Podcasts about Free Exercise Clause

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

In this episode of Legal Spirits, we examine a new Washington State law that eliminates the clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse reporting. The law requires clergy to report suspected abuse, even if they learn about it through Confession and other confidential spiritual communications—raising serious questions under the Free Exercise Clause. Host Mark Movsesian and guest Marc… The post Legal Spirits 067: Confession and the Constitution appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

The most consequential church-state case of this Supreme Court term involves whether the government could – or even must – fund religious charter schools. Amanda and Holly examine key moments in the oral arguments from Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond, playing clips from the courtroom and looking at how the justices may apply recent precedent to shape future law. As BJC noted in the brief we filed, if the government funds religious charter schools, it will drag our government deeper into questions it is unfit to answer on matters of doctrine and church composition. That's not government neutrality toward religion – that's religious preference repackaged as educational choice.   SHOW NOTESSegment 1 (starting at 01:53): Developments since our previous show Amanda and Holly talked about the Catholic Charities/Wisconsin case in episode 12: Back to SCOTUS: Regular business in disturbing times We released our episode with Melissa Rogers to coincide with the first 100 days of the Trump administration. It is episode 13 of season 6: Active citizenship: A conversation with Melissa Rogers about promoting religious freedom and the common good President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on the National Day of Prayer and he signed an executive order on the same day establishing the Religious Liberty Commission.  The American Bar Association has a website page dedicated to National Law Day You can click this link to read President Donald Trump's proclamation on “Loyalty Day and Law Day.” The Respecting Religion podcast won a 2025 “Best in Class” award from the Religion Communicators Council's DeRose-Hinkhouse Awards for our episode titled: “But … is it Christian nationalism?” from season 5.   Segment 2 (starting at 09:51): Oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond Holly mentioned this article from The Washington Post by Justin Jouvenal and Laura Meckler that provides an overview of the case: How religious public schools went from a long shot to the Supreme Court Holly and Amanda discussed these cases as they worked their way through the courts in episode 16 of season 5: The trouble with *religious* charter schools BJC filed an amicus brief in Oklahoma v. Drummond, along with other Christian organizations as well as Jewish, Muslim and interfaith groups. Click here to read our brief. We played four clips in this segment from the oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Drummond. You can visit the Supreme Court's website for a transcript of the arguments and an audio recording of the arguments.  Clip #1: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson & Solicitor General John Sauer Clip #2: Chief Justice John Roberts  Clip #3: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson  Clip #4: Justice Elena Kagan & Michael McGinley Amanda and Holly mentioned three decisions authored by Chief Justice John Roberts that developed a new way of understanding the Free Exercise Clause. They are:  Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017) Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue (2020) Carson v. Makin (2022) Holly's 2017 column on the Trinity Lutheran decision is titled “Decidedly narrow, deeply troubling.”   Segment 3 (starting 37:12): What do we expect? We played one clip from the oral argument in this segment: The opening statement of Greg Garre, who argued the case for the attorney general of Oklahoma. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

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

This week the U.S. Supreme Court considered the application of the Free Exercise Clause to certain books read to elementary aged children as part of Maryland's public school curriculum for "story time." The case itself should be a warning to Christians. In 1901, Herman Bavinck explained what was going on by which he predicated the predicatment these parents find themselves in. The prophet Jeremiah tell us what we should and should not be doing if we want to see the situation change.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court considered the application of the Free Exercise Clause to a public school "story time" curriculum that some Christians parents objected to. Perhaps Christians should consider why they want a clause expressly directed to Congress applied to the states.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court considered the application of the Free Exercise Clause to certain books read to elementary aged children as part of Maryland's public school curriculum for "story time." The case itself should be a warning to Christians. In 1901, Herman Bavinck explained what was going on by which he predicated the predicatment these parents find themselves in. The prophet Jeremiah tell us what we should and should not be doing if we want to see the situation change.

Easter is the perfect time for Christians to reflect on the providence of God in constituting our nation in such a way that the Free Exercise Clause codified a great gospel doctrine. It brings to a particular resolution the history of a debate that can be traced back to 16th century English theologian, William Perkins. Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of it. So, whenever someone says to you that the Constitution is a secular instrument because it doesn’t mention God—and it doesn’t— the information in today's podcast will allow you to share with him or her what is at the heart of the Gospel.

Easter is the perfect time for Christians to reflect on the providence of God in constituting our nation in such a way that a great gospel doctrine was placed in the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. In the minds of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson it resolved a gospel debate that can be raced back to 16th century English theologian, William PerkinsSupport the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Easter is the perfect time for Christians to reflect on the providence of God in constituting our nation in such a way that the Free Exercise Clause codified a great gospel doctrine. It brings to a particular resolution the history of a debate that can be traced back to 16th century English theologian, William Perkins. Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of it. So, whenever someone says to you that the Constitution is a secular instrument because it doesn’t mention God—and it doesn’t— the information in today's podcast will allow you to share with him or her what is at the heart of the Gospel.

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

SCOTUS will soon hear oral arguments in a case brought by parents challenging a Maryland law that requires elementary school children to "participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and with-out notice or opportunity to opt out." The argument for the law's unconstitutioinality is grounded in the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Today, David explains why that clause is used when its original purpose has nothing to do with cases of this kind.

SCOTUS will soon hear oral arguments in a case brought by parents challenging a Maryland law that requires elementary school children to "participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and with-out notice or opportunity to opt out." The argument for the law's unconstitutioinality is grounded in the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Today, David explains why that clause is used when its original purpose has nothing to do with cases of this kind.

Bethesda University, a private Christian university founded around Pentecostal theology, faced an internal leadership dispute, as the president persuaded the board to appoint non-Pentecostal members to the board of directors. The rest of the leadership objected and fired President Cho, arguing that only Pentecostals could serve on the board of directors. The former President and the California Court of Appeals sided with him, determining that the election of non-Pentecostal board members was valid under the university’s bylaws. The court held that the case involved the interpretation of governance documents, not religious doctrine, which it ruled on. Bethesda University contends that by allowing non-Pentecostals on the board, the California Court of Appeals unlawfully interfered in the internal disputes of a religious organization, and in so doing, it violated the Free Exercise Clause, specifically the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine. The university is now petitioning the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.Featuring:Ryan Gardner, Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. William Robert Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair, Spring Arbor University; Counselor of the Ministry & President Emeritus, Salt & Light Global; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School

Christianity as Ethnicity Part 2, with special application to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and commentary on the definition of marriage according to California in the issue of Prop 3 as it was debated in the California Legislature in 2023. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

