wants to understand the complete story of our national heritage, this episode will challenge assumptions and inspire a deeper appreciation for the biblical principles woven throughout American history. Listen, learn, and consider how reconnecting with these roots might help secure liberty for future generations.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Hi everyone! On today's ToS episode, Pari and I discuss Oklahoma State Charter School Board v. Drummond. This case raises various questions about the First Amendment's relationship to state-funded religious schools. Is it possible that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits states from excluding religious schools from charter-school programs? Alternatively, does the Establishment Clause require states to exclude these schools? We chat about these questions, as well as a few others here. As always, resources are listed below--thank you for tuning and we'll see you in two weeks!https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-394https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351350/20250305181244391_24-396%2024-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/334661/20241209162142824_Board%20BIO%20MAIN%20E%20FILE%20Dec%209%2024.pdf

This week, we're pulling up a seat at the intersection of faith, governance, and democracy as we take on the Establishment Clause—that little First Amendment provision that's supposed to keep church and state in their own lanes. But is that how it's really playing out?Leigh, Rick, and Devonya dig into the history and contemporary implications of the separation of church and state, from school prayer to Supreme Court decisions, faith-based government offices, and religious encroachments on reproductive rights. We tackle the tension between private belief and public reason, the way religious institutions have both challenged and reinforced state power, and whether the U.S. is creeping toward a civic religion of its own.Along the way, we take detours through Southern Bible Belt culture, the moral status of fetuses, and even a surprise debate over whether capybaras are too cute to eat. (Spoiler: they are.)As always, we're serving up straight shots of wisdom, no divine intervention required.Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/episode-175-the-establishment-clause-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions!Follow us on Twitter/X @hotelbarpodcast, on Blue Sky @hotelbarpodcast.bsky.social, on Facebook, on TikTok, and subscribe to our YouTube channel! 

Bill introduced to require Bible reading in all public schools, sparking constitutional questions - NewsBreakNewsBreak, By LAURA GUIDO, on February 7, 2025https://www.newsbreak.com/share/3794686379971-bill-introduced-to-require-bible-reading-in-all-public-schools-sparking-constitutional-questionsIdaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would require daily Bible readings in public schools, specifically from the King James Version (KJV) or New King James Version (NKJV). Introduced by Representative Jordan Redman and backed by the Idaho Family Policy Center, the legislation mandates that an occupied classroom in every school district read the Bible sequentially each morning, completing the entire book over ten years. The bill's proponents argue that this has historical merit, as Bible readings were common in public schools before the 1960s. However, opponents point out that such a law would be a clear violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. Critics argue that this initiative is not just unconstitutional but also fundamentally ineffective in fostering faith, as passive, mandatory exposure to scripture without discussion or interpretation is unlikely to inspire genuine belief. The comparison is made to literature classes—no teacher would require students to read To Kill a Mockingbird without analysis or engagement. The plan, which dictates a rigid reading schedule, would subject students to some of the Bible's more controversial and inappropriate content, such as violent passages or sexually explicit themes, raising concerns about age appropriateness and teacher preparedness. Some skeptics suggest that the plan could backfire, as forcing students to sit through lengthy, archaic passages from the KJV—a version known for its difficult language—may bore them into disinterest. There is also the issue of Christian exclusivity, as the law would not require readings from other religious or philosophical texts, effectively promoting one religious tradition in a public education setting. Even within Christianity, the KJV is not universally accepted, with many denominations—including Catholics—not considering it a primary translation. The bill's opt-out clause, which requires parental permission, is also controversial. Critics argue that default participation assumes that Christianity is the norm and that non-Christian students must actively excuse themselves, which could ostracize them. Furthermore, precedent from cases like Abington School District v. Schempp has already determined that mandatory Bible readings in public schools are unconstitutional, reinforcing the argument that this legislation would not stand up to legal scrutiny. There is broader concern that this is part of a larger effort to push Christian nationalism, using historical precedent as justification. However, as critics point out, historical precedent does not inherently validate a practice—slavery, segregation, and other outdated societal norms were once common but are now rightfully condemned. The push to integrate religious teachings into public institutions appears to be less about historical tradition and more about maintaining ideological control in an increasingly secular society. Ultimately, this bill is viewed by opponents as a blatant attempt to erode the separation of church and state, forcing religious doctrine into public education under the guise of tradition. Supporters claim it is a benign acknowledgment of America's Christian heritage, but the reality is that it privileges one religious group at the expense of everyone else. With significant legal hurdles and widespread opposition, this legislation is likely to face strong challenges, both in the courtroom and in public discourse.The Non-Prophets, Episode 24.7.3 featuring Scott Dickie, Stephen Harder, Helen Greene and The Ejector SeatBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

