Podcasts about Establishment Clause

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

In this episode we speak with Dr. Mark Storslee about his work on History and the school prayer cases. Mark Storslee is an Associate Professor of Law and McDonald Distinguished Fellow at Emory Law School. He holds many degrees, including a JD from Stanford Law School and a PhD in Religious Studies from the University of Virginia. Storslee's article, History and the School Prayer Cases was recently published in the Virginia Law Review and examines the Supreme Court's rulings that prohibit state-sponsored prayer in public schools under the Establishment Clause, despite opt-outs for dissenters. In this episode, Whittney Barth and John Bernau join Mark to dive deeper into the history of these cases and talk about their implications for today's broader debates about government-sponsored prayer.https://virginialawreview.org/articles/history-and-the-school-prayer-cases/https://law.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/storslee-profile.html

Constitutional Law Summary This document provides a summary of key Equal Protection and First Amendment principles. Equal Protection: The Fourteenth Amendment ensures equal legal treatment. The Supreme Court uses three levels of scrutiny to assess claims: strict scrutiny for suspect classifications (race, etc.), intermediate scrutiny for gender or legitimacy, and rational basis review for most other classifications. Race discrimination is generally invalid; gender discrimination requires a substantial relationship to an important government interest. First Amendment Freedoms: Protects speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Content-based speech restrictions face strict scrutiny, while content-neutral ones are less strict. Unprotected speech (e.g., incitement, obscenity) receives no protection. Public forums have strong speech protections. Freedom of religion includes the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Freedom of assembly allows peaceful gathering with potential content-neutral restrictions. Freedom of association protects group formation. Freedom of the press is similar to individual speech protections. Key Points for Bar Exam Analysis: Identifying the correct classification and level of scrutiny is crucial for Equal Protection. For the First Amendment, determining speech protection and regulation type is essential. Understanding these concepts is vital for the bar exam and legal practice. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

JWI Affiliated Scholar & Professor of Philosophy Frank Beckwith confronts a troubling trend among some legal scholars who, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, have constructed and advocated for a right to abortion rooted in religious liberty. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Casey in Dobbs, an increasing number of scholars argue that the Constitution may still vindicate the right to abortion, but through the First Amendment's two religion clauses. They argue that state laws that limit access to abortion on the grounds that the fetus is a person or that prenatal life is sacred violate the Establishment Clause, since such laws are based on a contested religious view of what constitutes “personhood.” They also argue that prolife laws violate the Free Exercise rights of women whose religious views either permit or require them to procure an abortion in certain circumstances.Because all current post-Dobbs prolife laws include exceptions--such as for the life of the mother, substantial health risk, severe fetal deformity, or a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest—defenders of the Free Exercise argument maintain that under current precedent after Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court should apply strict scrutiny to such prolife laws.  Francis "Frank" J. Beckwith is a member of the JWI Board of Scholars and a professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University, where he also serves as the Associate Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy and an Affiliate Professor of Political Science. His academic interests encompass religion, jurisprudence, politics, and ethics. Beckwith's scholarly contributions appear in leading academic journals, and he has authored several influential books that explore the intersections of faith, law, and morality. A recognized figure in the discourse on church-state relations, he frequently engages in public debates and discussions, sharing his expertise in both academic and broader societal contexts. Additionally, Beckwith has delivered lectures at various institutions, enhancing the understanding of how philosophical principles inform contemporary legal and political issues. This episode is adapted from a program JWI co-sponsored with First Liberty Institute's Center on Religion Culture and Democracy.

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 […]

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 court to uphold a state law that expressly bans religious entities but not secular ones from operating charter schools. This forum will present views from litigation counsel on both sides of this historic case. Panelists will explore the arguments for and against St. Isidore, including whether St. Isidore can fairly be considered a state actor and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from discriminating against religious operators in a public program that encourages private innovation in the formation of charter schools.Featuring:Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and StatePhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, Professor of Law and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

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.

Special Guest Preacher, the Rev Dr Irwyn Ince preaches from Hebrews 13:7-16. What does it mean to live a life of unwavering faith in Jesus Christ? How can we persevere through the trials and tribulations of our Christian journey? Pastor Irwyn highlights the critical message of Hebrews 13:8: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." He underscores how this powerful truth equips us to face the costs of discipleship with courage and perseverance. By looking to Jesus, we find the strength to hold fast to our confession of faith, no matter the challenges.Pastor Irwyn explains how Jesus's sacrifice outside Jerusalem transforms our understanding of spiritual worship and everyday commitment to praise, good deeds, and sharing. He draws parallels to the Day of Atonement rituals, which encourages believers to bear the reproach of Christ and seek our lasting hope in the eternal city to come. He wraps up with reflections on living lives that continually glorify God, sustained by the steadfastness of Jesus.Pastor Irwyn is the PCA's Mission to North America Coordinator. You can find out more about the work he does by visiting their website here.

Summary of Chapter 11: First Amendment Rights. Chapter 11 delves into the fundamental protections provided under the First Amendment, which include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the rights to association and assembly. These rights are critical to ensuring democratic participation, protecting individual expression, and maintaining a healthy balance between the government and the citizenry. Here's a breakdown of each section covered in the chapter: 11.1 Freedom of Speech. This section explores the historical and philosophical foundations of free speech, tracing its roots back to ancient Greece and the Enlightenment. The right to free speech is essential for democratic governance and the exchange of ideas. It covers: Protected Speech: Most speech, including political, artistic, and even offensive speech, is protected. Unprotected Speech: Categories like obscenity, defamation, incitement to violence, and fighting words are not protected. Symbolic Speech: Non-verbal actions conveying a message, like flag burning, are protected. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: The government may regulate when, where, and how speech is delivered, provided the restrictions are content-neutral. Hate Speech and Offensive Speech: Even hate speech is generally protected unless it incites violence or constitutes a true threat. Speech in Schools and Universities: While students and educators retain free speech rights, schools may limit speech that disrupts the educational process. Contemporary Issues: Free speech on social media platforms, political speech in campaign finance, and the debate over "cancel culture" are modern challenges to the boundaries of free speech. 11.2 Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the press safeguards the right of the media to report on government actions and inform the public. This section covers: Historical Context: From the press's role in colonial America to its modern-day function as a government watchdog. Scope of Press Freedom: Press freedom extends to all media forms, and prior restraint (government censorship before publication) is generally prohibited. Defamation and Libel: While the press is protected, it is not immune from lawsuits for false statements that harm individuals' reputations. Digital Press: The rise of online journalism and citizen reporting has reshaped press freedom and raised new challenges regarding accountability and misinformation. 11.3 Freedom of Religion: Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Religious freedom is protected by two key clauses of the First Amendment: The Establishment Clause: Prevents the government from endorsing or establishing any religion, maintaining a separation between church and state. Key Case – Engel v. Vitale: Reinforced that public institutions, such as schools, must remain neutral in religious matters. The Lemon Test: A three-part test developed to assess if government actions violate the Establishment Clause. The Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference, but not all religious practices are exempt from regulation. Key Case – Employment Division v. Smith: Established that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they burden religious practices. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): Reinstated stricter scrutiny on government actions that burden religious exercise. 11.4 Freedom of Association and Assembly. This section examines the importance of the rights to freely associate with others and to assemble peacefully: Freedom of Association: Protects the right to form and join groups such as political parties, unions, and advocacy organizations. Key Case – NAACP v. Alabama: Affirmed that forcing an organization to disclose its membership violates the freedom of association. Freedom of Assembly: Guarantees the right to gather for protests, demonstrations, and public expression. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 11: First Amendment Rights. Chapter 11 delves into the fundamental protections provided under the First Amendment, which include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the rights to association and assembly. These rights are critical to ensuring democratic participation, protecting individual expression, and maintaining a healthy balance between the government and the citizenry. Here's a breakdown of each section covered in the chapter: 11.1 Freedom of Speech. This section explores the historical and philosophical foundations of free speech, tracing its roots back to ancient Greece and the Enlightenment. The right to free speech is essential for democratic governance and the exchange of ideas. It covers: Protected Speech: Most speech, including political, artistic, and even offensive speech, is protected. Unprotected Speech: Categories like obscenity, defamation, incitement to violence, and fighting words are not protected. Symbolic Speech: Non-verbal actions conveying a message, like flag burning, are protected. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: The government may regulate when, where, and how speech is delivered, provided the restrictions are content-neutral. Hate Speech and Offensive Speech: Even hate speech is generally protected unless it incites violence or constitutes a true threat. Speech in Schools and Universities: While students and educators retain free speech rights, schools may limit speech that disrupts the educational process. Contemporary Issues: Free speech on social media platforms, political speech in campaign finance, and the debate over "cancel culture" are modern challenges to the boundaries of free speech. 11.2 Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the press safeguards the right of the media to report on government actions and inform the public. This section covers: Historical Context: From the press's role in colonial America to its modern-day function as a government watchdog. Scope of Press Freedom: Press freedom extends to all media forms, and prior restraint (government censorship before publication) is generally prohibited. Defamation and Libel: While the press is protected, it is not immune from lawsuits for false statements that harm individuals' reputations. Digital Press: The rise of online journalism and citizen reporting has reshaped press freedom and raised new challenges regarding accountability and misinformation. 11.3 Freedom of Religion: Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Religious freedom is protected by two key clauses of the First Amendment: The Establishment Clause: Prevents the government from endorsing or establishing any religion, maintaining a separation between church and state. Key Case – Engel v. Vitale: Reinforced that public institutions, such as schools, must remain neutral in religious matters. The Lemon Test: A three-part test developed to assess if government actions violate the Establishment Clause. The Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference, but not all religious practices are exempt from regulation. Key Case – Employment Division v. Smith: Established that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they burden religious practices. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): Reinstated stricter scrutiny on government actions that burden religious exercise. 11.4 Freedom of Association and Assembly. This section examines the importance of the rights to freely associate with others and to assemble peacefully: Freedom of Association: Protects the right to form and join groups such as political parties, unions, and advocacy organizations. Key Case – NAACP v. Alabama: Affirmed that forcing an organization to disclose its membership violates the freedom of association. Freedom of Assembly: Guarantees the right to gather for protests, demonstrations, and public expression. Key Case – De Jonge v. Oregon: Established --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Day in Legal History: Alabama Ten Commandments MonumentOn August 28, 2003, the Supreme Court of Alabama took down a monument of the Ten Commandments from its courthouse rotunda, marking the culmination of a high-profile legal battle. The monument had been installed by Chief Justice Roy Moore in 2001, who argued that it reflected the moral foundation of U.S. law. However, this act sparked a federal lawsuit, Glassroth v. Moore, in which three Alabama attorneys claimed the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion.The federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama agreed with the plaintiffs, ordering Moore to remove the monument. Moore refused, maintaining that he had a duty to acknowledge God in his official capacity. The case was subsequently appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which upheld the lower court's ruling. When Moore continued to defy the court orders, the Supreme Court of Alabama intervened, removing him from his position as Chief Justice. This case became a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the separation of church and state in the United States.It is worth noting that Roy Moore, the then-Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who so vociferously argued for the inclusion of the Ten Commandment monument is the selfsame Roy Moore that, during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign, saw nine women accuse him of inappropriate conduct. Three of the women claimed they were assaulted by Moore when they were aged 14, 16, and 28. The other six women described Moore pursuing relationships with them when they were as young as 16. Independent witnesses corroborated that Moore had a reputation for approaching teenage girls at a local mall. Moore's responses to the allegations were inconsistent, initially recognizing some accusers but later denying knowledge of any of them. Thomas V. Girardi, a prominent figure in toxic tort litigation, was convicted on four counts of wire fraud in Los Angeles federal court. Once renowned for his work on the Erin Brockovich case and his appearances on "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," the disbarred attorney faced accusations of defrauding vulnerable clients. The jury reached a unanimous verdict after just four hours of deliberation, rejecting Girardi's defense that his cognitive decline prevented him from forming intent to commit fraud.Prosecutors argued that Girardi knowingly deceived clients, fabricating excuses to explain the missing funds, which he had already spent. The trial centered on the suffering of clients who were betrayed by Girardi in their darkest moments, leading to their financial and emotional devastation. Girardi could face up to 80 years in prison at his sentencing in December. His former CFO, Christopher Kamon, will also stand trial for related charges. The case highlights Girardi's history of evading disciplinary action despite numerous complaints and reveals potential future charges against other senior lawyers at his firm.Thomas Girardi Found Guilty by Jury of Defrauding Clients (2)A recent decision by a German privacy regulator has sparked intense debate about how personal data is handled by AI models like large language models (LLMs). The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection concluded that LLMs, despite generating personal data, do not store such information in a way that makes it identifiable, challenging the notion that AI systems can retain personal data. This stance contradicts findings by technologists who argue that LLMs can memorize and reproduce specific data, including personal details. The German position could limit individuals' ability to control their data in AI systems, potentially leading to significant differences in how the U.S. and the EU regulate AI. While California is pushing for laws that explicitly protect personal data in AI, the German approach may set a precedent for a more lenient interpretation under the GDPR. This divergence highlights the complexity of applying traditional privacy laws to AI technologies, with ongoing discussions about how to reconcile these differing perspectives.By way of brief background, LLMs do not directly memorize the training material they are exposed to. Instead, they analyze vast amounts of text data and learn patterns, correlations, and structures within the language, which are then used to generate responses. This learning process involves creating a complex mathematical representation of language—a model—rather than storing specific pieces of text verbatim. However, because these models are trained on enormous datasets, they might sometimes generate outputs that resemble specific phrases or data points encountered during training, especially if those phrases are common or particularly distinctive. This can occasionally lead to the unintentional reproduction of personal or sensitive information from the training data, even though the model itself does not store or recall such information in a traditional, deliberate sense.Of course, that would all be of slim comfort to someone who sees an AI chatbot spit out their home address and social security number in response to a prompt. Personal Info in AI Models Threatens Split in US, EU ApproachSpecial Counsel Jack Smith is moving forward with prosecuting Donald Trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election, despite a recent setback from the Supreme Court. The court found that Trump might have partial immunity from prosecution for actions taken as president, leading Smith to file a revised indictment. This new version removes claims related to Trump's communications with government officials, including efforts to involve the Justice Department, but retains the core charges accusing Trump of conspiring to reverse his election loss. The case comes as Trump campaigns for the 2024 election, adding tension to the legal proceedings. Trump criticized the indictment on social media, calling for its dismissal. The updated indictment also cuts references to former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as a co-conspirator and modifies Trump's description, downplaying his role as president at the time. The case now focuses more on Trump's role as a candidate rather than his presidential actions. As the case progresses, Trump faces other legal challenges, including cases involving classified documents and charges in Georgia related to the 2020 election.Trump Special Counsel Presses Ahead With 2020 Election Case (3)A U.S. appeals court has revived a lawsuit against TikTok by the mother of a 10-year-old girl who died after attempting a dangerous "blackout challenge" promoted on the platform. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that TikTok is not shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically protects internet companies from liability for user-generated content. The court found that Section 230 does not apply when TikTok's algorithm actively recommends harmful content, viewing such recommendations as the company's own speech. This decision marks a shift from previous interpretations of Section 230, which had generally protected platforms from liability for failing to prevent the spread of harmful content. The ruling overturns a lower court's dismissal of the case, allowing the mother, Tawainna Anderson, to pursue claims against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, following her daughter Nylah's death in 2021. The case could have significant implications for how tech companies are held accountable for the content their algorithms promote.TikTok must face lawsuit over 10-year-old girl's death, US court rules | 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

Many employees are surprised to learn that they don't enjoy the free speech rights they thought they were entitled to at their jobs. In some cases, workers actually have fewer rights than previously believed. Suddenly, we're looking to employment law for answers.Join Cathy Creighton ‘87, a labor relations expert and director of the Cornell ILR Buffalo Co-Lab, to examine employment law and employees' legal rights at work. Whether you are an employee or an employer, you may be surprised by what you'll discover about free speech rights at work in the United States.What You'll LearnWhat legal rights you have in the workplaceHow the Constitution protects — or does not protect — your rights at workWhat legal remedies you have if you are retaliated against or fired for protesting at workWhat your rights are after terminationThe Cornell Keynotes podcast is brought to you by eCornell, which offers more than 200 online certificate programs to help professionals advance their careers and organizations. The Buffalo Co-Lab is part of the Cornell ILR School, a leader in employment and labor relations education. Nearly two dozen certificate programs from the ILR School are open for enrollment, including:Employment LawEmployee Relations and InvestigationsHuman Resources ManagementStrategic Human Resources LeadershipDiversity, Equity and Inclusion for HRDiscover more human resources certificate programs on the eCornell website.Did you enjoy this episode of the Cornell Keynotes podcast? Watch the Keynote. Follow eCornell on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, and X.

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.

Last month, in a much-watched case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a new Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause–and, alternatively, that denying St. Isidore a charter does not violate the school's rights under the Free Exercise Clause. In this episode, Center Director Mark Movsesian… The post Legal Spirits 061: Is a Catholic Charter School Constitutional? appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

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.

Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America ‘Can't Be Compromised'Rolling Stone, By Tessa Stuart and Tim Dickinson , on June 10, 2024https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/The recent Rolling Stone article featuring a recording of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's candid thoughts has sparked significant controversy. In the recording, Alito discusses political polarization, the role of the Supreme Court, and his views on America's moral direction. His comments underscore his firm stance within the court's conservative faction, contrasting sharply with Chief Justice John Roberts' more measured responses at the same event. This revelation has profound implications for the judiciary's perceived impartiality and the broader landscape of American democracy.Alito expressed a pessimistic view on the possibility of compromise between opposing political sides, claiming that the ideological rift is irreparable. This stance is reflective of a broader conservative perspective that is often seen as detached from reality by its critics. Alito's comments suggest a desire to uphold laws and ideas that many consider outdated, pointing to a deeper issue within the American political system. The recording sheds light on the challenges faced by the Supreme Court in navigating a polarized society and maintaining its role as an impartial arbiter of justice.Chief Justice Roberts, in contrast, emphasized the importance of impartiality and secular principles in judicial decision-making. His approach suggests a commitment to the spirit of the Establishment Clause, which seeks to separate church and state. This difference in perspective between Roberts and Alito highlights the internal divisions within the Supreme Court and the broader implications for its role in American society. The contrasting views of these two justices underscore the ongoing debate over the court's function and the influence of personal beliefs on judicial rulings.Historically, the Supreme Court has been tasked with interpreting the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary society. However, the court's current composition, with a conservative majority, raises questions about its ability to fulfill this role effectively. Alito's comments reveal a tension between upholding traditional values and adapting to modern realities. This tension is further exacerbated by the influence of religious beliefs on some justices' decision-making processes, which critics argue undermines the court's impartiality.The broader implications of these revelations are significant. They highlight the potential for the Supreme Court to become a battleground for ideological conflicts, rather than a neutral arbiter of justice. This shift could erode public trust in the judiciary and undermine the foundational principles of American democracy. The recording of Alito's comments serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing the Supreme Court and the importance of maintaining its independence from political and religious influences.As the nation grapples with these issues, it becomes increasingly clear that the Supreme Court's role in shaping America's future is more critical than ever. The court must navigate a complex landscape of competing ideologies and maintain its commitment to impartiality and justice. The revelations about Alito's views underscore the importance of transparency and accountability within the judiciary, as well as the need for ongoing dialogue about the court's role in a changing society.#SupremeCourt   #AmericanDemocracy  #Alito The Non-Prophets, Episode 23.26.3 featuring Cynthia McDonald, Jimmy Jr., and Cindy PlazaBecome 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.

In the latest episode of the Cross Examiner podcast, we delve into a contentious legal battle that has significant implications for the separation of church and state in the United States. Our host, an attorney and atheist, interviews Sam Grover, Senior Counsel for Litigation at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), to discuss their lawsuit challenging Louisiana's newly enacted law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom.The episode opens with a strong statement from the host, highlighting the alarming rise of Christian nationalism and the misinformation fueling it. This sets the stage for a deep dive into the legal intricacies of the case. Sam Grover, who has been with FFRF for over a decade, provides a comprehensive overview of the coalition formed to challenge the law. This coalition includes heavyweights like the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, along with the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which is offering pro bono services.Grover explains the mechanics of how such a coalition operates, from vetting potential plaintiffs to drafting the complaint. He emphasizes the overwhelming response from Louisiana residents who are concerned about the law's implications, highlighting that the coalition's plaintiffs include not just atheists and agnostics but also Christians and members of minority religions.One of the most compelling parts of the episode is the discussion about the real-world implications for plaintiffs. Grover recounts the harassment and threats faced by individuals who stand up against such unconstitutional laws, emphasizing the bravery of the plaintiffs involved in this case.The discussion then shifts to the legal arguments against the law. Grover breaks down the claims under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. He argues that the Louisiana law is a blatant constitutional violation, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar law in Kentucky in 1980. Despite the Supreme Court's recent shift away from the Lemon test, which was used in Stone v. Graham, Grover remains confident that the coercive nature of the law will render it unconstitutional.The episode also touches on the broader implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, particularly the move towards a "history and tradition" test for Establishment Clause cases. Grover expresses concern about this shift but remains hopeful that the clear lack of historical precedent for such a law in public schools will work in their favor.The interview concludes with a call to action for listeners to support FFRF and other organizations fighting for the separation of church and state. Grover encourages listeners to become members, highlighting the importance of collective action in safeguarding constitutional rights.This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in constitutional law, religious freedom, and the ongoing battle against Christian nationalism. Grover's insights provide a clear understanding of the stakes involved and the legal strategies being employed to protect the First Amendment.Introduction 00:00:00Interview with Sam Grover 00:02:00Background on FFRF and Legal Career 00:04:00Details of the Louisiana Case 00:10:00Legal Strategies and Challenges 00:20:00Historical Context and Legal Precedents 00:30:00Potential Outcomes and Future Implications 00:45:00Closing Remarks 00:58:00For more information about the Freedom from Religion Foundation and to support their efforts, visit their website at https://www.ffrf.org. To stay updated on future episodes and content, visit our website at https://www.thecrossexaminer.net.If you enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing, liking, and sharing the podcast. Your support helps us reach more

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Louisiana leads the way with a new law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every K12 public school and university classroom. Critics argue it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, but this is about morality, not religion. Our nation's laws are founded on these moral absolutes. Louisiana sets a precedent for other states to follow.

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

In today's Rocket Docket episode, our host, The Cross Examiner, addresses a concerning new development: Louisiana's mandate to display the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This controversial decision, signed into law by the governor, has sparked a heated debate about its constitutionality.Our host delves into the history of the First Amendment, examining key cases such as Reynolds v. United States, Abington School District v. Schempp, and the landmark Stone v. Graham decision, which directly parallels the current situation in Louisiana. He also discusses the significant impact of the "McConnell Court" and the troubling rise of Christian nationalism.Is Louisiana's new law a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Will the Supreme Court uphold or overturn this mandate? Tune in as The Cross Examiner provides a comprehensive analysis, equipping you with the facts and arguments you need to understand this critical issue.Don't miss this episode filled with historical insights, legal analysis, and passionate advocacy for the separation of church and state.Thanks for listening to this episode of the Cross Examiner Rocket Docket. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider liking and subscribing. We'll see you soon.