It's Wednesday, December 11th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Nigerian Muslims killed 48 Christians Fulani Muslim herdsmen killed 48 Christians in central Nigeria during Thanksgiving week this year. In one attack, gunmen killed 18 Christians, including women and children, who were on their way to church. Benjamin Uzenda, former member of the Logo Local Government Council, told Morning Star News, “The Fulani herdsmen, armed with deadly weapons, shot sporadically on the Christians, butchered some victims with machetes, and destroyed their crops on farmlands.” Nigeria is the deadliest country in the world for Christians.   Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints.” Notre Dame Cathedral rebuilt in 5 years after fire Five years after a fire burned down the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, the building has been restored. After spending $845 million on construction, the cathedral opened its doors last weekend. (audio of music from the ceremony) The ceremony was attended by French President Emmanuel Macron, Prince William of England, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, First Lady Jill Biden, and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. Initial construction for the Notre Dame Cathedral began in AD 1163.  Watch the 7-minute “CBS Sunday Morning” story. Americans rank Biden last in most recent 9 presidents A recent UK DailyMail and J.L. Partners random survey of U.S. registered voters found President Joe Biden ranked dead last among the most recent nine U.S. presidents. Remarkably, Biden's unfavorable rating beat out President Richard Nixon who resigned in shame after the Watergate scandal in 1974. However, Donald Trump was rated third worst president, indicating the harsh political divide characterizing the nation today. Ronald Reagan still ranks the best president, with the most favorable ratings. New York middle school reluctantly approved student-led Bible Club A New York middle school finally approved a student-led Bible Club this week.  Thirteen-year-old Elijah Nelson tried to start the club last school year. He's the son of a pastor and told National Review, “Every Sunday I've gone to church, and I've thought more people should hear what is said in the Bible.” However, Waterville Central School District denied the request for a Bible Club, saying it was “unconstitutional.” Attorneys with First Liberty Institute sent a letter to the school, stating, “By denying the same benefits to the Bible club that it provides to all non-curricular clubs, the school has missed the concept of 'equal' in the Equal Access Act. The school's actions are unconstitutional, and its justification is legally flawed. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious practices by both students and employees in public school settings.” 29 abortion mills closed or stopped surgical abortions in 2024 Operation Rescue reports 29 abortion mills closed or halted abortions in the U.S. this year.  Accounting for mills that opened or resumed abortions, the overall number of abortion locations decreased from 670 last year to 667 this year. While it's a small decrease, it's still significantly down from the 2,176 abortion mills in 1991. Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said, “There is no doubt that abortion facilities are struggling to survive in this post-Roe environment. As we conduct our extensive investigations, we continue to see evidence that abortion clinics are facing challenges hiring and keeping abortionists.” 47% of Americans attend church in December around Christmas And finally, Lifeway Research reports Americans are split on church attendance at Christmas. Forty-seven percent of U.S. adults say they typically attend church at Christmas time, while 48% say they do not typically attend. Scott McConnell, executive director of Lifeway Research, noted, “While church services draw more people in the Christmas season, their prime motivation isn't unified. The majority are drawn to celebrate the birth of Jesus, honoring Him as the Christ or promised Messiah. But others mostly join in because of the importance of family, their embrace of Christmas church tradition or to jumpstart Christmas vibes.” In John 4:23-24, Jesus reminds us, “The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, December 11th, in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

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

(LHE) LHE presents a history talk about the United States developing through religious historical ideations starring British historian and humorist, Wayne Grinsynski.Ignagni, Joseph A. “U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause.” The Review of Politics, vol. 55, no. 3, 1993, pp. 511-29, https://doi.org/10.1017/S003467050017654. Levinson, Martin H. “INDEXING THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF AMERICA'S FOUNDERS.” Etc., vol. 69, no. 4, 2012, pp. 384-93. Sobolieskyi, Yaroslav. “Philosophical Views of Thomas Jefferson on Religion and Politics.” Ukrainian Policymaker (Online), vol. 3, no. 3, 2018, pp. 58-64, https://doi.org/10.29202/up/3/8.