Trump launches White House faith office to protect ChristiansTelegraph, By David Millward, on February 6, 2025https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/02/06/trump-launches-white-house-faith-office-protect-christians/ The segment discusses a new office created by President Trump, the "Faith Office," aimed at addressing perceived anti-Christian bias in the U.S. government. Critics argue this office undermines the Establishment Clause by favoring Christianity, rather than ensuring neutrality in religious matters. Paula White, a controversial figure, has been appointed to lead the office, further fueling concerns. She has a history of promoting extreme Christian views, including anti-LGBTQ+ stances, and has used her ministry's funds for personal gain, such as purchasing a private jet. The panelists express skepticism about the office's intentions, with some seeing it as a strategy to push conservative Christian agendas, while others fear it might be part of a larger, more insidious plan to legitimize discrimination under the guise of religion. The conversation delves into the idea of using religion as a tool for control, raising questions about whether the office's creation is a distraction or a first step toward significant legal changes that could grant more power to religious groups. The segment concludes with speculation on how the U.S. Supreme Court might address this issue, with the potential for a ruling on the office's constitutionality.The Non-Prophets, Episode 24.7.1 featuring Scott Dickie, Stephen Harder, Helen Greene and The Ejector SeatBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

In this episode, we welcome Joe Kennedy to the show. He used to be an assistant football coach at a public high school in Bremerton, Washington. After games, he would pray at the 50-yard line by himself. When some coaches and players noticed him doing that, some of them decided to join him at the 50 in prayer after the games. The members of his school board said that they were worried that it would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, and they tried to force Coach Kennedy to stop praying. He refused. The school responded by not renewing his coaching contract (essentially firing him). He, rightfully, sued the school board, and that fight made its way all the way to the Supreme Court in 2022, where the court ruled in favor of Kennedy, voting 6-3, that the government cannot suppress an individual's expression of religious observance, and if they do so then they are violating the rights to Free Exercise and Free Speech. The 2024 major motion picture “Average Joe” was made about Coach Kennedy and his struggle for religious liberty. In this interview, we discuss all of that in detail and much more. Let's get into it…  Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the nation's first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause based on its view that the privately operated school was both a government entity and a state actor. This finding of state action also led the […]

If Amendment 2 passes, Kentucky would waste taxpayer dollars on religious schoolsThe Friendly Atheist, By Hemant Mehta, on 2024-08-28https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/if-amendment-2-passes-kentucky-would The proposal to amend Kentucky's constitution seeks to introduce a voucher system, allowing public funds to support private, predominantly religious schools. Critics highlight several concerns, noting that diverting up to $1.19 billion annually from public schools—particularly in rural areas—could cripple already underfunded districts. These regions often rely heavily on state funds due to low local tax revenues, making them especially vulnerable. The amendment is portrayed as a workaround to existing legal barriers that prevent public money from funding religious education. Opponents, including Governor Andy Beshear, argue that this could lead to worse educational outcomes and further entrench inequality.The broader implications of this policy are stark. Voucher systems have been repeatedly shown to have no proven link to improved student achievement, even for those attending private schools. Moreover, diverting funds toward private institutions compromises the accountability that public schools are held to, creating a system that is less transparent and less answerable to the public. With fewer resources and more financial strain, public schools, particularly in rural areas, could face larger class sizes, fewer resources like textbooks, and an overall decline in the quality of education.Additionally, the supposed choice offered by vouchers is often an illusion. Private schools are not bound by the same non-discrimination policies as public schools, meaning they can selectively admit students based on criteria like academic performance, religious affiliation, and even socioeconomic status. This creates a skewed system where the most vulnerable students—those with disabilities, behavioral challenges, or lower test scores—are left behind in underfunded public schools, further perpetuating educational inequities.Furthermore, the amendment raises constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the separation of church and state. Funding religious education with public money may violate the Establishment Clause, a key tenet of the U.S. Constitution that protects against government endorsement of religion. This proposal could also worsen Kentucky's already low ranking in education, currently 34th in the nation.In essence, this amendment represents a strategic attempt to erode public education, weaken transparency, and push a religious agenda, all under the guise of "school choice." Critics argue it sets a dangerous precedent, using deceptive language to obscure its true impact and weaponize public ignorance against their own interests, ultimately paving the way for a more authoritarian and ideologically driven governance model.The Non-Prophets, Episode 23.36.3 featuring Cynthia McDonald, Jonathan Roudabush,Scott Dickie and Cindy PlazaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