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

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

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

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

Summary of Chapter 8: The Bill of Rights and Individual Liberties. Chapter 8 delves into the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, focusing on how these amendments safeguard individual liberties in the United States. The chapter covers key amendments, exploring their historical context, the foundational principles behind them, and significant legal interpretations by the courts. Here's a breakdown of the major sections covered in this chapter: 1. First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assembly. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, protecting freedoms essential to a free society. It covers: Freedom of Speech: This includes the protection of most forms of speech, from political discourse to symbolic speech, while also outlining limitations such as obscenity and incitement to violence. Landmark cases like Schenck v United States and Citizens United v FEC highlight the evolution of free speech jurisprudence. Freedom of Religion: The Establishment Clause ensures a separation of church and state, while the Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion. Key cases like Engel v Vitale and Burwell v Hobby Lobby demonstrate the ongoing balance between religious freedom and government regulation. Freedom of Assembly and Petition: This protects the right to gather peacefully and to petition the government, as illustrated by cases such as NAACP v Alabama. 2. Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms. The Second Amendment addresses the right to bear arms, a highly contentious area of law. Historical Context: Rooted in the colonial experience with militias and influenced by English precedent, this amendment was designed to protect citizens' rights to defend themselves against tyranny. Landmark Cases: District of Columbia v Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, while McDonald v City of Chicago extended this protection against state infringement. 3. Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that individuals have a right to privacy and that the government must follow legal procedures. Search Warrants: The necessity of a warrant based on probable cause is fundamental, with exceptions like consent searches and exigent circumstances. Key Cases: Mapp v Ohio incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states, preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, while Carpenter v United States expanded privacy protections in the digital age. 4. Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Rights of the Accused. These amendments provide crucial protections for individuals accused of crimes. Fifth Amendment: Protects against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and guarantees due process. Miranda v Arizona established the requirement for police to inform individuals of their rights during custodial interrogation. Sixth Amendment: Ensures the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel. Gideon v Wainwright guaranteed the right to counsel for all defendants in criminal cases. 5. Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. Death Penalty: The application of the death penalty is a major issue, with landmark cases like Furman v Georgia and Roper v Simmons addressing the constitutionality of capital punishment and its limitations. Evolving Standards: The courts interpret "cruel and unusual punishment" through evolving societal standards, ensuring that punishments remain humane and just. 6. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Due Process. The Fourteenth Amendment is pivotal in extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and ensuring equal protection under the law. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: The Bill of Rights and Individual Liberties. Chapter 8 delves into the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, focusing on how these amendments safeguard individual liberties in the United States. The chapter covers key amendments, exploring their historical context, the foundational principles behind them, and significant legal interpretations by the courts. Here's a breakdown of the major sections covered in this chapter: 1. First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assembly. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, protecting freedoms essential to a free society. It covers: Freedom of Speech: This includes the protection of most forms of speech, from political discourse to symbolic speech, while also outlining limitations such as obscenity and incitement to violence. Landmark cases like Schenck v United States and Citizens United v FEC highlight the evolution of free speech jurisprudence. Freedom of Religion: The Establishment Clause ensures a separation of church and state, while the Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion. Key cases like Engel v Vitale and Burwell v Hobby Lobby demonstrate the ongoing balance between religious freedom and government regulation. Freedom of Assembly and Petition: This protects the right to gather peacefully and to petition the government, as illustrated by cases such as NAACP v Alabama. 2. Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms. The Second Amendment addresses the right to bear arms, a highly contentious area of law. Historical Context: Rooted in the colonial experience with militias and influenced by English precedent, this amendment was designed to protect citizens' rights to defend themselves against tyranny. Landmark Cases: District of Columbia v Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, while McDonald v City of Chicago extended this protection against state infringement. 3. Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that individuals have a right to privacy and that the government must follow legal procedures. Search Warrants: The necessity of a warrant based on probable cause is fundamental, with exceptions like consent searches and exigent circumstances. Key Cases: Mapp v Ohio incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states, preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, while Carpenter v United States expanded privacy protections in the digital age. 4. Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Rights of the Accused. These amendments provide crucial protections for individuals accused of crimes. Fifth Amendment: Protects against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and guarantees due process. Miranda v Arizona established the requirement for police to inform individuals of their rights during custodial interrogation. Sixth Amendment: Ensures the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel. Gideon v Wainwright guaranteed the right to counsel for all defendants in criminal cases. 5. Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. Death Penalty: The application of the death penalty is a major issue, with landmark cases like Furman v Georgia and Roper v Simmons addressing the constitutionality of capital punishment and its limitations. Evolving Standards: The courts interpret "cruel and unusual punishment" through evolving societal standards, ensuring that punishments remain humane and just. 6. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Due Process. The Fourteenth Amendment is pivotal in extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and ensuring equal protection under the law. Equal Protection Clause: This has been foundational in civil rights litigation, leading to landmark decisions like Brown v Board of Education and --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: The Bill of Rights and Individual Liberties. Chapter 8 delves into the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, focusing on how these amendments safeguard individual liberties in the United States. The chapter covers key amendments, exploring their historical context, the foundational principles behind them, and significant legal interpretations by the courts. Here's a breakdown of the major sections covered in this chapter: 1. First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assembly. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, protecting freedoms essential to a free society. It covers: Freedom of Speech: This includes the protection of most forms of speech, from political discourse to symbolic speech, while also outlining limitations such as obscenity and incitement to violence. Landmark cases like Schenck v United States and Citizens United v FEC highlight the evolution of free speech jurisprudence. Freedom of Religion: The Establishment Clause ensures a separation of church and state, while the Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion. Key cases like Engel v Vitale and Burwell v Hobby Lobby demonstrate the ongoing balance between religious freedom and government regulation. Freedom of Assembly and Petition: This protects the right to gather peacefully and to petition the government, as illustrated by cases such as NAACP v Alabama. 2. Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms. The Second Amendment addresses the right to bear arms, a highly contentious area of law. Historical Context: Rooted in the colonial experience with militias and influenced by English precedent, this amendment was designed to protect citizens' rights to defend themselves against tyranny. Landmark Cases: District of Columbia v Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, while McDonald v City of Chicago extended this protection against state infringement. 3. Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that individuals have a right to privacy and that the government must follow legal procedures. Search Warrants: The necessity of a warrant based on probable cause is fundamental, with exceptions like consent searches and exigent circumstances. Key Cases: Mapp v Ohio incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states, preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, while Carpenter v United States expanded privacy protections in the digital age. 4. Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Rights of the Accused. These amendments provide crucial protections for individuals accused of crimes. Fifth Amendment: Protects against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and guarantees due process. Miranda v Arizona established the requirement for police to inform individuals of their rights during custodial interrogation. Sixth Amendment: Ensures the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel. Gideon v Wainwright guaranteed the right to counsel for all defendants in criminal cases. 5. Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. Death Penalty: The application of the death penalty is a major issue, with landmark cases like Furman v Georgia and Roper v Simmons addressing the constitutionality of capital punishment and its limitations. Evolving Standards: The courts interpret "cruel and unusual punishment" through evolving societal standards, ensuring that punishments remain humane and just. 6. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Due Process. The Fourteenth Amendment is pivotal in extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and ensuring equal protection under the law. Equal Protection Clause: This has been foundational in civil rights litigation, leading to landmark decisions like Brown v Board of Education and Obergefell --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/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.

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

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.

This Day in Legal History: Free Exercise Clause Applies to StatesOn this day, May 20, in 1940, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut, significantly shaping the landscape of religious freedom in America. The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees individuals the right to practice their religion freely, applied to state governments. This decision was pivotal as it extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to state actions, not just federal, through the incorporation doctrine.The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional principle that ensures the fundamental rights and freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are protected against infringement by state governments. This doctrine relies on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been interpreted to incorporate most of the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The Cantwell case was a critical moment in the application of this doctrine, marking the first time the Supreme Court applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states.In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the case involved Jehovah's Witnesses who were arrested for soliciting without a permit and for inciting a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cantwells, stating that their arrests violated their First Amendment rights. This decision underscored the importance of protecting religious expression from state interference and set a precedent for future cases involving the incorporation of other Bill of Rights protections.This ruling reinforced the principle that religious freedom is a fundamental right that must be respected by all levels of government, ensuring that individuals could practice their faith without undue state interference. It paved the way for broader interpretations of the First Amendment and fortified the legal framework that guards against religious discrimination and promotes religious liberty in the United States.Donald Trump, currently on trial in New York for falsifying business records, may testify in his defense this week, although his decision remains uncertain. While Trump initially indicated he would testify, his lawyer Todd Blanche has since expressed uncertainty. Trump faces 34 counts related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, aimed at silencing her allegations of an affair before the 2016 election, which Trump denies. Outside the courtroom, Trump has labeled the trial a politically motivated effort to undermine his 2024 presidential campaign. Inside, he has listened to testimony, including lurid details from Daniels and accounts of efforts to suppress negative stories. Prosecutors are expected to conclude their case after testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer who made the payment to Daniels.Trump's legal team will soon present their defense, potentially calling witnesses, including Trump himself. If Trump chooses to testify, he could challenge the allegations directly but would also face rigorous cross-examination, posing risks of perjury and damaging his credibility. The outcome of this trial, one of four criminal cases Trump faces, could impact his political future.Trump has the chance to testify at hush money trial - if he so chooses | ReutersColorado is set to become the first U.S. state to enact a comprehensive law regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment and other critical areas with Senate Bill 24-205 (SB205). Passed on May 8 and awaiting Governor Jared Polis' signature, the law aims to prevent algorithmic discrimination and will take effect in 2026. It targets high-risk AI systems influencing decisions in employment, education, finance, government services, healthcare, housing, insurance, and legal services.SB205 imposes significant compliance obligations on both developers and users of high-risk AI systems. Developers must provide detailed information about their AI systems, publish risk management strategies, and disclose known discrimination risks to the attorney general. Deployers are required to implement risk management policies, conduct annual impact assessments, and notify consumers about the use of AI systems in decision-making.The law also mandates that businesses inform consumers about the purpose and nature of AI systems, their influence on decisions, and the right to opt out of profiling. The Colorado attorney general will enforce the law, treating violations as unfair and deceptive trade practices, though there is no private right of action. Businesses can defend themselves by showing they discovered and corrected violations through feedback or internal reviews.This groundbreaking legislation is expected to influence broader AI regulation across the U.S., as other states consider similar measures, prompting employers nationwide to prepare for stricter AI compliance requirements.Colorado Passes Groundbreaking AI Discrimination Law Impacting EmployersThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding mechanism, which allows it to draw funds from the Federal Reserve rather than through annual congressional appropriations. This 7-2 decision, issued on May 16, has broader implications for other financial regulators such as the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which also rely on independent funding mechanisms. Justice Elena Kagan, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, emphasized that Congress has historically used various funding mechanisms for federal agencies, underscoring the constitutionality of such arrangements. This decision signals to potential litigants that challenges against the funding of financial regulators are unlikely to succeed.The ruling reassures that the established funding methods for these agencies, which include assessing fees on the banks they supervise, are constitutionally sound. The decision also highlighted that the independent funding of U.S. regulatory agencies has long been accepted due to its prevalence and practical necessity.Dissenting Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, while disagreeing with the majority on the CFPB, did not find the funding methods of other regulators constitutionally problematic. They pointed out that the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC operate on specific charges for services, contrasting with the CFPB's unique funding ability.Legal experts see this ruling as a robust defense of the current financial regulatory framework, suggesting that any future claims against the funding structures of these agencies will likely face significant hurdles. The case referenced is CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, U.S., No. 22-448.Banking Regulators See Relief From Funding Fights in CFPB RulingStates poised to receive portions of $7 billion for bringing solar power to low-income communities face a significant skilled labor shortage in the construction industry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has selected 60 applicants, including many state energy departments, to implement the Solar for All program, aimed at providing residential solar to disadvantaged populations as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.The program faces a shortage of 500,000 skilled construction workers, exacerbated by early retirements and recruitment challenges, according to Ben Brubeck of the Associated Builders and Contractors. The Department of Energy's 2023 US Energy and Employment Report noted that 97% of construction employers find it difficult to hire qualified solar workers.The Solar for All funding encourages project labor agreements, which may deter non-union contractors. Currently, only about 11% of solar energy workers are unionized. This shortage raises concerns about maintaining high-quality and safe infrastructure.Labor union representatives argue that the issue is more about wages than worker availability. Higher wages, as mandated by the program, might attract more skilled workers. However, the absence of solar-specific apprenticeship programs, unlike those in other construction sectors, contributes to the labor gap.States like Michigan, Colorado, Washington, and New York are planning to address these workforce challenges during their planning periods. Michigan is considering partnerships with community colleges and labor organizations to meet the expected demand surge. Colorado aims to balance labor distribution between rural and urban areas, while Washington plans to require an apprentice for each solar installation project. New York will leverage federal funding to enhance its existing clean energy jobs and workforce development programs. The EPA emphasizes that workforce development is crucial for the success of Solar for All, with many applications proposing partnerships to build a robust clean energy workforce.States Set for Solar Cash Infusion Aim to Build Worker PipelineNew federal staffing requirements for nursing homes, introduced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in April, aim to enhance care quality but face significant hurdles due to waivers and exemptions. These regulations, set to take full effect in 2026, mandate specific staffing levels for registered nurses (RNs) and nurse aides. However, federal laws and the Social Security Act allow states and the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary to grant waivers, potentially delaying compliance for many facilities.Thousands of nursing homes may qualify for exemptions from these staffing requirements, which worries advocates like Sam Brooks from the Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care. These exemptions could disproportionately benefit poorly performing homes, undermining the rule's intent. Enforcement is further complicated by a shortage of state nursing home inspectors, affecting timely compliance verification.The rule stipulates that facilities must provide 3.48 hours of care per resident per day (HPRD), with specific hours allocated to RNs and nurse aides. Significant staffing gaps exist, with an estimated need for 12,000 RNs and 77,000 nurse aides to meet the new standards. Facilities in nonrural areas have three years to comply, while rural ones have five.Exemptions are not guaranteed; facilities must document efforts to hire staff and meet transparency requirements. Critics argue the exemption process is cumbersome and may lead to facility downsizing or closures, limiting seniors' access to care. CMS aims to encourage compliance through these transparency and documentation mandates, but industry representatives are concerned about the feasibility and impact of these rules. The ongoing labor shortage in the nursing home sector and the high cost of compliance, estimated at $43 billion over 10 years, present additional challenges to the successful implementation of these staffing requirements.Nursing Home Watchers Wary of Staffing Rule Waivers, Exemptions Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a foundational element of American democracy, enshrined within the Bill of Rights. It protects several core freedoms that are crucial for a free and open society. These include: Freedom of Speech: This provision allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. It supports not only spoken words but also printed and digital communications, ensuring that citizens can freely share ideas and criticisms, particularly about the government. Freedom of Religion: This freedom is twofold, consisting of the Free Exercise Clause, which protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely, and the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over others. This separation of church and state is crucial for maintaining governmental neutrality in religious matters. Freedom of the Press: The press enjoys the freedom to report news and express opinions without governmental censorship. This freedom is vital for democracy as it ensures transparency and holds government officials accountable to the public. Freedom of Assembly: This right allows people to gather publicly or privately and express their views through protests, meetings, or any form of group activity. This is essential for influencing public policy and for the ability of citizens to organize around causes. Right to Petition: This right enables individuals to express their viewpoints, grievances, and demands to the government without fear of punishment or retaliation. It encompasses activities like lobbying, public campaigning, and the filing of lawsuits to address issues of public concern. These combined freedoms are designed to protect individual liberty and prevent government overreach. They facilitate an environment where ideas can be freely exchanged, where cultural and political diversity is celebrated, and where the government remains accountable to the people. The First Amendment is a crucial component of maintaining the democratic, transparent, and open society that defines the United States. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Let us examine one perspective on how the United States has grown through historical ideations of religion - narrated by Baabo————-> Sources—> Ignagni, Joseph A. “U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause.” The Review of Politics, vol. 55, no. 3, 1993, pp. 511-29, https://doi.org/10.1017/S003467050017654. Levinson, Martin H. “INDEXING THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF AMERICA'S FOUNDERS.” Etc., vol. 69, no. 4, 2012, pp. 384-93. Sobolieskyi, Yaroslav. “Philosophical Views of Thomas Jefferson on Religion and Politics.” Ukrainian Policymaker (Online), vol. 3, no. 3, 2018, pp. 58-64, https://doi.org/10.29202/up/3/8.

In the second installment of "Heavenly Homeland" from the Faithful Politics podcast, we continue our discussion of Christian nationalism with a special focus on the separation of church and state in America. This episode  aims to explore how the belief in America as a Christian nation affects politics and laws, especially when it comes to maintaining the boundary between church and state. The discussion highlights historical references, including Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, where he articulated the principle of a "wall of separation" between church and state, a concept not explicitly stated in the Constitution but implied in the First Amendment.The episode also brings in perspectives from various experts, including Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Eric Berger and Caroline Mala Corbin,  law professor specializing in U.S. constitutional law. They discuss the importance of the separation as a means to protect religious freedoms and prevent the government from favoring one religion over others or over non-religion. The discussion is further enriched by Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee (BJC) for Religious Liberty, emphasizing the necessity of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to safeguard religious liberty for all.Significant legal cases, such as the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a high school football coach's right to pray on the field, are examined to illustrate the ongoing debates and challenges surrounding religious freedom and the role of religion in public life. Lastly, Andrew Seidel, Constitutional Lawyer,  helps us better understand the potential consequences of the Kennedy v. Bremerton ruling and the impact it may have on the Lemon test, a three-part test for determining when a law violates the Establishment Clause.Listen to the full episodes of each of the guests:"Separation in the Middle" w/Rachel Laser, CEO/President Americans United"Religion, Rights, and Wrongs" w/Caroline Corbin, Professor of Law"Kennedy v. Bremerton: Ruling on a Prayer" w/Amanda Tyler, Executive Director BJC"The Constitution of Vaccines" - w/Professor Eric Berger"Safeguarding the Separation of Church and State" w/ Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans UnitedSupport the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics Subscribe to our Substack: https://faithfulpolitics.substack.com/

What does it take to create and maintain an equitable work environment, and why does this seem to be particularly difficult in faith-based workplaces? Our guests Ruben & Jen Alvarado, specialists in the fields of pastoral ministry and human resources, share insights into the operational challenges particular to religious organizations, as well as ideas on how to overcome them. Resources from this Episode: Mort, Geoffrey A. “Freedom to Discriminate: The Ministerial Exception Is Not for Everyone – or Is It?” New York State Bar Association, 31 October 2022, https://nysba.org/freedom-to-discriminate-the-ministerial-exception-is-not-for-everyone-or-is-it/  Barna Group. “Excerpt: What Pastors Wish They'd Been Prepared For.” Barna, 19 April, 2023, https://www.barna.com/research/pastors-better-prepared/

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed a thoughtful approach toward religious liberty issues during her time on the bench, upholding both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Paying tribute to her soon after her passing on December 1, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman remember Justice O'Connor's contributions and talk about her legacy, sharing personal reflections as well as wisdom from Justice O'Connor that holds true today. They also look at her controversial endorsement test and how the Supreme Court has shifted – both the law and in terms of public opinion – after her retirement. Amanda and Holly also take a moment to share what we learned about you, our listeners, from this year's Spotify Wrapped.    SHOW NOTES: Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The life of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Here are a few remembrances of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, lauded as “a human being, extraordinary,” lies in repose at the court by Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog Click here for the entire “In Memoriam” section on SCOTUSblog Sandra Day O'Connor, First Woman on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 93 – The New York Times' obituary by Linda Greenhouse Justice O'Connor's official Supreme Court bio Click here to see the online version of the Supreme Court exhibit on Justice O'Connor's life Justice O'Connor's funeral was a private event at the Washington National Cathedral, but it is available for the public to view on the Cathedral's YouTube page.    Segment 2 (starting at 15:41): Justice O'Connor on church-state cases Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor leaves legacy of civic-minded church-state jurisprudence by Don Byrd for BJC's website Amanda and Holly mentioned the following cases: Board of Education v. Mergens (1990) Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) McCreary County, Ky., v. ACLU (2005) was the Ten Commandments case with Justice O'Connor's famous concurrence. Click here to learn more about the two Ten Commandments cases and decisions from a column Holly wrote in 2005.    Segment 3 (starting at 26:49): The ongoing impact of Justice O'Connor Amanda and Holly mentioned that Justice O'Connor was one of the authors of the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Amanda and Holly discuss this article from Linda Greenhouse for The New York Times: “What Sandra Day O'Connor got wrong”   Segment 4 (starting at 35:31): Who are your fellow listeners? See our Spotify Wrapped on Instagram at this link. Our most popular podcast on Spotify in 2023 was Episode 22 of Season 4, discussing the ReAwaken America tour. Our most shared one was Episode 23 of Season 4 on the myth of American “chosenness.”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Use this special link to support these conversations, and thank you for listening! 

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that to deny a church “an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status” is to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. In that case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, a Missouri church that operated a licensed preschool and daycare facility, applied for state “funds for qualifying organizations to purchase recycled tires to resurface playgrounds.”   Trinity Lutheran met all the qualifications of the program, but the state informed them that a grant would violate a state constitutional provision that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” Trinity Lutheran sued, claiming that because of the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment, a government benefit cannot be withheld solely because of religion. In his majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts agreed, writing, “the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”   The Trinity Lutheran case was only six years ago but, in a case of “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,” Colorado is the latest state to “forget” something about which the Court has been very clear.  This is the inaugural year of Colorado's Universal Preschool Program, which funds 15 hours of preschool per week for every child in the state. To be a part of the program, the state is requiring that preschools sign a “service agreement” that includes a commitment to “not discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation or so-called “gender identity.”  In August, the Denver Catholic Archdiocese, which operates 36 preschools and serves 1,500 kids a year, filed a lawsuit, noting that this “service agreement” would force them to hire teachers and administrators who do not hold to their faith commitments. Not only is this a case of “Trinity Lutheran all over again,” but it is another chapter in the never-ending story of public officials pressuring Christians to keep their faith out of public life.   Recently in Massachusetts, state officials denied an adoption license to a Catholic couple, claiming their faith made them “unsupportive” of transgender ideology. The state of Oregon similarly denied an adoption license to a young, widowed mother because she would not commit to taking a hypothetically gender-confused child to a gender clinic.    Years ago in a Breakpoint commentary, Chuck Colson described the jury selection process in the trial of Jack Kevorkian, the doctor accused of helping at least 27 of his patients kill themselves. Kevorkian's lawyer attempted to bar anyone who said their Christian faith forbids suicide from serving on the jury, claiming that belief made them unfairly biased.  "Religion has been increasingly relegated to the private sphere. Christians are welcome to participate in public life only if they leave their faith at home … [but] [t]he logic of Kevorkian's defense attorney could be applied to any criminal trial. If potential jurors can be excluded for believing that assisted suicide is immoral, what will be the next step? Will the attorneys of accused murderers be permitted to exclude jurors whose religion teaches that life is sacred?"  More than 25 years later, that dismal hypothetical seems less hypothetical. As the Colorado, Massachusetts, and Oregon stories reveal, some public officials are so hostile to the Christian faith, they would rather allow children in foster care to sleep on office floors in government buildings and remain in juvenile detention facilities than go to a home with religious parents.  Of course, there must aways be moral restrictions around who can and cannot adopt children and operate a preschool. Restrictions are necessary to protect children. However, some states are now operating from a moral framework that is exactly backward. The biblical woes against those who call right wrong and wrong right apply as much to government programs as they do to individuals.   It is a grave mistake to use irrational and false moral claims as the basis for these moral restrictions. In this upside-down world, children must be protected from religion rather than ideologies that threaten their minds, hearts, bodies, and most importantly relationships. Claiming to protect children, they are instead put in danger, subject to irreversible physical, psychological, and emotional damage.  Given how clear the Supreme Court has been about states discriminating against religious institutions, I suspect the state of Colorado will be forced to change this policy. Given how willing the state of Colorado is to defy clear Court teachings and target people of faith, I suspect they will resist for as long as possible. In the meantime, children will suffer because of the state's bigotry. If people of faith are told they “need not apply” for adoption licenses, preschool programs, serving on juries, feeding the homeless, advocating for the preborn, or caring for the sick and dying, who do they imagine will take their place?  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

In this episode, Dr. Almitra Berry  navigates the uncharted waters where education, politics, and personal beliefs intersect. The spotlight is cast on Texas' SB 763 law, a contentious piece of legislation that paves the way for a paradigm shift in the educational landscape. Dr. Berry adeptly dissects this complex issue, guiding us through the nuances of religious freedom, individual rights, and the principles that underpin our democratic society.  Key Takeaways:Texas' SB 763 law allows school boards to appoint chaplains instead of certified counselors.This move blurs the separation between religion and public education, as outlined in the First Amendment.The establishment clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment safeguard against government support of specific religions.Schools, as government entities, should avoid endorsing or supporting any particular religious belief.Chaplains lack the necessary training in mental health care and counseling, potentially affecting students' well-being.Advocating for qualified mental health professionals in schools is essential for providing unbiased, effective, and safe support for all students.Dr. Almitra Berry beckons us to be the stewards of an inclusive realm where every child's potential is nurtured, regardless of their beliefs or background. Tune in to this episode and join us in our ongoing pursuit to unravel the intricate tapestry of education and politics, as we collectively strive for a world that thrives on knowledge, acceptance, and progress.Threads: @alberryconsulting TikTok: @almitraberry Email info: @askdrberry.com 

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – In 1947 the Supreme Court (Everson v Board of Education) laid the unfortunate foundation for the 1st Amendment to be turned completely upside down. The 1st Amendment restricts the government from infringing upon certain freedoms. One of those restrictions pertains to religion which is placed into two clauses: The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. "Congress shall make...

IntroductionIf you ask the average American on the street what religious freedom is, you will get all sorts of different ideas. Some places, you will hear: “keep your religion to yourself. Haven't you heard of the separation of Church and State?” Others might answer: “People are free to believe whatever they want. Who am I to judge if they're right or not?” Still others might claim that religious freedom means the ability to pray privately however you want.None of these are what religious freedom actually is specifically. But it should also be noted that the American constitutional notion of religious freedom is not precisely what the Catholic Church holds religious freedom to be. And, so, the object of today's exploration is to look at what religious freedom is in the United States of America. Then, more importantly, to view what religious freedom is, in principle, as defined by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council. Separation of Church and StateThe First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the first of the ten amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights, adopted on December 15, 1791, reads thusly:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”For our purposes we will focus on the first phrase: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.I do not have the time or space here to provide an exhaustive account of American jurisprudence on the matter of religious liberty. But, I do want to draw out a few key moments in American History where this question came up and which will give us a clearer view of what religious freedom is.Thomas Jefferson's Danbury LetterIn a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson wrote:“GentlemenThe affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem (Danbury Letter).”He wrote this letter in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists in order to explain his views on federalism and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. The main meaning of his “wall of separation between Church & State” is an assurance that the government would not interfere with the church of the Danbury Baptists or give special treatment to any particular religion or sect. Justice Hugo Black, an appointee of Franklin Roosevelt to the Supreme Court, would even refer later to the Danbury explanation as an “almost authoritative declaration” of the Founders' intent for the Establishment Clause (cf. Bill of Rights Institute).Two days after sending this letter, though, Jefferson attended a religious service in the House of Representatives location in the Capitol. As Daniel Roeber notes: “Jefferson and others recognized the benefits of developing a national identity that transcended interdenominational division (Roeber).” Yet, since 1795, public worship was administered at the partially completed Capitol Building each Sunday at noon (cf. ibid).Religious liberty was the motivation of the Plymouth Pilgrims and many Catholics who settled in Maryland. However, the colonial period was far from united on religious matters. Protestant sects disagreed amongst themselves. Catholics were seen as untrustworthy papists of low social stature. Jewish people were tolerated, at best. The nascent country needed an identity which transcended these divisions. The importance of developing a national identity was something that would take over a hundred years more as most identified most readily with their own state. Lemon V. Kurtzman and the Three Pronged Test (1971)Let us now skip forward quite a bit to 1971. In that year, a case was brought to the Supreme Court in which the Court considered whether a law in Pennsylvania violated the Establishment Clause. The law reimbursed religious schools with state funds for textbooks and salaries for teachers for non-public, non-secular schools. The Court responded 8-0 with a three-pronged test for determining whether a given statute is constitutional. The government may assist religion only if:* The primary purpose of the assistance is secular* The assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and * There is no excessive entanglement between church and stateIn this specific case, the Pennsylvania law was struck down because of excessive entanglement between church and state. It is worth noticing here what is implicit: there is nothing wrong, in the American understanding, with some implicit entanglement between Church and State. The issue, ultimately, is when the line is crossed towards “excessive.”Marsh v. Chambers (1983)The Nebraska legislature opened each of its sessions with a publicly funded chaplain offering a prayer. The Supreme Court, in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) determined that this was NOT a violation of the Establishment Clause. Though this instance does not pass the “Lemon” three-pronged test, the Justices argued that there is a long historical custom going back to the Continental Congress and the very Congress that resulted in the Bill of Rights. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country (Citation: 463 US 783).”As we saw with the Capitol Building services, there is not a strict and non-transversable wall of separation of Church and State. Other Supreme Court CasesI now want to walk through several other Supreme Court cases that touched on religious liberty. Again, this list is not exhaustive, but it can help us round out our picture.Reynolds v. United States (1879)In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States, the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy. They claimed that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but that government can nonetheless punish acts which it judges to be criminal, regardless of religious belief.Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)As of 1961, the State of Maryland had a requirement that a candidate for public office needed to declare that they believed in God in order to be eligible for the position. Unanimously, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court agreed that this gives preference to believers who were willing to publicly profess; therefore, Maryland was aiding theistic religions and beliefs overr atheistic ones.Engel v. Vitale (1962)In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the Court ruled 6-1 that a New York prayer to begin the school day was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause despite being a nondenominational prayer. Abington v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett (1963)The following year in 1963, the Court heard the case of Abington v. Schempp and the related case of Murray v. Curlett. In both cases, public schools were involving students in daily Bible readings and in the latter case of the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Both of these cases were seen as violating both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)In 1972, Amish parents sued the State of Wisconsin for requiring that their children attend school until the age of 16. The unanimous decision held that the Amish teens were exempt from the state law of requiring 14 to 16 year olds to attend school because the Amish religion required a living apart from worldly influences. In other words, though it was in the state's interest that the children receive two years more schooling, this did not outweigh the free exercise of the religion of the Amish.McDaniel v. Paty (1978)A Tennessee law barring clergymen from serving in public office was challenged in 1978 in McDaniel v. Paty. The Court unanimously ruled that this law was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment) because it made holding public office contingent on surrendering religious beliefs. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)In 1993, the Court heard Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. There were ordinances passed by the city of Hialeah, Florida that banned animal sacrifice. These laws were not written in a neutral and generally applicable way. They specifically targeted Santeria, a Afro-Caribbean religion based on Yoruba and some Catholic elements. Because animal sacrifice is an important part of Santeria, the Court ruled that the ordinances were designed as a form of religious persecution in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.  Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)The Sante Fe Independent School District of Texas in 2000 had a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld an appellate court's ruling that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The school district tried to argue that because it was student led and initiated, it was private speech, and, thus, protected under the First Amendment. However, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that it was not private speech because it was done over the P.A. system, by a student body representative, under school faculty supervision, and under school policy. Also, it did not pass the “Lemon” test because it did not have a secular purpose and was implemented with the purpose of endorsing school prayer.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)California's Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow in 2004 investigated the policy requiring each elementary school class to say the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Michael Newdow, a father of one of the students, challenged this because of the words therein contained of “under God.” Because Newdow did not have custody of the child, he did not have standing to bring the case to court. However, in concurring opinions, Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas, said that the words “under God” do NOT violate the Establishment Clause.As the Bill of Rights Institute reports:“Further, they noted, ‘the phrase ‘under God' in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion's role in our Nation's history abound.' They concluded that ‘the recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase ‘under God' cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it' (Bill of Rights Institute).”Van Orden v. Perry (2005)In a similar case in Van Orden V. Perry in 2005, in a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on Texas State Capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause. There were 38 other monuments on the grounds and highlighted different parts of Texan history. Justice William Rehnquist argued that the monument had a religious message, however, it was presented in a context showing that:“[a] secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law.” Therefore, the religious message is part of a broader context of cultural heritage and patrimony of the people of Texas. Teaching Evolution in SchoolsThere are two Supreme Court cases worth looking at briefly which discuss the teaching of evolution in schools. Generally, there is a perceived discrepancy of considerable magnitude between the theory of evolution and the evidence for creation from the Book of Genesis. I am not getting into that minefield right now, but these cases show how religious liberty and the government of the United States interact.Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)In Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968, Arkansas passed a law saying that public school teachers were banned from teaching evolution because it was in contradiction with the Bible account of creation.Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the majority opinion:“In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens (Epperson v. Arkansas).”He continued to argue that the law of Arkansas is clearly not a religiously neutral act. Instead it was the targeting of a particular theory on Biblical grounds, literally read. Therefore, it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)Nineteen years later in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the Court examined a Louisiana law forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless it was accompanied by an equal treatment of creationism. In a 7-2 decision, the Court declared that this law violated the Establishment Clause because it failed all three parts of the “Lemon” test. It lacked secular purpose, endorsed the view that a supernatural being created mankind, and it entangled the interests of Church and State by seeking “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose (Citation: 482 US 578).”The American View of Religious LibertyIn sum, the evolution of religious liberty in the United States has its basis on the cultural milieu of the time. In the colonial period and in the early days of the country, there were few true atheists. Deism was exceptionally popular, but even Deists acknowledge a belief in the Creator. So, a nondenominational prayer to the Creator at the state of a session of Congress was a forgone conclusion. Since that time, the United States of America has become far more cultural, religiously, and politically diverse. As a result of this undeniable diversity, it cannot be said that the United States is currently a Judeo-Christian nation, even if the case can strongly be made that it began that way. Private speech and religious practice is unambiguously protected. However, as we have seen, the nature of the public exercise of religion is questioned when public funds are in the mix. Each of the examples mentioned above, and where problems usually arise, is in publicly-funded schools, government property or buildings, and in relation to public office. However, the Supreme Court has upheld that religious beliefs which are not criminal are protected in the public sphere. A religious person need not check their religion at the door when engaging in public matters (and how could they, really). The First Amendment of the Constitution protects all Americans against the establishment of any one religion to the competition or detriment of any others. Any law which would exclude a person from public life on the basis of religion is unconstitutional. And the free exercise of religion is safeguarded and held in a careful balance with the interests of all other religions, beliefs, and ideas. This reality is a blessing and a curse for Catholics. On the one hand, we have freedom to boldly speak the truth without fear of legal reprisal, within due limits. Yet, on the other hand, there is a bland tolerance of false religions and ideas antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church.The Church's View of Religious FreedomAll of that being said, what is the Catholic view of religious freedom? Is it precisely the American view or are there significant differences? When I speak to American Catholics about this question, there is no real sense of a firm understanding of the Church on the matter. And, frankly, when people read the official Church teaching, they do not understand the nuances offered there. I am going to do my best to help shed some light on the subject! Dignitatis HumanaeOn December 7, 1965, Pope St. Paul VI promulgated a Declaration on Religious Freedom which is one of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council. Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is only fifteen paragraph sections long and is highly worth reading in its entirety. What I will offer here is a brief summary and the main conclusions. In the interest of keeping this to the point, I am going to be looking at three questions:* What is religious freedom in the eyes of the Catholic Church?* Why is religious freedom based on human dignity?* How has God revealed religious liberty?What is religious freedom in the eyes of the Catholic Church?God has made Himself known to man, shown us how we are to serve Him, and how we are saved in Christ and come to eternal blessedness. The Church unequivocally affirms in Dignitatis Humanae that:“We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you' (Matt. 28: 19-20) (DH, 1).”Many of those who are suspicious of the Second Vatican Council read this not as the full throated profession of Christ and His Church that it is. Instead, they read the word “subsist” in an uncharitable and ignorant way. We could say that the one true religion IS the Catholic and Apostolic Church, but subsists is actually a richer word. Subsists means to begin in a certain way and remain in that way. In other words, there is no true religion apart from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, as our Lord began it and has constantly sustained it to this day. The Church which, of course, is His own Mystical Body.The Council Fathers continue:“On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it (DH, 1).”Elsewhere in Vatican II in the documents Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes we hear: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved… The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily' manner and not ‘in his heart' (LG, 14).”For those who claim that Vatican II is weak on doctrine and the truth and is overly ambiguous or some other such nonsense, it is abundantly clear that they never read the documents or they have read them in an uncharitable and ignorant way.At any rate, all of this being said, what is religious freedom? The Council Fathers write:“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ (DH, 1).”So, the moral duty of man towards the Catholic Church remains untouched by religious freedom. What is vital to understand the Church's view is that phrase: “immunity from coercion in civil society.” That is the key. A more substantial definition is then given, with very official verbiage:“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits (DH, 2).”The Church has always held to this doctrine. We know, for example, that the Church has always condemned forced conversions as illegitimate and compelled baptisms as invalid. As St. John Paul II often said: the Faith is always proposed, not imposed.'Why is religious freedom based on human dignity?This right to religious freedom is rooted in human dignity. The Church even calls for this right to be enshrined in constitutional law throughout the world. Our human dignity points to the fact that God endowed man with reason and free will and therefore personal responsibility. We are impelled by human nature and bound by moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. Once we know the truth, we are bound to adhere to it and order our lives towards it. The Church declares that religious freedom is thus necessary because:“... men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom (DH, 2).”There is no love without freedom, there is no seeking of the truth without freedom. So, religious freedom does not belong to feelings and subjective disposition. No. It belongs to the very nature of the human person. Faith comes from what is heard. And as truth is discovered, “it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it,” to use another phrase from Dignitatis Humanae (DH, 2). Personal though this assent is, religious freedom also extends to religious communities. They should not be hindered:“either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties (DH, 4).”Nor should they be hindered from public teaching and witness of faith, whether spoken or written. As the preeminent religious community, all of these freedoms belong to the family as well.How has God revealed religious liberty?In Divine Revelation, the doctrine of religious freedom finds its roots. The Council Fathers write:“Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions (DH, 9).”First and foremost, man's response to God in faith must be free for it to be legitimate. No one can be forced to become Catholic. The act of faith is a free act. Forcing someone to love is not love at all. As Dignitatis Humanae states:“It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life (DH, 10).”God is very clear, however, in what He has revealed that we are to boldly proclaim the truth. Therefore, are we to be “tolerant” and “accepting” of other religions and simply have a bland indifference? Absolutely not! The Council Fathers write:“The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith (DH, 14).”Freedom from CoercionFreedom from coercion in religious matters is the crux of the Church's view of religious liberty. Really, it pertains directly to the establishing of an environment in which a person may freely seek and adhere to the one, true religion. Though there are elements of truth outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone outside the visible bounds of the Church is saved, it is only by the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and the instrumentality of the Catholic Church, the sacrament of salvation.We must not be indifferent. We must boldly preach the truth at all times. And we must not be afraid to stand up for these beliefs, even when it is inconvenient. In some contexts doing so can lead to our bodily martyrdom. In the United States of America, the constitutional order is more or less compatible with the free practice of the Catholic religion. However, we must be cognizant that there is a distinct difference between religious freedom in the American idea and the Catholic teaching.The American notion protects us, to an extent, but it is more geared to creating a national identity that transcends religion. This should make any faithful Catholic nervous because it is working. How many American Catholics do you know who are more concerned about being American Catholics than being Catholics who happen to be American? Religious freedom is freedom from coercion. Ultimately, it is freedom FOR the truth, FOR the Catholic Faith. We cannot forget this, lest we descend into a banal coexistence or tolerance without the drive to share the fullness of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot be indifferent and we cannot be content to allow anyone to stay in error. We must respect their right to religious freedom by not coercing them and respecting their journey, in good conscience. But the task and privilege of evangelization remains in full force. Get full access to Good Distinctions at www.gooddistinctions.com/subscribe

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

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

Audio of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion Parts I and II  In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives -  based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.   Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives -  based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.   Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of Part 1 of the primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) - written by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to all but Part III–Section C–1. In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of certain contraceptives -  based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.   Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.   Music by Epidemic Sound

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which pertain to the right to freedom of religion. In this episode, we discuss: Restrictions that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause impose on the government Strict scrutiny analysis Lemon v. Kurtzman and the Lemon Test  Going through two questions from previous California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) The Brainy Bar Bank: Streamlining Bar Study (https://barexamtoolbox.com/brainy-bar-bank/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2011 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/February-2011-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2014 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/February2014CBXSelectedAnswers_R.pdf) Podcast Episode 44: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Constitutional Law (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-44-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-constitutional-law/) Podcast Episode 76: Tackling an MEE Con Law Essay (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-76-tackling-an-mee-con-law-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-186-listen-and-learn-establishment-clause-and-free-exercise-clause-con-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Sarah and David breeze through a few Supreme Court opinions released Tuesday to focus on United States v. Taylor, and how Maine is more rural than Alaska (go figure). David points out that Carson v. Makin, which held that Maine's “nonsectarian” requirement in schools violated the Free Exercise Clause, is yet another victory for religious liberty in the U.S. And finally, a casual discussion of toddler yoga, skirt skepticism, and how to have fun at your job. Show Notes:-United States v. Taylor-Carson v. Makin-Peltier v. Charter Day School-CANarchy Craft Brewery Collective, LLC v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n