How US Public Schools Became a New Religious BattlegroundUS News/Reuthers, By Liya Cui and Joseph Ax, on Aug. 7, 2024https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-08-07/how-us-public-schools-became-a-new-religious-battleground In a discussion centering on the tension between religion and public education in the United States, the core theme highlights the rise of Christian nationalism and its implications for American identity. Proponents of Christian nationalism assert that to be American is to inherently be Christian, a claim often bolstered by a misinterpretation of the intentions of the nation's founders. Historical evidence suggests the founders sought a secular state with a democratic foundation that allowed individuals the freedom to practice any religion or none at all. They envisioned a country based on self-determination and the separation of church and state, a principle that is currently being challenged in places like Louisiana and Oklahoma.In Louisiana, new school policies mandate that the Ten Commandments be prominently displayed in every classroom, a move seen as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. Meanwhile, Oklahoma's educational system has adopted a policy requiring the Bible to be taught across all grade levels, with teachers expected to integrate biblical references into their lessons. These actions are drawing criticism for infringing upon the constitutional separation of church and state and are seen as attempts to indoctrinate students with a singular religious perspective.The conversation delves into the broader social and psychological aspects, suggesting that such policies stem from resistance to inclusivity and a desire to maintain traditional, conservative values. With a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, some lawmakers feel emboldened to push these boundaries, believing there is a possibility of getting away with such violations. The belief is that by presenting these religious teachings as fundamental to American identity, they can rally their base by portraying governmental pushback as an overreach and an infringement on religious freedom.This discussion also touches on the potential impact of these policies on educators and students. There is concern that the emphasis on religious content will detract from the teaching of critical thinking and evidence-based knowledge. This could undermine the quality of education and the development of well-rounded, analytical thinkers. Critics argue that a government's role should be to create unity from diversity, not to impose uniformity of thought.The conversation concludes by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between religion and government to prevent the criminalization of thoughts and beliefs. The current U.S. motto, "In God We Trust," is contrasted with the historical motto "E Pluribus Unum," advocating for a return to the latter as it better represents the inclusive and unifying ideals upon which the country was founded.The Non-Prophets, Episode 23.33.4 featuring Scott Dickie, Aaron Jensen, Jimmy Jr. and "Eli" (Eli Slack)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

Religious leader wants to display Indian scriptures in Louisiana public classroomsWGNO ABC, By Keymonte Avery, on June 24, 2024https://wgno.com/news/politics/louisiana-politics/religious-leader-wants-to-display-indian-scriptures-in-louisiana-public-classrooms/Indians seek display of Gita verses along with Ten Commandments in Louisiana schools - IndiaPost NewsPaperIndia Post News Service, on June 29, 2024https://indiapost.com/indians-seek-display-of-gita-verses-along-with-ten-commandments-in-louisiana-schools/In Louisiana, a contentious new law has stirred debate over the intersection of religion and public education. The law mandates that any classroom receiving state funding must prominently display the Ten Commandments. This requirement has ignited a fierce legal and ideological battle, with proponents arguing for the importance of religious values in education and opponents raising concerns about constitutional violations regarding the separation of church and state.Adding complexity to the issue, religious leaders, including representatives of the Hindu community such as Rajan Zed, have entered the fray. They have offered to fund displays of their own sacred texts, like the Bhagavad Gita, alongside the Ten Commandments. This gesture is seen as both a challenge to the law's perceived Christian favoritism and a call for broader religious inclusivity within educational settings.Critics of the law, including some Christian leaders like Reverend Jeff Sims, are also vocal. They argue that while promoting religious values can be beneficial, mandating specific religious texts in publicly funded classrooms crosses a constitutional line. Their concerns extend to the potential for government endorsement of a particular religion, which could lead to legal challenges that might ultimately reach the Supreme Court.The situation in Louisiana reflects ongoing national debates over the appropriate role of religion in public institutions, especially in educational contexts supported by taxpayer funds. It raises fundamental questions about religious freedom, government neutrality in matters of faith, and the boundaries set by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As legal challenges and public opinions evolve, the outcome in Louisiana could have broader implications for similar laws and policies across the United States, shaping the future landscape of religious expression in public education.The Non-Prophets, Episode 23.28.2 featuring Jimmy Jr., Rob, Eli Slack and Kelley LaughlinBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

Tuesday, June 28th, 2022In the Hot Notes: the 1/6 committee announces a surprise hearing to take place tomorrow at 1 PM ET with new evidence and witness testimony; a search warrant was executed on JOHN Eastman as federal agents seized his phone, forced him to unlock it, and sent it to either DC or the OIG Lab; Truth Social funding board gets hit with at least 8 subpoenas from the Southern District of New York; and SCOTUS has completely stripped the separation of church and state; plus Dana and Allison deliver your Good News.Follow our guest on Twitter:Lizz Winsteadhttps://twitter.com/lizzwinsteadFollow AG and Dana on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gillhttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedy Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)Thursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Louisiana's Ten Commandments law faces a federal court challenge as parents seek to block it permanently. The lawsuit argues the law violates the First Amendment, referencing the 1980 Supreme Court decision in Stone v. Graham. This case may prompt the Supreme Court to revisit the Establishment Clause definition, considering historical context and progressive influence on religious displays.

Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to mourn the 2-year anniversary of Dobbs, alert us to the growing threats to our rights, and tear into Lousiana's law that puts the 10 Commandments in classrooms.  In the #Sisters analysis, they explain why precedent, the intentions of the Framers, and the Establishment Clause all point to the law's rejection pending a ruling on the ACLU's challenge. Then, they discuss the US v. Rahimi SCOTUS decision, why there were so many different opinions despite an 8-1 ruling, and how the decision affects gun laws with an in-depth exploration of how the court operates.  They also settle the current debate over whether Alvin Bragg tried Trump correctly and debunk the disinformation around the validity of the conviction. Get your #SistersInLaw merchandise at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Please Support This Week's Sponsors: HelloFresh: Get farm-fresh, pre-portioned ingredients and seasonal recipes from HelloFresh with a free appetizer item per box for life with code: SISTERSAPPS at hellofresh.com/sistersapps LolaVie: Get 15% off LolaVie with the code: SIL at https://www.lolavie.com/SIL #lolaviepod Calm: Perfect your meditation practice and get better sleep with 40% off a premium subscription when you go to calm.com/sisters  OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code: SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Mentioned By The #Sisters: From Barb debunking myths around Trump's conviction From Joyce on this week's SCOTUS rulings and what comes next SCOTUSblog Get Barb's New Book:  Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Barb's Book Tour  Get More From #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

2 years ago the MAGA right wing of the Supreme Court sent out an invitation to states to tear down the wall separating church and state and to ignore the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The result: states like Louisiana forcing that the Judea-Christian 10 Commandments be taught in public schools with taxpayer dollars. Michael Popok explains how we got here and the hypocrisy of the MAGA 6-3 majority. Head to https://TryFum.com/legalaf and get a FREE GIFT with the JOURNEY PACK today when you use code LEGALAF Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices