Podcasts about Religious Freedom Restoration Act

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

Every remaining state without a RFRA law should follow suit and codify religious freedom protections from state overreach. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

In this episode of Right to Life Radio, John Gerardi and Jonathan Keller tackle the topic of the day: defunding Planned Parenthood, unpacking the complexities of federal funding through Medicaid and the potential effects of a Republican-led reconciliation bill. They explore a Supreme Court case that could allow states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, discuss the organization's reported financial struggles, and critique the abortion movement's priorities. With sharp commentary and a touch of humor, the episode offers a pro-life perspective on a contentious topic.

It's Wednesday, April 9th, A.D. 2025. 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 and Adam McManus Ugandan Muslim husband kills newly converted Christian wife A Muslim man in Uganda stabbed his wife to death after she converted to Christianity last month. Forty-one-year-old Nasiimu Mirembe was the mother of six children. She put her faith in Christ on March 21st after hearing the Gospel from a friend. On March 23rd, she attended a church service for the first time. Tragically, her husband attacked her on her way home from church.  Mirembe's friend told Morning Star News, “Immediately he started slapping his wife. I started screaming and shouting for help. [He] then removed a long knife and started cutting her with it.” She died from her wounds the next day. Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints.” Church attendance up in United Kingdom A new report from the Bible Society found that church attendance is growing in the United Kingdom. Twelve percent of adults in England and Wales attended church at least monthly last year, up from 8% in 2018. Young people, especially young men, are leading the growth. Sixteen percent of 18 to 24-year-olds attend church monthly, up from 4% in 2018. Church attendance by young men grew from 4% to 21% over the same time period.  In Titus 2:1, 2, and 6, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience. … Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded.” Supreme Court blocks reinstatement of fired federal workers for now In the United States, the Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked an order that the Trump administration rehire 16,000 federal employees who were let go in mass firings aimed at dramatically downsizing the federal government, reports The Associated Press. The justices acted in the administration's emergency appeal of a ruling by a federal judge in California ordering that the probationary employees at six federal agencies be reinstated while a lawsuit plays out because their firings didn't follow federal law. Appearing on NBC News, legal analyst Danny Cevallos spoke to the practical fallout of the Supreme Court decision on the 16,000 federal workers who were let go. CEVALLOS: “When it comes to these probationary workers, functionally, if they're not being reinstated for a certain period of time, they're going to go find other work. So, this is one of those situations where a stay in this case may eventually lead to them just going off and getting other jobs, and they may never return, even if they someday are entitled to return.” President Trump boosts coal production President Donald Trump signed an executive order yesterday to boost coal  as an energy source. The order allows some older coal-fired power plants to stay online instead of being retired. This comes as data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric cars increase the demand for electricity in the U.S. The order also removes some restrictions on coal mining and encourages coal leasing on U.S. lands. Georgia passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act Last Friday, Georgia became the 30th state to enact a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act protects people from unjust government punishment for living out their faith. Greg Chafuen with Alliance Defending Freedom said, “Our laws should protect the freedom of every person to live and worship according to their faith. This law provides a sensible balancing test for courts to use when reviewing government policies that infringe upon the religious freedom rights of Georgians.” IRS ends investigation into church praying for school board candidate First Liberty Institute announced Monday that the Internal Revenue Service ended its investigation of a church in Florida recently. New Way Church in Palm Coast, Florida came under investigation after praying for a local school board candidate during a service last year. Jeremy Dys with First Liberty Institute said, “We are pleased that the IRS not only closed its investigation, but affirmed that this church's activities of praying for political candidates during its church service do not threaten its tax-exempt status.” Planned Parenthood closes 3 Michigan abortion mills Planned Parenthood of Michigan announced last Wednesday that it will close three locations in the state. Appearing on Fox 2 in Detroit, Michigan Planned Parenthood President Paula Greear was upset. GREEAR: “A lot of people have reached out to me, and they are angry and they are hurt. And you know what? We are too!” The abortion group blamed funding cuts by the Trump administration.  GREEAR: “They are trying to do everything to defund Planned Parenthood.” Young pro-lifers have been praying outside one of the abortion mills for years. Kevin Weed, the headmaster for St. Michael High School in Petoskey, Michigan, told CatholicVote, “Many people are attributing the closing to the Trump administration's cutting of funds, which I'm sure makes a big difference. Our students have been praying there, and those prayers have been answered. However that came to be, we're just happy that this facility is closed.” Space flight around Earth's poles And finally, a cryptocurrency billionaire and his crew of three people completed the first space flight around the Earth's poles last week. Chun Wang is a Chinese-born investor of Malta, the island country located in the Mediterranean Sea between Sicily and North Africa. The bitcoin billionaire funded the mission aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule.  The crew launched last Monday and returned Friday. Together, they accomplished the first crewed orbit over the north and south poles. Before the launch, Chun said, “My own journey has been shaped by lifelong curiosity and a fascination with pushing boundaries. As a kid, I used to stare at a blank white space at the bottom of a world map and wonder what's out there. … We hope our mission will further inspire later people to do the same.” Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, April 9th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free  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.

Sponsored by WatersEdge: Invest with purpose? With WatersEdge Kingdom Investments, you can! We offer great rates that multiply your resources and build churches. Learn more at: https://bit.ly/3CxWtFzTop headlines for Tuesday, April 8, 2025We delve into Idaho's latest measures to uphold women's-only spaces, examining the implications for transgender rights and safety. Next, we turn to Florida, where the IRS has concluded a high-profile investigation into a church accused of jeopardizing its tax-exempt status, shedding light on the intersection of religion and tax law. Plus, we discuss Georgia's newly enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act, making it the 30th state to pass such legislation, and explore how this trend influences the broader conversation on religious liberty nationwide. 00:11 Idaho expands ban on trans-identified men in women's spaces01:10 Texas AG sues San Antonio over funding ‘abortion tourism'02:02 IRS ends probe of church that prayed for school board candidate02:56 Sponsor Message WatersEdge03:54 Georgia becomes 30th state with Religious Freedom Restoration Act04:42 Most immigrants vulnerable to deportation are Christian: report05:41 YWAM responds to allegations of spiritual abuse: 'deeply sorry'06:32 'House of David,' 'The Chosen' among Amazon Prime's top 10 showsSubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsIdaho expands ban on trans-identified men in women's spaces | PoliticsTexas AG sues San Antonio over funding ‘abortion tourism' | PoliticsIRS ends probe of church that prayed for school board candidate | U.S.Georgia becomes 30th state with Religious Freedom Restoration Act | PoliticsMost immigrants vulnerable to deportation are Christian: report | PoliticsYWAM responds to allegations of spiritual abuse: 'deeply sorry' | World'House of David,' 'The Chosen' among Amazon Prime's top 10 shows | Entertainment

In this episode, Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway discuss the current legislative session in Georgia, focusing on the Reigns Act, the Promise Scholarship funding, and the ongoing debates surrounding school choice and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They express their anxieties about the budget negotiations and the political theatrics that have characterized this session, while also emphasizing the importance of legislative oversight and the implications of proposed bills on education and religious freedoms. In this conversation, Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway delve into the implications of the Pastor Protection Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Georgia, discussing its limitations and the ongoing debate surrounding anti-discrimination laws. They explore the societal pressures that prevent discrimination, the political fallout from recent legislative actions, and the controversy over taxpayer funding for gender transition surgeries for felons. The discussion also touches on the impact of tariffs on trade and the precedent set by presidential powers in declaring emergencies.

Georgia lawmakers made big moves this week pushing forward the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a ban on cell phones for students in K-8,and a pay raise for Governor Brian Kemp. Meanwhile, a state House committee is also hearing a proposal to ban all abortions in Georgia, but that measure has opponents on both sides for different reasons. Plus, we examine another new federal slashing plan that cuts jobs from the Atlanta-based CDC. And we interview the new head of the Southeast's department of the Environmental Protection Agency. And how the dismantling of the Department of Education could eliminate a farmworker program in Georgia. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Peach Pundit, hosts Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway discuss a range of topics legislative updates on speed zone cameras, tort reform, the Promise Scholarship, and the implications of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They also explore the future of transportation with EVTOL technology and share insights from Scot's experience at the Georgia Supreme Court. The conversation emphasizes the importance of engagement with listeners and supporters in the political landscape of Georgia.

The conversation covers a range of political topics, including the current state of global leadership, economic concerns related to tariffs and trade, and the challenges of childcare with State Senator Brian Strickland. The speakers discuss bipartisan efforts to address these issues, the implications of the death penalty, and the introduction of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Additionally, they touch on the controversial use of speed cameras and the political rumors surrounding upcoming elections.

In the years before the signing of the U.S. Constitution, framers like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were vocal about the idea that a person's civil rights should not depend on their religious opinions. They believed everyone should be free to profess and argue for any view on matters of religion and that no one's legal rights should depend on those views.   Their words laid the foundation for the First Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson described as “a wall between the separation of church and state.” Since then, several attempts have been made at the federal level to expand these protections. For example, in 1993, Congress adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997.   More recently, states responded by passing their own versions of this law despite Constitutional protections for religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. Some believe the states' actions were thinly veiled responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling requiring all states to legalize same-sex marriage and recognize same-sex unions from other states.   These legal battles over religious freedom aren't isolated incidents. They impact many parts of U.S. society, including the workplace. Increasingly, more employees are bringing their faith into the workplace, expecting greater accommodations. Research shows that religious discrimination is growing faster than claims of gender or racial discrimination at work. Recognizing the U.S. workforce is composed of people who hold many different faith and non-faith beliefs, it begs the question:   Does faith belong at work?   To help us explore this big question, I'm thrilled to introduce you to Jelisa Dallas, CEO of Go Brace LLC. Jelisa equips individuals and organizations with the emotional intelligence required to break barriers, bolster belief, and build behaviors that optimize life for true belonging. Jelisa has a background in education and has developed resilience programming for nonprofit organizations, historically underrepresented communities, and for-profit and public institutions.   During our conversation, you'll: Discover how to cultivate “true belonging” for all employees, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Learn why religious discrimination is rising and access practical strategies to help organizations minimize risk. Gain insights to respect personal religious beliefs while limiting the risks of creating a hostile environment for those with different beliefs by focusing on organizational values.   This conversation is designed to support visionary leaders like you and those on their way to joining us. Savor this insightful talk, and if you're looking for more ways to connect with inspiring leaders like Jelisa, be sure to join the Belonging Membership Community. This community of practice is committed to putting our values of belonging, collective care, and collaboration into action. Members have the unique opportunity to connect with guests like Jelisa for 1:1 laser coaching sessions.   Join the Belonging Movement by subscribing to our newsletter: www.rhodesperry.com/subscribe Learn more about Go Brave LLC: https://jelisadallas.com/ Thanks for growing our #BelongingMovement!

In this episode, Joe interviews Veronica Lightning Horse Perez: therapist, speaker, author, activist, and co-chief proponent for the Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022 (Prop 122); and Sean McAllister: attorney specializing in the regulatory, health care, business, and religious freedom aspects of psychedelic medicines, and one of the drafters of Prop 122. This episode was recorded live at the Plant Medicine Cafe in Denver, CO – which served as an unofficial Prop 122 headquarters – and cohosted by Meaghan Len, co-founder of the U.S.' first ayahuasca church, Sanctuary of the Sovereign Heart. They dive into the details of Prop 122 and discuss why it's the most freeing legislation we've seen, but also very complicated in the clash between an expensive regulated side and a risky and ambiguous decrim side. While the implementation process continues, they've learned that there is still a huge need for public education, and that one of the most important tasks now is to be hyper aware of how legislators will try to change what people already agreed on. They discuss: The Federal vs. state legality issues we still see even after such sweeping legislation The huge gap in understanding why Indigenous communities are upset and why they need to be included in all discussions The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the complications of religion when many of us simply feel spiritual The natural vs. synthetic fallacy and the future of churches offering a synthetic sacrament The ontological shock many have after a big experience and why churches and community are needed to help guide people and more!  For links, head to the show notes page.

Today, I'm joined by Juan Pablo Capello, co-founder and former CEO of New Life Health, a telehealth ketamine therapy service launched in 2021. Juan Pablo has raised concerns about low standards of care in telehealth ketamine, making this a timely conversation about the opportunities and challenges in this growing industry. In our discussion, Juan Pablo shares how his early experiences with Wachuma inspired his interest in psychedelics for mental health. We address key topics, including the potential for ketamine addiction, the impact of Matthew Perry's death on the psychedelic community, and the surprising role of insurance companies in shaping telehealth standards. We also explore the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Juan Pablo's work with the Eagle Condor Church, and how integration is best approached as a community effort. Juan Pablo is a seasoned entrepreneur who co-founded a leading Latin American crowdfunding platform and a creative campus in Miami's Wynwood Arts District. As the former CEO of New Life Health, now part of Beckley Waves, he continues to engage in work that bridges innovation, care, and community in the psychedelic space. Timestamps (06:00) Juan Pablo's background in Chile and his experience with Wachuma (11:30) Why ketamine is used in mental health treatment (21:00) Is ketamine addictive? (25:00) Matthew Perry's death as a wake-up call for the ketamine community (36:00) The surprising regulatory influence of insurance companies (41:00) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Eagle Condor Church (53:00) The lack of integration in traditional psychedelic therapy contexts (57:00) Integration as a community-driven process Links Juan Pablo Cappello - PAG Law PLLC Matthew Perry's Death Shows Ketamine Industry Needs a Wakeup Call Nue Life | At Home Ketamine Therapy

Mat Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith - Freedom and Freedom's Call.--Discussion began with Mat informing listeners that Liberty Counsel is celebrating 35 years as an organization. In light of that, Mat looked back at some critical cases that Liberty Counsel was a part of that have helped Americans retain their religious freedom.--Next up was news concerning Iran who recently launched hundreds of missiles at Israel. Mat believes that Israel must take decisive action. He thinks they will and that this latest attack by Iran opens the door for Israel to take out the nuclear reactors and cripple Iran. He sees Israel as a liberator for those who want out from under the ayatollahs and terror groups, even many in Iran who want to see such regimes toppled.--Mat sees VP Kamala Harris as left of left -radical on abortion and LGBTQ- yet he believes Governor Tim Walz may be even further to the left. Mat reminded listeners how Harris raided the home of David Daleiden to stop the videos in 2015-2016 regarding the trafficking of human body parts by Planned Parenthood from being delivered to the public. She wants to pass a bill that would allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, wants to pass the so-called -Equality Act- that would repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, she's the -Border Czar- yet never really visited the border while allowing many illegals to cross the border.

Mat Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith & Freedom and Freedom's Call.Discussion began with Mat informing listeners that Liberty Counsel is celebrating 35 years as an organization. In light of that, Mat looked back at some critical cases that Liberty Counsel was a part of that have helped Americans retain their religious freedom.Next up was news concerning Iran who recently launched hundreds of missiles at Israel. Mat believes that Israel must take decisive action. He thinks they will and that this latest attack by Iran opens the door for Israel to take out the nuclear reactors and cripple Iran. He sees Israel as a liberator for those who want out from under the ayatollahs and terror groups, even many in Iran who want to see such regimes toppled.Mat sees VP Kamala Harris as left of left (radical on abortion and LGBTQ) yet he believes Governor Tim Walz may be even further to the left. Mat reminded listeners how Harris raided the home of David Daleiden to stop the videos in 2015-2016 regarding the trafficking of human body parts by Planned Parenthood from being delivered to the public. She wants to pass a bill that would allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, wants to pass the so-called "Equality Act" that would repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, she's the "Border Czar" yet never really visited the border while allowing many illegals to cross the border.

Mat Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith - Freedom and Freedom's Call.--Discussion began with Mat informing listeners that Liberty Counsel is celebrating 35 years as an organization. In light of that, Mat looked back at some critical cases that Liberty Counsel was a part of that have helped Americans retain their religious freedom.--Next up was news concerning Iran who recently launched hundreds of missiles at Israel. Mat believes that Israel must take decisive action. He thinks they will and that this latest attack by Iran opens the door for Israel to take out the nuclear reactors and cripple Iran. He sees Israel as a liberator for those who want out from under the ayatollahs and terror groups, even many in Iran who want to see such regimes toppled.--Mat sees VP Kamala Harris as left of left -radical on abortion and LGBTQ- yet he believes Governor Tim Walz may be even further to the left. Mat reminded listeners how Harris raided the home of David Daleiden to stop the videos in 2015-2016 regarding the trafficking of human body parts by Planned Parenthood from being delivered to the public. She wants to pass a bill that would allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, wants to pass the so-called -Equality Act- that would repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, she's the -Border Czar- yet never really visited the border while allowing many illegals to cross the border.

Mat Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith & Freedom and Freedom's Call.Discussion began with Mat informing listeners that Liberty Counsel is celebrating 35 years as an organization. In light of that, Mat looked back at some critical cases that Liberty Counsel was a part of that have helped Americans retain their religious freedom.Next up was news concerning Iran who recently launched hundreds of missiles at Israel. Mat believes that Israel must take decisive action. He thinks they will and that this latest attack by Iran opens the door for Israel to take out the nuclear reactors and cripple Iran. He sees Israel as a liberator for those who want out from under the ayatollahs and terror groups, even many in Iran who want to see such regimes toppled.Mat sees VP Kamala Harris as left of left (radical on abortion and LGBTQ) yet he believes Governor Tim Walz may be even further to the left. Mat reminded listeners how Harris raided the home of David Daleiden to stop the videos in 2015-2016 regarding the trafficking of human body parts by Planned Parenthood from being delivered to the public. She wants to pass a bill that would allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, wants to pass the so-called "Equality Act" that would repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, she's the "Border Czar" yet never really visited the border while allowing many illegals to cross the border.

Psychedelics in palliative care has become an exciting new framework for people looking to ease anxiety and embrace spirituality, but the concept is not as simple as just providing a substance. In this episode, Joe interviews Livi Joy: Director of Health and Safety, Existential Palliative Ministry Lead Facilitator, and more at Sacred Garden Community (SGC). As she screens applicants for SGC (and Beckley Retreats), she talks a lot about the process and the safety measures that are absolutely necessary when using psychedelics in palliative care – especially under the framework of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Does the patient have at least one strong support person? Do they need to start or increase therapy? Does their home need to be rearranged due to possible fall risks? How will certain medications muffle their experience? Are they truly physically healthy enough to be able to handle a powerful journey? And also, is the sacrament always necessary? She discusses: How preparation questions for a journey are often in line with preparation for death Why it's important to provide these experiences for people far from the dying process itself What Sacred Garden's core tenant that everyone can have an experience with the divine means to her Atheism and the complications that arise when discussing spirituality and consciousness: Who's really in charge? How psychedelics can help with understanding and preparing for death, but our culture is too death-phobic too embrace it and more! For links, head to the show notes page: 

* Guest: Pete Sepp - President of National Tax Payers Union - (NTU) is the Voice of America's Taxpayers, mobilizing elected officials and citizens on behalf of tax relief and reform - NTU.org * NTU Suggests Reforms to House Energy and Commerce Privacy Bill. * Tell Your Senators: Taxpayers Need Relief Now - The Tax Relief for Families and Workers Act would benefit American taxpayers and stimulate economic investment. * Agriculture Committee Should Make Significant Changes to Farm Bill - Bryan Riley, NTU.com * NTU Urges “YES” on H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act - Nicholas Johns, NTU.org * Catholic Group Sues Biden Administration Over 'Blatant Violation of the First Amendment' - Jack Davis, WesternJournal.com * The Knights of Columbus are fighting the Biden administration so a Catholic Mass can be said over the honored dead on Memorial Day at Poplar Grove National Cemetery in Petersburg, Virginia. “The policy and the decision blocking the Knights of Columbus from continuing their long-standing religious tradition is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” John Moran, Partner at McGuireWoods, said in a statement. * The National Park Service is way out of line. This is the kind of unlawful discrimination and censorship RFRA and the First Amendment were enacted to prevent,” said Roger Byron, senior counsel at First Liberty. * We filed suit against the National Park Service. We'll be in court on Thursday. Please join us in praying for a quick and favorable resolution. * The motion notes that federal policy lumps religious services with demonstrations and bans on the grounds they could be disruptive, violating the atmosphere of a cemetery.

Bible2School is on a mission to redefine how America thinks about religion during the public school day. ‘Separation of church and state' does not mean our children need to leave their faith at the front door of the school. In this previous episode, we heard from Sr. Counsel Matt Sharp from Alliance Defending Freedom, who discussed some of the rights students have to express their faith in public school. Now, this conversation zeros in on 5 specific ways we can encourage our kids to express their faith with others while in school! As we learn to teach our kids how to openly express their faith with others, they'll start growing into leaders who make a lasting impact for God's kingdom on earth! There's nothing more inspirational than hearing stories of bold faith in action, especially in the lives of children. Are you ready to hear 5 ways kids can express their faith with others during their school day? Let's go!   MATT SHARP serves as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, where he is the director of the Center for Legislative Advocacy and focuses on state and local legislative matters. Since joining ADF in 2010, Sharp has authored federal and state legislation, regularly provides testimony and legal analysis on how proposed legislation will impact constitutional freedoms, and advises governors, legislators, and state and national policy organizations on the importance of laws and policies that protect First Amendment rights. He has testified before the United States Congress on the importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sharp has also worked on important cases advancing religious freedom and free speech. He has won cases upholding the rights of students to form religious clubs, invite classmates to church, and even perform a religious song at a school talent show. He authored an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of nearly 9,000 students, parents, and community members asking the Court to uphold students' right to privacy against government intrusion. Sharp earned his J.D. in 2006 from the Vanderbilt University School of Law. A member of the bar in Georgia and Tennessee, he is also admitted to practice in several federal courts.   Resources Alliance Defending Freedom Website Alliance Defending Freedom on FB Alliance Defending Freedom on IG Alliance Defending Freedom on X Bible2School's FREE Guide: God Was NOT Taken Out Of Public Schools!   Next Steps Episode #138 - 4 Ways Children Can Express Their Faith in Public School  Share this episode with a friend Engage with us on FB and IG

According to a 2023 Bible2School study of parents with children attending public school, 94% feel it's important that their children express their faith while in school, but only 68% feel that they can do this legally. Matt Sharp, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, aims to equip parents to embolden their kids by discussing 4 ways they can express their faith in public school. As we learn about our kids' religious rights, we can help their confidence grow so their boldness will inspire others to follow their lead and make a kingdom impact on earth as it is in heaven! Ready to hear 4 ways your child can express their faith in public school? Let's go! MATT SHARP serves as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, where he is the director of the Center for Legislative Advocacy and focuses on state and local legislative matters. Since joining ADF in 2010, Sharp has authored federal and state legislation, regularly provides testimony and legal analysis on how proposed legislation will impact constitutional freedoms, and advises governors, legislators, and state and national policy organizations on the importance of laws and policies that protect First Amendment rights. He has testified before the United States Congress on the importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sharp has also worked on important cases advancing religious freedom and free speech. He has won cases upholding the rights of students to form religious clubs, invite classmates to church, and even perform a religious song at a school talent show. He authored an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of nearly 9,000 students, parents, and community members asking the Court to uphold students' right to privacy against government intrusion. Sharp earned his J.D. in 2006 from the Vanderbilt University School of Law. A member of the bar in Georgia and Tennessee, he is also admitted to practice in several federal courts. Resources Alliance Defending Freedom WEBSITE Alliance Defending Freedom on FB Alliance Defending Freedom on IG Alliance Defending Freedom on X Bible2School's FREE Guide: God Was NOT Taken Out Of Public Schools! Next Steps Share this episode with a friend Engage with us on FB & IG Rate & Review on your favorite podcast channel

The Feminist Buzzkills are in FULL rage mode this week as our heads are still spinning from Arizona's latest assault on people with a uterus. The ghouls on Arizona's Supreme Court ruled that an 1864 abortion ban will be enforced in less than TWO WEEKS. Plus, what does it mean when three judges agree that Indiana's near-total abortion ban does in fact violate Hoosiers' religious freedom? And the anti-abobo clowns Ohio try to push a whole new pile of nonsense on their constituents. Listen to Moji and me drag it for the stank filth that it is.  Need all the deets? We got you. Need to let your primal scream out? We got you on that too.GUEST ROLL CALL: Dr. Tracy Weitz, Professor of Sociology and Director for the Center on Health, Risk, and Society at American University in DC is Buzzkilling with us! She's THE SMARTEST person we know when it comes to all things abortion – data, shitty policies and all. *chef's kiss.*PLUS! Hilarious comedian and award-winning writer, Laurie Kilmartin, who you probably recognize from “The Late Late Show with James Corden” is here! We shoot the shit with her on her new special “Cis Woke Grief Slut,” saying “abortion” on stage, disrupting the writers' room boys club, and more! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our five-part OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead @LizzWinsteadMoji Alawode-El @MojiLocks SPECIAL GUESTS: Tracy Weitz IG: @Tracy_Weitz / TW: @TracyWeitzLaurie Kilmartin IG/TW: @AnyLaurie16 ROE-CABULARY: RFRA - Religious Freedom Restoration Act NEWS DUMP:Alabama Doctors Deny Woman an Abortion Despite Fetal Anomaly Exception: ‘It's Not a Black and White Issue'Meet the Republican Attorneys General Wreaking Havoc on Abortion AccessArizona Can Enforce an 1864 Law Criminalizing Nearly All Abortions, Court SaysIndiana Appeals Court Uses Mike Pence's Religious Liberty Law to Block Abortion BanOhio Bill Would Penalize Governments for Supporting Abortion ServicesOhio Local Government Fund GUEST LINKS: The Turnaway StudyAmerican University: Tracy Weitz Laurie Kilmartin WebsiteLaurie's Special: ”Cis Woke Grief Slut”The Jackie and Laurie Show EPISODE LINKS:“No One Asked You” Doc in MinneapolisImpact with Kristin Hady4/16 Action: How to Bust Abortion Stigma Like a BossSIGN: Mifepristone PetitionBUY: Reproductive Rights Wall Art!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

Top headlines for Friday, April 5, 2024In this episode, a shocking incident where a hospital's grave mistake led to an unwanted abortion, sparking outrage and heartbreak. We also explore the controversy surrounding the University of South Carolina's women's basketball coach, who is under fire from an atheist group for publicly expressing her faith after a triumphant tournament run. Lastly, we discuss Iowa's recent step to safeguard religious freedom rights with the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by Governor Kim Reynolds.Subscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsMedics perform abortion on wrong woman after hospital mix-up | World NewsSpeculation grows amid search for pastor's missing wife | U.S. NewsFFRF files complaint over basketball coach's 'proselytizing' | Sports NewsGateway Seminary announces new president to replace Jeff Iorg | Education NewsSBC lost over 1,200 churches in 2022, data shows | Church & Ministries NewsReligious Freedom Restoration Act becomes law in Iowa | Politics News4 pro-life protesters found guilty of FACE Act violations | Politics News

Iowa Republicans send 'religious freedom restoration' bill to governor's deskIowa Public Radio, By Katarina Sostaric, on March 1, 2024https://www.iowapublicradio.org/state-government-news/2024-03-01/iowa-republicans-send-religious-freedom-restoration-bill-to-governors-deskThe discussion revolves around the contentious issue of whether religions should be banned in light of recent events highlighting discriminatory practices under the guise of religious freedom. The proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Iowa has sparked concerns that it could legalize discrimination against LGBTQ individuals under the pretext of protecting religious beliefs. Critics argue that such legislation distorts the concept of religious freedom, potentially infringing on civil rights and equality.Participants in the conversation express strong opinions regarding the perceived erosion of human rights in favor of religious beliefs. They decry the trend of prioritizing religious freedoms over individual rights, citing examples of discrimination in various sectors such as healthcare, employment, and education. There's a shared sentiment that these legislative efforts represent a dangerous trend towards theocracy and undermine the separation of church and state.The dialogue delves into the complexities of bigotry, acknowledging its existence but also highlighting its societal roots. Participants suggest that bigotry is often a learned behavior fueled by fear and scarcity, perpetuated by societal structures such as capitalism. They emphasize the importance of fostering critical thinking and empathy to combat bigotry rather than resorting to bans or prohibitions.While some express frustration with the persistence of discriminatory practices, others advocate for a more nuanced approach focused on education and dialogue. They argue that banning religion would be counterproductive and antithetical to principles of freedom and tolerance. Instead, they advocate for promoting secular values and encouraging rational discourse to address harmful beliefs and practices.Overall, the conversation reflects a deep concern for the protection of individual rights and the need to confront bigotry and discrimination in all its forms. While participants express frustration with the current state of affairs, they remain hopeful that through education, dialogue, and advocacy, progress can be made towards a more inclusive and equitable society.The Non-Prophets, Episode 23.12.4 featuring Scott Dickie, Infidel64, Richard Allen and Jason Friedman

It's Thursday, March 28th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldView.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Persecution continues against independent Chinese church International Christian Concern reports police in China raided a church earlier this month for the second time in recent weeks. Police arrested 18 members of the Fuyang Maizhong Reformed Church in the Anhui Province. The arrests included a church elder, named Chang Shun. Officials harassed church members as they were in a prayer meeting and confiscated phones and computers.  The church has notably refused to join the Three-Self Church which is state controlled.  China is the 19th most difficult country worldwide in which to be a Christian. Thailand House approves homosexual faux marriage In Thailand, lawmakers approved a bill to legalize faux homosexual marriage. The country's lower house of parliament approved the measure 400 to 10 yesterday. Thailand's Senate and king must also approve it. If the bill goes into effect, Thailand would become the third Asian country and the first Southeast Asian one to legalize vile passions.  Worldwide fertility rates declining A new study by The Lancet evaluated global fertility rates. Outside of Africa, the report projects every region will see fertility rates fall below the replacement birth rate of 2.1 by 2040. Regions that have already fallen below the replacement rate include South Asia, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.  The U.S. fertility rate has fallen by half since 1980 and is expected to drop between 1 and 1.3 this century. Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman, former VP candidate, died Joe Lieberman, a longtime Democratic senator from Connecticut who became the first Jewish-American to be nominated on a major party's ticket, died Wednesday, reports Politico.com. He was 82. Lieberman's family stated that he died “due to complications from a fall.”  Halfway through his 24-year Senate career, Lieberman was chosen as Al Gore's running mate for the 2000 presidential election. The ticket lost one of the closest elections in American history to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. On December 12, 2012, he delivered his farewell speech from the Senate floor. And he challenged his Senate colleagues to lead toward fiscal solvency. At the time of Senator Lieberman's speech in 2012, the country was $16.3 trillion in debt. Today, we are $34.6 trillion in debt. It has doubled in just 12 years. The need for fiscal solvency has never been greater! West Virginia, Utah, and Idaho passed religious liberty laws Several states in the U.S. approved religious freedom measures. Last Friday, West Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice signed Senate Bill 503 into law. It would protect student groups, including Christian ones, that require members and leaders to hold to its beliefs. Last Thursday, Utah's Republican Governor Spencer Cox approved Senate Bill 150. The measure would put protections in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into state law. And, on Monday, Idaho's Republican Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 578. It would protect faith-based adoption agencies from government discrimination. Pastors doing better than general public A new study by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that pastors are faring better than the general public.  Researchers noted, “The survey shows that a majority of clergy seem quite healthy. The overall level of health and wellness exhibited by clergy is impressive–even given the level of the pastoral discontent uncovered in our earlier report.” Pastors scored higher than the public the most when asked about understanding their life purpose.  In Philippians 3:14, the Apostle Paul wrote, “I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” Credit card debt soared to $1.1 trillion Credit card debt in the U.S. reached $1.13 trillion during the fourth quarter of 2023. That's an increase of $143 billion compared to 2022. Credit card debt reached $1.3 trillion as of January. That averages to $10,848 per household.  WalletHub noted that credit card debt is nearing its peak from 2008, saying, “After adjusting for inflation, total credit card debt in January 2024 was actually 10% below the all-time record for the month but still roughly 6% higher than last year.” Retailers giving employees Easter off Several big retailers are giving employees the day off this coming Resurrection Sunday. TJX, which runs TJ Max and Marshalls, will close its stores this Sunday. A spokesman said, “We consider ourselves an associate-friendly company and we are pleased to give associates the time to enjoy Easter with family and friends.” Warehouse stores like Costco and Sam's Club are also closing this Sunday. Other retailers closing on Easter include Target, Publix, and Macy's department stores. 40 Days for Life saved 266 babies since Valentine's Day And finally, the 40 Days for Life campaigns report saving 266 babies from abortion since February 14th. The group shared recent stories of life from around the world. In Boston, one pro-life volunteer used a photo of a baby spared from abortion last year to help a mother change her mind about a late-term abortion. The picture has helped save six babies this year. And in Glasgow, Scotland, volunteers held a sign offering help for parents to decide to keep their baby. The local team said, “All Heaven rejoices! This goes to show you how life is held in a precarious balance.” Proverbs 24:11 says, “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Thursday, March 28th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe 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.

According to a recent Barna study, pastors are becoming slightly more comfortable with Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool for some uses in the church but remain wary of its role when it comes to personal relationships. Iowa and Utah are the latest states to pass legislation protecting religious freedom from governmental intrusion, with related legislation active in Georgia and four other states. And, maybe you're interested in using a commentary to help in your study of God's Word. A commentary is a book written by a scholar that provides additional perspective and background information on a Bible passage or topic.

Thursday concluded 'crossover day' in the Georgia General Assembly, so I spent a little time reviewing what did and didn't float from one chamber to the other, & eavesdrop on some 'night of' interviews from GPB's "Lawmakers" for some insights from lawmakers beneath the gold dome. While listening in, it sounds like there's a realization from Georgia Senate Republicans that their new-fangled subpoena-powered committee will only be empowered to suggest new legislation in reaction to any findings vs having the power to remove a D.A. they don't care for. Also, hear Rep. Stacy Evans blister HB 1105 (the anti-immigrant legislation hastily concocted in recent days. She rightly points out that the thin veil over this bill doesn't hide the fact that women's safety is never a priority when it comes to enacting common-sense gun bills into law. Jeff Graham, executive director at Georgia Equality, joined me to discuss the very real possibility that SB180 - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - could become law, enshrining bigotry shrouded in "religious rights." We discuss the other wins and losses his organization and its allies racked up this session so far.

A religious freedom bill is passing through the Utah Legislature this session that half of the United States has already taken on. SB150, sponsored by Senator Todd Weiler, is asking for stronger protections of religious practices and stricter rules for the government when infringing on them. When this bill first surfaced 30 years ago, it passed with flying, bipartisan colors. Now, it's facing opposition from people who fear it would allow citizens to ignore the law under the guise of religion. How will it go over in Utah? Joining Boyd from the Sutherland Institute to talk about his recent piece in Deseret New, Bill Duncan.

This is Stephen Colbert from the Gazette Digital News Desk, and I'm here with your update for Tuesday, January 2nd, 2024.According to the National Weather Service, today's weather will be mostly cloudy, with a high near 35. Tonight will remain mostly cloudy, with a low around 25.Shootout with Cedar Rapids police leaves suspect deadCedar Rapids police officers responding to reports of a drive-by shooting Monday morning were fired on repeatedly by the driver of the fleeing suspected vehicle — until five officers returned fire and killed the driver, state investigators said.The names of the officers involved and the person killed were not released Monday by the state Division of Criminal Investigation, which is investigating the shooting. None of the officers was injured.According to the DCI, the episode unfolded during a police chase that went on for miles on the city's east side as the driver fired at pursuing officers on at least three occasions.Iowa outdoor enthusiasts went on the year's first hikeIt was a good day for long-haired dogs, children with puffy coats and Eastern Iowa friends from different cities who met to enjoy nature on the first day of 2024.Hikers of all ages met at the lodge at noon and took off along the Cedar Cliff trail, which winds along the bluff of the Cedar River. Some people strode the full 2-mile, hilly trail, while others stopped at the gazebo to chat with Ranger Luke Wagner. A couple families with small children spent an hour on the riverbank sandbar, digging with sticks and watching the ducks huddled in the frigid water.They all met back at the lodge for cocoa, hot dogs and s'mores roasted over a fire in the massive stone hearth of the 1930s building.Iowa Republicans look to broaden religious freedomIowa's Republican leaders say they are not planning to expand on the list of laws passed last year addressing conservative social issues and regulating gender and sexuality issues in schools, but lawmakers may revive a push for religious liberty protections.State Sen. Dennis Guth, a Republican from Klemme, said Republicans are going to pursue a bill to strengthen religious liberty protections, mirroring the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The law, signed in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, requires that courts apply strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review, when considering cases where a person's religious liberty is burdened. It was passed as a reaction to a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that was seen as narrowing religious freedoms.

Welcome to the New Year.This is Stephen Schmidt from the Gazette Digital News Desk, and I'm here with your update for January 1, 2024.According to the National Weather Service, your New Year's Day weather in the Cedar Rapids area will be cloudy with a high near 33 degrees.We will have articles previewing the Iowa Legislative session in today's paper and beyond. Here are a few issues I pulled from our coverage.Most Iowa workers are taking home more money from their paychecks as the state collects less income tax — the result of recent tax cuts enacted by the Republican-majority statehouse.Those Republican lawmakers, along with advocates for limited taxes, want to continue cutting and reduce Iowans' taxes even more.The impact of those tax reductions, though, is beginning to show in the state's revenues. There essentially will be no revenue growth from the current state budget year to the next: overall state tax revenue is projected to be just shy of $11.5 billion in both the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years, according to the latest estimates from the state's three-member Revenue Estimating Conference, the panel that projects future state revenues.Before the recently enacted reductions, the state income tax produced nearly half of the state's tax revenue that it spends on such things as education, health care, public safety, infrastructure and the environment.When legislators return Jan. 8 to the Iowa Capitol for the 2024 session of the Iowa Legislature, Republican lawmakers plan to accelerate the state income tax reductions already on the books, with a possible eye toward gradually eliminating the tax altogether.“Financially here in Iowa, we're in the strongest position we've ever been in. And so that makes possible a conversation about expediting those cuts, bringing them up sooner — quicker — and getting those in place for Iowans,” Jack Whitver, the Republican Senate majority leader from Grimes, told the Gazette. Iowa's Republican leaders say they are not planning to expand on the list of laws passed last year addressing conservative social issues and regulating gender and sexuality issues in schools, but lawmakers say they may revive a push for religious liberty protections State Sen. Dennis Guth, a Republican from Klemme, told the Gazette that Republicans are going to pursue a bill to strengthen religious liberty protections mirroring the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The law, signed in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, requires that courts apply strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review, when considering cases where a person's religious liberty is burdened. It was passed as a reaction to a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that was seen as narrowing religious freedoms.The federal law applies only to the federal government, but at least two dozen other states have passed a version at the state level.Iowa Republicans have considered the bill several times in the past, but it has faced steep opposition from business groups that worried it would discourage people from living and working in the state.Sen. Guth said that the hope is that the business community will be less opposed to the legislation this time around now that similar bills have spread to more states nationwide.

Attorneys for the state and a group of anonymous women argued over abortion and the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA before a panel of appeals court judges yesterday. Half the country is now in a slightly warmer hardiness zone than they were a decade ago. These zones show an average of the coldest temperature on the coldest night every year for the past 30 years. The Indiana Department of Education says too many third graders who fail a statewide reading test are advancing to fourth grade. The IDOE is working on a new data visualization tool that shows where students are struggling the most. An Indianapolis program the city says will help communities build their infrastructure dream projects has reopened. Want to go deeper on the stories you hear on WFYI News Now? Visit wfyi.org/news and follow us on social media to get comprehensive analysis and local news daily. Subscribe to WFYI News Now wherever you get your podcasts. Today's episode of WFYI News Now was produced by Darian Benson, Abriana Herron, Drew Daudelin and Kendall Antron with support from Sarah Neal-Estes.

We look back at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its significance with Dean John Czarnetzky of Ave Maria School of Law, Tom Nash on exorcisms, Matthew Bunson with the latest on Germany and the Vatican, and Joseph and Monique Gonzalez tell the story of an ancient prophecy and its connection to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

We look back at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its significance with Dean John Czarnetzky of Ave Maria School of Law, Tom Nash on exorcisms, Matthew Bunson with the latest on Germany and the Vatican, and Joseph and Monique Gonzalez tell the story of an ancient prophecy and its connection to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

This year, we're celebrating 30 years of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy sponsored the bill and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. And today at First Liberty, we love the protections that RFRA is still providing for people of faith. For RFRA's anniversary, Kelly Shackelford joins us on this week's Live! to talk about the impact of this law on religious freedom. Kelly will share how this significant piece of legislation became law, discuss historic rulings that have come from it and update you on how RFRA continues to protect religious freedom today.

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC's website: BJConline.org/RFRA Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way's “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link. Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link. Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies. Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014. Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby's narrow victory   Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Podcasts: S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020) S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020) S3, Ep. 03: What's going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021) Video: Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA Resources from BJC on cases: Zubik v. Burwell (2016) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) Additional reading: Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015 Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014 RFRA's constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014 RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013 Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013 Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

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

Recently a delegation of Ukrainian interfaith leaders visited the US to plead for more support to defeat Russia. The war has brought leaders of different faiths together to protect religious freedom... which doesn't exist in Russian occupied areas. Boyd discusses the importance of religious liberty as a solution, 30 years after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed. 

Imagine Congress was considering a bill to protect “religious liberty.” Let's say the bill's author openly admitted his intention was to “allow maximum religious freedom.” Maybe he says he's concerned about attempted governmental restrictions on Christian religious expression in particular.  Now imagine what the reaction to such a proposal would be on “X,” formerly known as Twitter. Surely this would be labeled “Christian Nationalism.” Congress would be accused of trying to establish a theocracy.   What if I told you that bill was real, and that it was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that it was introduced by one Democratic Representative Chuck Schumer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton 30 years ago next month?  It's remarkable how quickly and dramatically the Overton Window has shifted in 30 years. It's important to remember that RFRA was widely supported and uncontroversial up until about five minutes ago. Christians shouldn't be ashamed or bullied into believing that the right to live out our faith is asking too much. The truth remains: Everyone benefits when the government respects “maximum religious freedom.”

Do you know the real story behind Juneteenth or the true essence of the 13th amendment's role in ending slavery? Join us as we debunk popular misconceptions and highlight the unfortunate reality of information control. We dive into how the spread of factually correct information has been met with opposition, masking the truths of our history. But that's not all. We delve into an incredible story that's unfolding in Addison, Texas. A church, established by former slaves, is now at the center of a property rights and religious liberties dispute. The Wessons, a resilient family dedicated to their faith, have been tirelessly negotiating to acquire a special use permit for their church. Yet, their efforts have been repeatedly rejected by the Addison City Council. We dissect the implications of their struggle, reflecting on the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the United States Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.Joining us for this compelling discussion is Jeremy Dys from First Liberty, who sheds light on the ongoing case and the importance of understanding the Constitution and its principles. We take a deep dive into the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, exploring their sponsors and significance. You might be surprised to hear was in support of religious liberty just a couple decades ago. We urge you to listen in, as we explore the intersection of faith, culture, and property rights. Let's challenge our understanding of religious liberty laws, property rights, and the basic principles of the Constitution. Tune in, and let's unravel these crucial issues together.Support the show

A Marietta man was killed in a shooting at an extended stay on South Cobb Drive and another arrested in the early morning incident Wednesday, according to the Cobb County Police Department. Ricky Haney died after being shot in the abdomen while in room 210 of the Cumberland Lodge Hotel.. Wilson said Clarence Mitchell of Marietta, told detectives at the scene an altercation occurred on Tuesday between him and Haney, leading to a separate altercation at 4:40 a.m. Wednesday. Wilson added that the second altercation allegedly led Mitchell to fire a single gunshot at Haney, who died of his injuries after being transported to the hospital. Mitchell was arrested by police and charged with felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, Wilson said. Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to contact the Cobb County Police Tip Hotline. State Senator Ed Setzler, a Republican from Acworth, filed legislation this week he said would expand state religious protections to mirror those imposed by a 1993 federal law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, SB 180, borrows from existing federal legislation on religious liberty, and renews the debate over constitutional rights nearly seven years after a previous bill was vetoed by former Governor Nathan Deal. Deal's decision to shoot down the legislation in 2016 came as LGBTQ rights activists said it would effectively legalize discrimination, as the bill would have allowed religious organizations to refuse service if doing so would violate their beliefs, among other measures. Georgia's business community — including the Cobb Chamber of Commerce — commended the veto by Deal. Setzler's new bill enters the General Assembly with significant Republican support out of the gate, as 24 other GOP state senators have already co-signed the measure. Cobb's two other Republican state senators — Kay Kirkpatrick and John Albers — were not listed as co-sponsors. Both told the MDJ they had not reviewed the bill before it was filed. Senator Setzler stated that the law isn't designed to favor one side or another in a question over religious expression, but to serve as a yardstick by which disputes can be evaluated in court. Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, said that while freedom of religion is a cornerstone of the country, it is imperative that in the protection of religion that the state not create license to discriminate. McEachern pulled away with a big second quarter, and held off a late Hillgrove comeback, to win 50-43 in the semifinals of the girls Region 3AAAAAAA basketball tournament at Harrison on Wednesday. The Indians outscored the Hawks 13-3 in the second quarter to take control, though Hillgrove eventually closed the gap in the second half and got within one late in the fourth quarter. The win earned McEachern a spot in the today's championship game against North Paulding. Hillgrove will face Harrison in the third-place game. Kalise Hill scored 21 points and Jada Bates added 15 points to lead the way for McEachern. Yolanda Floyd scored 16 points for Hillgrove. McEachern got its quest for a region championship off to a strong start with a 84-56 victory over Marietta in the semifinals of the Region 3 seven a basketball tournament at Harrison on Wednesday. The Indians will play Hillgrove in the championship game, while Marietta takes on Harrison in the third-place contest today. McEachern was boosted by a strong first quarter in which it outscored Marietta 21-12 and it continued to gradually build its lead the rest of the way. Rutgers commitment Ace Bailey led the way for McEachern with 31 points, while Moses Hipps contributed 14 points for the Indians. Jack Bourgeois scored 15 points on five 3-pointers, while Jaiden Mann added 13 points for Marietta. A Douglasville man has been arrested and charged with arson, accused by authorities of starting a fire in Mableton on Tuesday. Sebastian Perez was charged with first degree arson, a felony, according to Cobb County Fire and Emergency Services. As the Arnolds sought to retrieve some belongings from the home, Strong attacked Maurice Arnold with a hunting knife. As DeAndre Arnold attempted to stop Strong from continually stabbing Maurice Arnold, he was injured by Strong, the DA's office added. Police arrived at the scene and arrested Strong after talking to witnesses, according to the DA's office. Maurice Arnold later died from his injuries. Firefighters responded to a commercial fire in the 1300 block of Old Powder Springs Road shortly before 10 a.m. Tuesday. Perez is being held at the Cobb County jail. He is ineligible for bond. Two people were shot and injured at an apartment complex in south Cobb early Thursday, the Cobb County Police Department said. Officers responded to a reported shooting around 1:24 a.m. at the Premier Apartments, located off Riverside Parkway in the Six Flags area, police said. There, they found Phil Ray, 23, of Austell, and Jamari Payne, 19, of Woodstock, with gunshot wounds. One person had a gunshot wound to their left foot, while the other had gunshot wounds to their arm and torso, police said. Ray and Payne were both taken to a local hospital for treatment, where they remain in stable condition, according to police. Police continue to investigate the shooting. Anyone with information about it is asked to contact Cobb police. #CobbCounty #Georgia #LocalNews      -            -            -            -            -            The Marietta Daily Journal Podcast is local news for Marietta, Kennesaw, Smyrna, and all of Cobb County.             Subscribe today, so you don't miss an episode! MDJOnline            Register Here for your essential digital news.            https://www.chattahoocheetech.edu/  https://cuofga.org/ https://www.esogrepair.com/ https://www.drakerealty.com/           Find additional episodes of the MDJ Podcast here.             This Podcast was produced and published for the Marietta Daily Journal and MDJ Online by BG Ad Group   For more information be sure to visit https://www.bgpodcastnetwork.com            See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Civil Rights: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act compel a categorical exception to Title VII for claims of LGBT discrimination? - Argued: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:47:21 EDT

In this episode of Real Talk, KJK Student Defense Attorneys Susan Stone and Kristina Supler are joined by Eugene Volokh, a leading First Amendment Law Professor from UCLA.  Topics they discuss are related to the First Amendment.  The conversation includes how the internet impacts Free Speech, what responsibilities the Social Media Platforms have towards free speech, and how Free Speech impacts abortion, fraternities and sororities, as well as housing laws. Links: Eugene Volokh's Bio (UCLA Webpage) Free Speech Rules Videos:  https://FreeSpeechRules.org Show Notes: (02:40)  Has the internet changed the First Amendment on Free Speech (03:33)  How the Supreme Court views Online versus Offline Free Speech (04:41)  How Search Engines Can Reveal Your Court Case (06:08)  How Posting on Social Media Can Open You To a Lawsuit (06:44)  What Posts Can You Go to Jail For (08:05)  Do Social Platforms Have the Legal Right To Remove People From Their Platforms? (13:35)  Do Social Platforms Have the Legal Right to Curtail Hate Speech (15:40)  What is Doxing?  How Can Social Platforms Prevent This from Happening to You (16:58)  What Courts Say About Publishing Your Information (19:39)  Should Schools Police What Students Are Publishing (20:14)  What Rights to Public Universities Have For Policing Students Posts (21:39)  Private Universities: What Rights Do They Have For Policing Posts (23:07)  Can Admissions Departments Reject Students for Previous Posts (25:33)  How First Amendment Protections Extend to Clothing (26:20)  How a Toy Gun Can Land a Student In Hot Water (28:16)  Students Today and Views on the First Amendment (30:49)  Can People Protest For Protections Related to Criminal Conduct (32:24)  Can People Get Exemptions By Saying a Law is Against Their Religion? (33:10)  What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (35:07)  Can Businesses Prevent Men and Women From Working Together Based On Religious Beliefs? (36:58)  Can a Woman Get A Religious Exemption For Abortion Where It's Illegal (40:30)  How Courts Protect Your Right to Expressive Association (41:49)  Under What Circumstances Can You Exclude Someone From Living With You Based on Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation (44:03)  First Amendments Rights and Fraternities and Sororities. Transcript: Susan Stone: Kristina, can we geek out today and talk about the First Amendment?  Kristina Supler: I think we do that every day, but  Susan Stone: let's, okay. But let's talk on our podcast about the First Amendment, because our practice is often at the intersection of free speech when it impacts and conflicts with different types of student issues, like cancel culture or when students get disciplined, or Greek life issues like the Freedom of Association, uh, less often discussed First Amendment issue. Susan Stone: And it's difficult to balance the idea of the free exchange of ideas versus saying whatever you want, just because you wanna say it when you wanna say it and where you wanna say it. And it seems like everybody today is a lot less tolerant of views that aren't their own and cancel culture is becoming a very large part of our practice, which is why we launched our reputation management section. Kristina Supler: We are very pleased to be joined today by Professor Eugene Volokh who is a leading First Amendment scholar at U C L A, where he teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church, and state relations law, among many other classes. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and the US Supreme Court, and also for Judge Alex Kazinski on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who's also very well known,  Susan Stone: uh, and a court we've practiced  Kristina Supler: in. That's right. Yep. Um, Eugene is renowned for his textbook on the First Amendment, and he's actually one of the most cited law review article authors in our country. He's also the founder and co-author of the Highly Regarded Legal Blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, which is now hosted at reason.com. Kristina Supler: Thanks for joining us today. Oh, very much.  Eugene Volokh: My pleasure.  Susan Stone: And I should say I seasoned him. He was at a conference that we were at and you saw me inching up to Eugene, and I'm thinking I am going to make this person my friend, and talk about the First Amendment with him. So thank you for being on our podcast. Susan Stone: We're gonna start with a question broadly for our listeners. Eugene, how has the internet changed the way we view the First Amendment and freedom of speech in a very big way? And then we will drill down and funnel down that question  Eugene Volokh: well, depends on, uh, whom you mean by we. It hasn't so far, at least seemingly changed the way the justices view free speech or generally lower court judges, or in many ways, lawyers generally speaking the same kind of speech that is constitutionally protected offline is constitutionally protected online and vice versa. Eugene Volokh: Occasionally there have been times when. First Amendment law has turned a lot on the medium of expression, so for example, radio and television. Broadcast radio, television, not cable, let's say. Were, uh, were and probably still are seen as more regulatable for historical reasons. From the 19 teens to the 1950s, movies were seen as not really protected by the First Amendment, but the internet ever since near its birth as a popular medium. Eugene Volokh: Back in 1997, the Supreme Court said, speech on the internet is, Treated under the same rules as speech off line. So as a legal matter the internet hasn't changed First Amendment law much. Now I do think that people's reactions to various free speech questions may be affected by the internet. So, for example, I think a lot of people view things like Facebook and Twitter, those kinds of social media platforms, YouTube also and TikTok and various others as kind of part of their right to free speech and they get upset, understandably. Eugene Volokh: When those platforms restrict them, even though they're private platforms. So people would've probably said if the, if the New York Times refuses to publish my letter to the editor, well, of course, you know, they only publish as few too bad, but. But that's fine. Plus they get to decide where they want to publish and what they don't. Eugene Volokh: But I think the same people might very well bristle if Twitter or Facebook de deletes their posts for understandable reasons. Again. and, and there's an interesting question of whether that should affect the legal understanding, but but my guess is that at least it does affect people's understanding. Eugene Volokh: Another example has to do with access to court records. There's a longstanding tradition That material and court records is open to the public. Open to everybody. Yes. But it used to be before the internet. That meant that if you really wanted to get something on a court record, like maybe if you were a reporter and you were being to pay to write about lawsuits, you'd go to the courthouse, you'd go to the basement, you'd look at the, uh, at the files and you'd write about it. Eugene Volokh: But most, most court records would be basically invisible to. Now that they're all on the internet and often directly searchable, people get really upset that every case that they've been involved in, whether it was a witness as a plaintiffs, the defendant is a criminal defendant, as a victim, is now on the internet. Eugene Volokh: And people Google their names and they, they figure out uh, the stuff about them. So again, I do think the internet changes people's perceptions of information, of speech and the like, even if it hasn't changed the legal rules, at least. That's  Kristina Supler: actually a perfect segue to the next question I wanted to ask you, which is when you are speaking to, let's just say lay people, not, not judges or lawyers and, and speaking generally or more broadly about the First Amendment, what do you say? Kristina Supler: In terms of people who sort of have this idea that, well, on the internet, I'm, I'm an anonymous person, I can say whatever I want. It's the internet, it's the worldwide web. What do you say in terms of, well, maybe not quite there, there are some repercussions  Susan Stone: and that would be contained in the terms of service of the providers? Eugene Volokh: Oh, well, I think there are two questions lurking in here. One is somebody posts something. That, let's say, accuses someone else of some crime and then they get sued for libel too, not a newspaper. Why are you suing me for libel? Well, it turns out that. There are restrictions on speech. So for example, if you, especially if you say something knowingly false about someone else that damages the reputation, you could get sued and maybe, maybe before the internet, if you just said it orally, probably would be a lot harder to catch you and, but with the internet now, you could get caught. Eugene Volokh: Likewise, if you post something threatening. You could get prosecuted for a threat and people might say, well, what about free speech? Well, there are some narrow but significant exceptions to free speech, like for true threats of illegal conduct, like for defamation such as libel and the like. So people do have to remember that something that they just whip out in and angry or drunk or foolish moment. Eugene Volokh: To me, never, never you damaging. Today, , there's a separate question. Which is, well, what if it's something that violates, say, Twitter's terms of service or it doesn't even violate them. You know, private entities can generally remove your material or kick you off uh, for, uh, for whatever reasons they want right now. Eugene Volokh: At the same time though so how is that different from the things we started? Well, first of all, you're the, the, the downside to you, we have technology is pretty limited. Like people value their ability to tweet or value their ability to post on Facebook. But I think most people would rather, would rather get kicked off of Twitter than go to jail. Eugene Volokh: Uh, I would agree. ,  Susan Stone: my god, that is a bold statement, but, Would you take the position that you agree with decisions to pull someone off of Twitter like Kanye West or Donald Trump?  Eugene Volokh: Well, so it lot depends on what you mean by a Greek. So for example, I, I think that that large wealthy platform corporations like Twitter and Facebook should not be. Eugene Volokh: Essentially interfering with public debate about elections by taking government officials or candidates for office and kicking them off of their sites. Now, maybe they have the right to do that. They certainly have the legal right to do that. At least in most states. There's some state laws try to limit that. Eugene Volokh: It's an interesting question whether they're constitutional, but they might very well have the legal right to do that. One might still say that's not really good for. When a platform, just because it happens to have a lot of users and be economically extraordinarily wealthy and powerful, that it should be able to leverage that economic power into political power. Eugene Volokh: So that's a lot more of a concern with regard to candidates may still be applicable to Kayne West. Well, by the way, I think he is talking about running. For president, but uh, think it's particularly dangerous when they do that with regard to credible candidates for office. Because if an election, which could have been 51 49, 1 way is swung 51 49 another way because. Eugene Volokh: Uh, Jack Dorsey or Elon Musk or, uh, Zuckerberg decide that they, that they don't like a particular kind of speech, even for good reason, decide that that may be something we might be troubled by. We may say they should have the legal right to do this, but we might suggest that they ought not do it. Eugene Volokh: There's a separate question of may the government step in and say, You might think that you are like a newspaper, which gets to decide what's in it, put in its pages. You might think you're like a bookstore, which gets to decide what books to sell. But we think you're actually more like the phone company, which isn't entitled to say, we're gonna cut off someone's phone line because they're communists. Eugene Volokh: Or they're recruiting for the kkk, or they're recruiting for Antifa, or something like that. So, Is that permissible? Would it be permissible for the government to say, we're so worried about you being able to leverage your economic power and your ownership of this tremendously important means of communication into political power that we're gonna require you to be viewpoint neutral in your decision. Eugene Volokh: So not to kick off people because they're racist or anti-Semites, or because they're spreading particular views about covid or about elections or. That's an interesting and difficult question, and maybe the answer is that those platforms would have the right not to say, recommend certain posts not to pitch those posts to users as you might be interested in this or that because that's their speech, but might be required to host it, to host those posts on their. Eugene Volokh: So it could be that certain kinds of regulations as to the, what I call the hosting function of platforms are constitutionally permissible, whereas regulations of what I call the recommendation function of the platforms, which is a lot more, their speech would be impermissible.  Eugene Volokh: So I am really wrestling with that. Eugene Volokh: Is the, are these providers more like a telephone service company and we don't want the government listening in our co in on our conversation? Well, Eugene Volokh: I'm sorry if I can interrupt. I just wanna make clear the telephone point is not about privacy, it's not about confidentiality. Thank you. Even if somebody is widely known to be using a telephone line as a communist recruitment line, or a kkk, get out the vote line. Eugene Volokh: They're promoting it this way. Nobody's listening in on anything. It's well. still, then a phone company is not allowed to say, we're going to cancel your phone line because we think you're using it for evil purposes. No phone companies have to serve everybody so long as they, so long as they pay they can't engage in viewpoint based discrimination among their subscribers as opposed to, uh, among their users, let's say, the people who have phone lines as opposed to say a newspaper, which. Eugene Volokh: And probably should decide which op-eds to publish based in part on their viewpoint. Susan Stone: Thank you for that clarification. Would the barometer of censorship move up as the language moves from hate to calling for violence? Does that change your view? Is that like yelling? Fire in a theater. When you get on Twitter and say, this person is bad, cancel them, hurt them, or this candidate, let's storm the capitol. Susan Stone: I mean, when do you think there is the obligation? When does it really change from a moral obligation to a legal obligation to intervene?  Eugene Volokh: Okay, so again, we have. Several different things going on here. One is shouting fire in a crowded theater. I just wanna make it clear, the Supreme Court did say in a case, which actually since then has been overruled in considerable measure shank of the United States, uh, that the First Amendment doesn't protect falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and thereby starting a panic. Eugene Volokh: So that was already a pretty narrow category of things that indeed are legally punish. So I wanna bracket this question of shouting fire in a crowded theater, falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's, I, it's often used as an analogy, but it actually isn't much of an analogy because, precisely because to the extent the court has endorsed it, it's really very narrow. Eugene Volokh: It has to do with, with falsehoods that risk, knowing falsehoods, really that risk, imminent, imminent stampe, imminent loss of life. the second question is should platforms make, distinguish between. So-called hate speech, which could just be the spreading of opinions sharply critical of racial groups or religious groups. Eugene Volokh: By the way, that's very common for people to sharply criticize religions or of sexual orientations or gender identities or of sexist or whatever else, and calling for violence and yeah, I could imagine a platform saying, look, we are open to all sorts of viewpoints, but not the viewpoint that you should go out there and act violent. Eugene Volokh: So if you say, let's go out there and kill the Jews, or if you say, let's go out there and kill police officers. Or if you say, let's go out there and engage in violent revolution and kill the oppressive capitalists. Or let's go out there and kill the spoilers of the earth. Who are who are polluting our, our atmosphere with with greenhouse gases, whatever your ideology may be. Eugene Volokh: If you're calling for violence, we're gonna kick you off. I think, you know, you could imagine a platform plausibly saying, I think. , look, this is, this is something where we draw the line. We're gonna accept a wide range of views, including about race, about religion and such, but not if you call violence. So, so you could imagine that. Eugene Volokh: Now again, phone companies can't even do that, right? Uh, but you can imagine that possibly being a reasonable position for a company uh, to take. There's a third cat question though. Okay. Which maybe returns.  Eugene Volokh: Yeah, I wanna bring a scenario to you, and it might be that third category. Kristina and I had a case around a year ago where, uh, students were considered unpopular for various reasons on campus, and they were doxed, and these, our clients were terrified that their families were. Eugene Volokh: Going to be hurt. And I think that doxing has become a much bigger problem on college campuses. Eugene Volokh: So I'm gonna need you to define doxing. because people have used doxing to mean a lot of things. Okay. Tell me what you mean by doxing.  Kristina Supler: Publicly outing someone's home address telephone number so that other people can gang up on them and sort of got it. Kristina Supler: Espouse the mob and town. .  Eugene Volokh: So that's a very interesting question. So you're talk, uh, about whether it should be permissible for the government or maybe just for a public university with regard to its students, to forbid the publication of people's home addresses and phone numbers. The reason it sounds so appealing is you can have all sorts of public debates by and large, without knowing people's home addresses or phone numbers. Eugene Volokh: So one could imagine such a rule, and in fact there are a. Few statutes that do target that, or even more clearly like social security numbers. Very hard to see how my social security number is going to be relevant to some public debate. So you could argue that that's the kind of thing that should be restrict. Eugene Volokh: By the, the courts have not really been quite firm, even on social security numbers. They haven't had a lot of occasion to deal with it when there have been attempts to outlaw the publication of home addresses, usually focused on home addresses, say have police officers and others. Oh, legislators is another case that I was actually involved in as a lawyer. Eugene Volokh: Courts have said, no, it's unconstitutional to ban such publication, and there are various reasons. One of them, by the way, is that in most of the country, it is legal to picket it outside someone's home. I'm not wild about residential picketing, but it's a tactic that has been used and continues to be used by the left and by the right, by various groups on the left and on the right. Eugene Volokh: And if there is a legal right as there is in most places it could be restricted by ordinances or statutes, but most places don't ban residential picketing. If there's a legal right to picket someone's home, there has to be a legal right to inform. Home to this place that, cuz that's the home we're gonna be picketing. Eugene Volokh: So that's what makes that pretty complicated. But note Gary, you said, you said at home addresses and phone numbers, I often hear doxing used to refer to other things like, for example, a person's identity, the identity of a person who would rather remain anonymous. Like somebody who is a, an anonymous online commenter and somebody says, we think they're a troll. Eugene Volokh: We're gonna track them down and we're gonna tell you this is the person's name. Well, that could lead to possible threats against the person. It's also the sort of thing that newspapers pretty routinely do too, right? Like if you write a story about someone who'd rather not be written about, they could say, you're doxing me. Eugene Volokh: You're revealing my personal information. What's that information? My name? Well, it is personal information, but we. Have to have the right to talk about people's names and to find, figure out who's the person who's anonymously doing this or that. Likewise, sometimes people say, well, uh, this person docks me by revealing the name of my employer. Eugene Volokh: Well, that too might be relevant for a variety of reasons, both to figure out, let's say if the anonymous commenter is hired by somebody, maybe they gives them a conflict of interest if they'll say anonymous journalist or a popular tweeter or something like that. Also, sometimes people do organize. Or threatened boycots of employers because of the speech of their employees. Eugene Volokh: I don't approve of that as a general matter. But but in many places it's legal. And again, if that's legal, then you have to be able to identify whom you need to threaten to boycott. Hmm.  Kristina Supler: Eugene, I wanna switch gears a little bit. So Susan and I represent students across the country involved in a lot of different types of matters, general student misconduct, title ix, so on and so forth. Kristina Supler: I'm wondering what are your thoughts on whether schools should get involved in sort of policing what students post on the internet?  Eugene Volokh: Well, at least it de, it depends on what kind of. Uh, so  Kristina Supler: course private, private ,  Eugene Volokh: public versus private college versus high school. Yeah, high school versus elementary school. Eugene Volokh: That's actually gonna be our follow  Kristina Supler: up  Eugene Volokh: question, so let's take an example and also what kind of things are they, are they posting? So let's take an example. Let's say UCLA starts policing what people post by threatening to expel them for racist posts. That's a first amendment. If that's the policy, it's open and shut, unconstitutional. Eugene Volokh: And whoever is targeted by this should sue and they'll get, they'll get money, or at least their lawyers will get attorney fees. Uh, so, so that's, oh, that's good. always, that's always, you're  Susan Stone: speaking my language, .  Eugene Volokh: Exactly. . So, okay, so that's an example. But let's look even at the public university context. Eugene Volokh: Let's say the university says, you know, we've been hearing about various threats of violence. It could be racist violence, or it could just be, you know, there's chatter, like there's a strike going on and there's chatter about maybe vandalizing government buildings, uh, university building. And of hurting another  Susan Stone: student  Eugene Volokh: or of hurting another student, which is what we deal with Sore gonna do, is we're gonna monitor that, maybe hire someone to search for these things, maybe set up some ai, like talk to our computer science department. Eugene Volokh: Can you set up an AI that monitors tweaks to see if there are, if there seem to be references to things connected to our university, and then have somebody probably, it's not. And AI would have to be some human looking through and saying, oh, wait a minute. That either that, maybe that looks like a death threat and that's something we should prosecute someone for. Eugene Volokh: Or maybe even, it doesn't look like it's illegal itself, but it's useful information for us to know because maybe we wanna have more police presence at someplace or something like that. Or, or alternatively, let's say that it's not a threat of. What it is, is somebody posting, posting, uh, information about forthcoming exams that they managed to hack into somebody's computer. Eugene Volokh: Right. Oh, we know.  Susan Stone: Yes. We had those cases.  Eugene Volokh: Right, right. You know, you'd think that universities ought to be policing that public or private, doesn't really matter. Now, what if it's a private university? What if it's Harvard that decides we're gonna expel people who express anti-trans views? I think that would be very bad. Eugene Volokh: I don't think it's unconstitutional because Harvard's a private, if they do it university. Well, if they do it, I think that's a violation of academic freedom principles. It may be a violation of, of academic freedom policies that they've adopted as contracts in California, by the way, they weren't Harvard, but if we were Stanford, California has a statute that bars. Eugene Volokh: Private universities, generally speaking, there's an important exception we'll get to from expelling students based on, on their speech and otherwise disciplining students based  Susan Stone: on their speech. And I do wanna say, when I say they, I don't mean Harvard in particular listeners out there. I am saying though, that schools, that generally, schools generally, I wanna make that clarification in fact. Susan Stone: Eugene, we had cases where college admissions were revoked when school admissions committees were informed after an acceptance of students. We've had a couple of those cases that students, when they were 16, 15, made comments that were. Either consider racist or sexist. Mm-hmm. and against the values of the institution. Susan Stone: So there is a lot going on when schools find out about certain types of  Eugene Volokh: speech. Right, right. And I do think that that kind of policing is improper. And again, a private university may be free to do that, but I don't think it should, but, . Let's assume that this is particular kind of university, which is known as a theological seminary. Eugene Volokh: Mm-hmm. , where they say, you know, we believe in some particular religious viewpoint and we want to train future ministers of that viewpoint. And you've just been posting about how you're an atheist. Or posting things that, that, maybe not even an atheist, cuz then why would you want to come, come, uh, to study at our school? Eugene Volokh: You're a heretic, right? You claim you are a good ex Methodist, let's say, but really your views are ones we do not want around our institution. You know, I would cut, I, I would be more open to the, that kind of university doing it in part. My sense is a lot of these places, not all of them, I think some theological seminaries do, and some religious schools more broadly do make a big thing out of how they are open to all sorts of views. Eugene Volokh: But if some of them do in fact say, you know, we're, we're not there to educate everybody regardless of viewpoint. We are there. Promo promulgate our understanding of the gospel. Well then it's something more plausible for them to say, we're trying to build a community of people who think like us and not people who think differently from us. Eugene Volokh: So, so again, that's just the university level at the high school and the junior high school and elementary school level, it may be even even different. So that's, That's why it's, uh, it's hard to answer these questions in the abstract,  Susan Stone: so we'll drill down. We have every, typically it's either after spring break, we have a number of cases where younger kiddos, especially junior high students, middle school age, love posting pictures of themselves, either with toy guns or a bullet or the ubiquitous. Susan Stone: Hitler mustache, and we usually have to deal with those cases because they are, they usually get issued a suspension or expulsion notice.  Eugene Volokh: Right. Well, so I think a lot depends on the circumstances. A lot depends on whether there's evidence of substantial disruption. For example, something may depend on whether it's in a context where it looks like it's threatening or where it targets a particular person at the same time. Eugene Volokh: I've been involved in some cases where uh, there were attempts to punish students for just not even punish them, but just to stop them from wearing t-shirts that depict weapons to school. Well, and they, they were wearing some disciplined mm-hmm. . Mm-hmm. . And they, and they. Where, for example, some t-shirts that support gun rights, that have a picture of a gun or that have the logo of a pro-gun rights organization that has a gun on it. Eugene Volokh: They were told not to wear it and courts generally say no, they have a First Amendment right to wear it. There's no, there's no pictures of guns exception to the First Amendment, Kristina. So likewise with toy guns, if somebody, if a school were to say, you are not allowed to pose even outside school on the internet with a toy gun. Eugene Volokh: I think that's a First Amendment violation. Now, if what was happening is these, that the student had a picture of himself with a gun that doesn't look like a toy gun, turns out it's a toy gun, doesn't look like a toy gun, and he's saying, teacher Jones, you know I'm gonna shoot you with this. Well, even if it turns out that he couldn't do it, cuz it's a toy gun, that may very well be a punishable. Eugene Volokh: Yeah.  Susan Stone: Kristina, don't you think we've come so far from Tinker Vido, the case where students prevailed in protecting their right to protest Vietnam to what's going on today. Do you think there's a difference?  Kristina Supler: Oh gosh. I mean, it's just, I, I keep coming back to the internet and the impact of the internet and these online platforms for students too. Kristina Supler: Cause of course, that's primarily the lens that we're sort of examining these issues through is from a student perspective, the level, what is said, the, the. persistence with what is said, the frequency, how people sort of jump on the bandwagon. And you know, I, I, I don't especially love the phrase cancel culture, but it's just a reality now and students are caught up in things so often, for better or for worse. Kristina Supler: It can be scary at times. Yeah.  Susan Stone: When we talk to students, if someone says something that is, they love the word, the, the word of 22 is not triggering. They don't like being gas lit. I don't know if you're hearing you gaslight me. Um, do kids. Fight. I think of Tinker Vido. I think of I'm 56 and how precious the First Amendment is. Susan Stone: Do you think students even value the First Amendment anymore, or is everyone just like, I, I'm triggered. You're causing me anxiety, you're causing me depression. I don't wanna talk about it. Don't say anything.  Eugene Volokh: Everyone is, a lot of people, students are a large  Susan Stone: group . Are  Kristina Supler: you suggesting that we ought not generalize Eugene Volokh: Well, I'd be hesitant to say that I know how people think. Including people that I spend very little time around. I spent very little time around, say K through 12 students. Except, except my, my kids who were one of whom just went to college, but they were both K through 12 for, for many years. And I saw some of their classmates, cause that's, they skipped high school Eugene Volokh: But, but, but that's a very, uh, narrow subset of the whole population. And I don't even know all. On top of that, if you're comparing to how things were back in Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District back in 1969 that's, uh, you know, I certainly don't know what kids those days thought. Right. And I don't think there were good surveys that we could look back on. Eugene Volokh: And then on top of that, I think, um, a lot of students may say, you know, we value free speech, but with some, except, And the fact is, almost all of us, even those who value free speech a lot, recognize some exception. Again, for threats or for liable or, or, or for the like. So what I think has happening out there is there are, if you're talking about students, there are many tens of millions of students. Eugene Volokh: Who have different views about who should be free to speak under which circumstances. And then on top of that, there are probably quite a few who haven't really thought hard about the subject. So as a consequence, you ask them a question in a survey, they may give you an answer just to get you off off their backs. Eugene Volokh: But it could be a different answer tomorrow when something ill different is in the news because it's not something that they're really. To rest on as a as a kind of a, a, a, with a definitive answer. So I don't know what students these days think. I have a much better sense of what the legal rules are because they are set forth in part by our hierarchical authority, by the Supreme Court, and I can read their, their opinions. Eugene Volokh: I, I can read the minds of tens of millions of student. I'd like to, it  Kristina Supler: indulge me as we do a little law school exam question. Let's talk about criminalization of abortion. We've obviously had a recent significance, Supreme Court ruling and how that sort of meshes with or intersects with free speech considerations, particularly on public college campuses. Kristina Supler: I'm curious what your thoughts are if students live in a state where abortion is illegal, are they free to publicly protest and rally for something? otherwise a, a crime. What other speech pre are there still speech protections for protests related to criminal conduct?  Eugene Volokh: Well, what, what you're, what you're describing is a protest that maybe that they may include just decriminalizing conduct. Eugene Volokh: Just like people are free to rally for decriminalizing marijuana in a case that, that, and excuse me, in a state that still bans marijuana, they're free to rally for decriminalizing abortion. , right? Or not even decriminalizing, but fully legalizing and funding abortion. I'm perfectly free to do that more. Eugene Volokh: What about  Susan Stone: religious considerations? What if you are a student, you find that you're pregnant and you are part of a religion where your clergy says, You know what? I don't think you are in a position. I think your health is endangered. You should go get an abortion. Do you think that the state has the right to interfere with that free exercise of what someone had going on between that person and their clergy? Eugene Volokh: Well, so the answers may be, but the important thing is that, or one important thing is we've now moved a lot from a right to speak to a right to act, right? So remember I said you don't, you have a right to. , you have a right to argue that marijuana should be legalized. You have a right to argue that heroin should be legalized. Eugene Volokh: Perfectly good arguments that both should be legalized. That doesn't necessarily doesn't mean that you have the right to actually use marijuana. Or to use heroin. And incidentally, marijuana is an example of where at least some religious groups, uh, do view it as a sacrament. And courts have generally said no to those kinds of claims. Eugene Volokh: So, so the one thing we know for sure is people can't just get an exemption from a generally applicable religion neutral law simply by saying, I don't like it, or It's against my religion, or, My spiritual leader tells me that it's a bad law or tells me we should violate that law that can't by itself be enough because then otherwise all of us could violate any laws we want just by announcing this is part of our religion. Eugene Volokh: Or maybe maybe joining some religion that authorizes that. So it's a very different question. The pre speech question is very different from freedom of action. Now as to freedom of action, it is quite complic. It so there's for example, a case that was just decided by a trial court in Indiana. Eugene Volokh: Indiana has a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It's modeled on a federal law that applies to federal statutes, but this one applies to state statutes in Indiana, these are called RRA for short. So the Indiana RRA says essentially that if the government substantially burdens somebody's religious belief through some regulation, then that person gets an exemption. Eugene Volokh: Unless the government can show that denying the exemption, that applying the law, notwithstanding the religious objection is narrowly tailored to compelling government interest. So let me give you an easy case under the law in favor of an exemption. Many courtrooms, as I understand it, probably most have a rule that says you can't wear hats in. Eugene Volokh: Agreed. Why? It's just sort of seen as disrespectful. It's not a, it's not a tremendously important rule, but it is the rule and you can't just say, I don't like this rule. I like my cap. Baseball cap. Nope, sorry. You wanna be in a courtroom. You gotta follow the rules. But let's say that hat is a Yamal cup or it's a Sikh turt, or it's a Muslim woman's or Orthodox Jewish woman's head scarf, let's say. Eugene Volokh: Or it's a Catholic nun. Headgear well, that there you might very well have an exemption. Why? Because the law prohibits you from doing something your religion tells you to do. That's the substantial burden part, and it's hard to see some compelling government interest in making sure that people not wear a headgear in, in court. Eugene Volokh: Maybe it's a. Legitimate interest, maybe even a substantial interest, but compelling. The law says it's gotta be very, very higher.  Susan Stone: So folks, so there's out there listening. I just wanna add, when we get calls about, I wanna be on a sports team and I want a Covid exemption. Yep.  Eugene Volokh: There you go. There you go. Eugene Volokh: And in states that have, uh, these kinds of RFRA rules, you may very well get such an exception. Okay, so let's look at ex at an example of something that, uh, that pretty clearly wouldn't. Uh, viewed as basis for an exemption. Let's say somebody says, you know, I, my religion tells me that men and women shouldn't work together because that's contrary to modesty rules. Eugene Volokh: So I'm not gonna hire this woman to work in this particular secluded place to right next to a man because, you know, he was there first and I'm not gonna fire him, and I'm not gonna hire a woman to work with him. That violates anti-discrimination. and, but the person says, you know, my religion tells me that it would be sinful for me to put men and women in a situation where there may be temptation. Eugene Volokh: Well, okay, maybe that substantially burdens your religious beliefs, but there's a compelling government interest in ensuring equal opportunity and employment and making sure that women or men or others aren't handicapped in, in getting in, in, in developing their careers this way. So that, so that's just a reminder that restrictions on conduct. Eugene Volokh: Are often permissible, even if restrictions on speech wouldn't be, let's say for example, he says, I want to speak out urging all anti-discrimination laws be repealed. He has every right to do that. The First Amendment obviously protects his right to argue in favor of the propriety of discrimination, even if it's illegal, because what's illegal now could be made legal later. Eugene Volokh: That's part of the political process, but it doesn't mean he can violate this law. So, one question, the abortion situation. Does the law substantially burden a woman's religious beliefs? So for that, she has to be able to sincerely testify that her religion is motivating her to get an abortion. So as I understand it, at least many rabbis say that. Eugene Volokh: Women should get an abortion to avoid threats to life. But of course, state laws already allow that. But also threats to physical and mental health. So if the woman concludes that she, that there would be really extremely mentally. Damaging for her to have another child whom she may be emotionally or financially unprepared to take care of. Eugene Volokh: Then in that case, she should get an abortion. So if that's so, and if the woman believes that, that's a substantial burden, by the way, if the woman just says, my religion tells me that abortions are fine, that's, that's not enough to trigger this religious exemption regime. The religion has to tell her that she actually should get it, not that it's her right to get it. Eugene Volokh: So then the question. Can the government show that there's a compelling interest in preventing abortions, and that's something that courts in those states are going to have to resolve. And that's one thing that makes this such a complicated question. How do you decide? I mean the, the statute says compelling government interest, but nobody has ever set up a clear rule as to what is a compelling government interest and what's not. Eugene Volokh: So that's what makes this an extra complicated question. Much more complicated than a lot of free speech  Susan Stone: questions. Yeah. Compelling to whom? What's compelling to you may not be compelling to me, Susan.  Eugene Volokh: I have. Right. Although the court, the statute seems to say compelling in the judges'. . That's  Susan Stone: right.  Kristina Supler: Yeah. Kristina Supler: Susan, we're here with the foremost first Amendment scholar expert in our country. I want you to ask him a question about fraternities.  Susan Stone: Are you ready? are you ready for Let's go deep. Okay. Because it's gonna be our final question. We represent a lot of students in hazing cases, and we see a lot of campuses. Susan Stone: The minute there's an allegation of hazing. Shut down the fraternity. Do students have a First Amendment associational Right to gather in a Greek organization? And, you know, do I have the right to drink beer with people under the same Greek letters or can colleges say you're out, you don't, how does that whole Right to free association. Susan Stone: I always think that's something we don't talk about in the First Amendment. Play into that decision. It's so  Kristina Supler: interesting how, uh, every day in our cases we're dealing with you know, issues that are. Teenagers, college students. But from a legal perspective, there's, there's pretty weighty constitutional issues at  Susan Stone: play at Well, yeah, and it, for my corporate partners out there, take that. Susan Stone: We have some big issues in the student and athlete defense practice. Right.  Kristina Supler: What are your thoughts on, on what's happening now with Greek organizations on college campus and, and what really feels like the push to do away with them and, and the tension? I think with freedom of association and I think that was  Susan Stone: part of litigation, correct. Susan Stone: To get rid of single sex organizations.  Eugene Volokh: Okay. So it's compliment as it, but it's often  Susan Stone: complicated. ,  Kristina Supler: so it's complicated for a couple of  Eugene Volokh: weeks. One is there are actually. Two kinds of constitutional rights that are labeled the Right to Associate and the Supreme Court in a 1983 case. Uh, Roberts, v US Jaycees actually went into this in a little bit of detail. Eugene Volokh: I'm sorry, I just looked it up. Uh, I got it wrong. 1984 Case Roberts  Susan Stone: c James. That's okay. I got the Des Moines v, the Des Moines Tinker v Des Moines Rock. So it's okay. It's okay. We're among the friends and listeners.  Eugene Volokh: Neither of those rights is actually listed in the Constitution, but the court has said for a long time, there's a right to expressive association, which is to say a right to associate in ways that promote your ability to express your views. Eugene Volokh: And for example, in a political association,  Susan Stone: I'm a Democrat, religious association Republican. Got it. Right.  Eugene Volokh: So for example, if the government were to say, Uh, that people can't form political organizations. They wanna speak, they can just speak by themselves, but they can't pool their resources in order to, uh, to express themselves. Eugene Volokh: That would be clearly unconstitutional because it would violate the right to expressive association. There's also a right to intimate association, which the court has said extends to basically small. Groups of people who are either very close friends or have to share living quarters and the like. You know my, so I'll give you an example, a  Susan Stone: little dirty on that. Susan Stone: Kristina . Sorry, I, I always go to the gutter, don't I?  Kristina Supler: Yeah, indeed. Indeed. But go  Eugene Volokh: on. So write to intimate association. Here's an example of a case where this was implicated fr it's not from the Supreme Court, but from the ninth Circuit. So out, out uh, on the West Coast, it's, but it's an important federal appellate court. Eugene Volokh: There was, a lawsuit which asked whether a roommate finding service was entitled to provide ways for people to search for roommates of the same sex and roommates or of the opposite sex, but search for roommates, bi sex and bisexual orientation, or whether that was. Whether that was impermissible housing discrimination in violation of state law, and the court said, look, yeah, that's a, as a landlord, you don't have the right, generally speaking to say, I'm not gonna rent a women or to gays, or to blacks, or to Jews, or to fundamentalist Christians. Eugene Volokh: but as a roommate, even one who's just looking for a stranger to share an apartment with you, you could say, look, you know, I'm a woman. I'm only comfortable with other women, or I'm only comfortable with straight women. I don't want a lesbian woman, or I'd prefer a lesbian woman. Or even, you know, I'm black and I wanna live with other blacks, or I'm a. Eugene Volokh: I'm of Korean extraction. I wanna live with other Koreans, or I want to keep a kosher household. And in order for that to work, I I want to live with other Jews. So that's an, the court said, I oversimplify here a little bit, but it basically said, yes, there is this right of intimate association of choosing whom you are going to live with. Eugene Volokh: So, right of expressive association, as I understand it would rarely apply to fraternities. They're not fundamentally organized in order to express their. They may in the process sometimes do that, like they may put out statements or engage in some political activity or some such, but that's very very slight part of what they do. Eugene Volokh: And in fact, in Roberts v US jcs, the court said it basically a, an adult fraternity, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the jcs, like an adult club like that was not protected. By expressive association law, at least against application of anti-discrimination laws, it was required to let in women. On the other hand, fraternities, I think, are intimate associations. Eugene Volokh: They are groups of people living together to be sure. It's not one person, one roommate. It could be a couple of dozen people or more living together, but they do live together. They share household chores. They do, as I understand, it takes seriously the notion that they're supposed to become friends and brothers and such. Eugene Volokh: So they may have. Not under the First Amendment right of expressive association, but under the 14th Amendment right of Intimate Association. But the question is how far those rights extend. So I think if a university said, public university said, if you belong to a single sex fraternal or seral organization, we will expel you. Eugene Volokh: That would be as unconstitutional as saying, we'll expel you for marrying someone or we'll expel you for having as a roommate someone who is of the same sex as you, or the opposite sex or whatever else. That would be an interference with their right of intimate association  Susan Stone: under the 14th amendment. Eugene Volokh: Uh, exactly. However, let's say the university. You know, what you do off campus property is entirely up to you. And if you wanna live off campus with some people who, and call it a fraternity, it's all the same to us as if you wanna live with some camp, some people off campus and call it a roommates, however, If you want access to certain on-campus housing that we have historically leased to fraternities or sororities, well, we're gonna say no. Eugene Volokh: We're only gonna release them now from now on to kind of unisex groups, groups that allow members of both sexes. Well, there, the government would be acting essentially as landlords and would have a good deal of authority to say, you know, our property, we want our property to be used for. Unisex groups and not for single sex groups. Eugene Volokh: So a lot depends on the particular rules that the institutions are, are creating. And of course, a lot also depends on whether it's a private institution or not. Cuz if it's a private institution, it's not bound by constitutional by, by 14th Amendment rules or First amendment rules. Uh, and the first place, because it's not the. Eugene Volokh: Thank you  Kristina Supler: so much. Good food for thought today. This 14th amendment issue in particular, not on my radar, so I've learned a great deal today, but it's been such a pleasure speaking with you, Eugene. We're really grateful for your time today.  Susan Stone: and I am so happy that I inched myself up. Eugene was actually talking, do you remember about the use of pseudonyms? Susan Stone: Mm-hmm. and at our conference, and we often file as John Doe, so we were listening to what you had to say because we usually have had our motions for pseudonyms. Granted very important issue. And very important issue. Yes. And I have to tell you, trying to cover. All of the First Amendment issues that we wrestle with in our practice in the span of an hour. Susan Stone: Impossible, but you have boiled it down. Did anyone ever tell you to write First Amendment for Dummies? I would be the first to buy that copy and well, I  Eugene Volokh: will say I did put together. Thanks for the generous, uh, thanks to Generous Grant by the Stanton Foundation. I put together. A series of 10 videos called Free Speech Rules. Eugene Volokh: So if you go to free speech rules.org, one word, or you search for free speech rules, and especially Embolic on YouTube, you'll find these videos. They're mostly aimed at kind of high school students and college students. They're kind of snappy and short and graphical, wonderful. But you know, I think all of us might like something snappy and short and graphical. Eugene Volokh: So they'll actually cover not all of the First Amendment by any means, but some of the issues. College student speech, high school student speech, and the luck.  Susan Stone: I love it. And thank you for sharing that everyone please check it out in and check it out. And thanks for being on Real talk with Susan and Kristina.

We continue reading the second half of the 2014 primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - 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, which we finished reading just before concluding last episode. We continue with Part III, Section C-2   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

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

MATT SHARP – Free Speech and the expression of religious belief are under attack. Companies like 303 Creative in Denver are being compelled to say things that violate their religious beliefs. With cancel culture, open censorship, and arbitrarily labeling some speech as misinformation, it seems more and more people are completely comfortable with silencing speech just because they disagree with it. The questions for today are can the government tell Americans what they can't say and can they compel them to say something that contradicts their religious beliefs? Meet Matt Sharp.Matt serves as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. Since joining ADF in 2010, he has testified before the United States Congress on the importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and has also worked extensively on important cases advancing religious freedom and free speech.Let us know your takeaways. Post on social, tag UFA (@UnstoppableFreedomAlliance) and @alliancedefendingfreedom and check the adflegal.org website for more resources.

Ambassador Sam Brownback, co-author of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and former United States Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, has been fighting for people who have been persecuted for their faith for his entire career. However, he didn't expect that he himself would become a victim of religious persecution by his own bank. He tells Meeting of Minds how a religious liberty group he founded had its account cancelled by Chase and how he launched Chased Away (https://thencrf.org/chasedaway) to put an end to denial of service based on anti-religious bias.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Wednesday May 11th, 2022. Intro this clip: https://twitter.com/johnwesleyreid/status/1524032799501697037 Justice Alito’s neighbor decided to blast “Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus” as pro-abortion protestors, outside of Alito’s home, shout something about wanting justice? Have you signed up for our show in Arizona…it is next week, what are you waiting for! Folks- we got some exciting news for the happenings going around here at CrossPolitic and the Fight Laugh Feast Network. First, starting May 30th, CrossPolitic will be moving to a daily show, airing every day at 6pm and of course dropping podcasts. Knox has been pushing us to do this for two years, and he has finally won that argument. So, get ready to tune into you number one nightly news and commentary source! Secondly, to make room for all this new production, the Daily News Brief will be going back to audio, which is where a bulk of our Daily News listeners were at anyways. Thirdly, we have a bunch of new club member benefits we are working on, including an updated website club portal and club only social media platform. So, those listeners who have been lingering in the background, join the club, the party is just getting started. And for our thousands of club members, thank you for staying with us, your continued support, and your prayers. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and this very much feels like a further up and further in moment. Now where was I. Oh that is right, the bloodlust for the abortion crowd is insanity, and you will be seeing unleashed insanity if Roe is overturned. After calling the LGBT to arm themselves, the Mayor of Chicago also promised that Chicago would become and abortion sanctuary. The call of violence is spreading and this pass Sunday a molotov cocktail was thrown into the Wisconsin Family Action offices. As the pro-abortion community found out about it, they decided to leave messages, and here is a compilation of some of those messages: https://notthebee.com/article/pro-life-wisconsin “​​(A) radical pro-abortion group named Jane’s Revenge is saying it was responsible and is threatening increasingly violent attacks that extend beyond Wisconsin if its demands are not met, writing, “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.” https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/10/pro-abortion-group-says-it-firebombed-pro-life-office-promises-more-violence-nationwide-our-last-warning/ Plug Did you know that more than 75% of those raised in evangelical, Presbyterian, and Reformed churches don’t pursue any kind of Christian higher education? Surprising isn’t it. Cornerstone Work & Worldview Institute is seeking to provide a new, exciting, and affordable option for Christians. Their mission is to build Kingdom culture in the workplace by equipping their students in a Trinitarian worldview and vocational competencies. Their low-cost full-time program offers integrative course modules, internships, and mentoring so their students can finish debt-free with vocational preparation, a robust faith, and financial potential to build strong godly families and homes rooted in their communities and churches long-term. Visit their website at www.cornerstonework.org to find out more about enrolling. Elon Musk would let President Trump back on Twitter and cited the ban was "foolish to the extreme”. Roll clip: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1524085282366177283 Friends, we have tons of military personnel that listen to our shows, and they keep us in the loop about what is going on, on the inside as they fight for their careers against the forced vaccination policies. Well right now there is an important court case in front of a federal district court judge in Omaha, that if the judge would rule in favor of religious exemptions, it would apply to the Air Force nationwide. According to the Omaha World Herald: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/offutt-airmen-ask-judge-to-block-covid-vaccine-mandate-citing-religious-beliefs/article_8e96601c-cd89-11ec-b0a7-1f525a4310d5.html “Three current or former Offutt airmen who have refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds asked a federal district court judge in Omaha on Monday to stop the Air Force from discharging or otherwise punishing them. Capt. Ian McGee, an RC-135 instructor pilot with the Offutt-based 55th Wing, said he applied for a religious exemption eight months ago but hasn’t received a response from his chain of command. He expects it to be denied, as the Air Force has denied nearly all of the more than 7,800 airmen who have applied for them under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA. McGee said he would give up his nine-year military career rather than be injected with a vaccine tested with cell lines taken many years ago from aborted fetuses. “It goes against my sincerely held religious beliefs as a born-again Christian,” McGee testified. “My resolve is to stay with my relationship with Jesus Christ.” The three airmen are part of a larger group of 36 — including active-duty, National Guard and reserves — who filed suit in U.S. District Court in Nebraska in March seeking to overturn the mandate issued by the Pentagon last August. They argue it is a violation of their First Amendment rights. They are represented by former Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and a team of lawyers from the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank organized last year by several top advisers in the administration of former President Donald Trump. Kris Kobach “blasted the elaborate multi-level review of the applications for religious exemptions, alleging that more than 7,500 have been denied and only 46 granted. And the ones granted were only for airmen who were within six months of retirement.” Be praying for our people in the military. This is stressful on their families, careers, and the mainstream media is giving them no voice. CrossPolitic is glad to do our part! Meanwhile, the Republican Senate is making some chess moves on behalf of our friends fighting in the military. According to the Military Times: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2022/05/10/bill-would-mandate-honorable-discharge-for-all-troops-who-refuse-covid-vaccine-mandate/ A “proposal — led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and backed by 13 other GOP colleagues” Would require Defense officials “to grant honorable dismissals to nearly all troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and grant waivers to troops with “natural immunity” to the virus under new legislation introduced by Republican senators on Tuesday.” It “would also mandate that military leaders “make every effort to retain members of the Armed Forces who are not vaccinated” and broaden religious exemptions for the vaccine mandate.” Cruz said: ““It is absolutely unacceptable that [President Joe Biden’s] administration is trying to coerce our men and women in uniform to violate their conscience and religious beliefs, let alone on an issue as polarizing as the COVID-19 vaccine.” Last month, defense officials told Congress that about 3,400 troops have been involuntarily separated from service for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, mandated last fall for all military members. Of that group, about 70% have received general discharges, a designation that allows them to receive most veterans benefits and potentially rejoin the military at a later date. The other 30% have received honorable discharges. Congress last year forbade military leaders from issuing dishonorable discharges for vaccine refusal.” Lies, Propaganda, Story Telling, and the Serrated Edge: This year our national conference is in Knoxville, TN October 6th-8th. The theme of this year’s conference is Lies, Propaganda, Storytelling and the Serrated Edge. Satan is the father of lies, and the mother of those lies is a government who has rejected God. We have especially been lied to these last two years, and the COVIDpanic has been one of the central mechanisms that our government has used to lie to us and to grab more power. Because Christians have not been reading their bibles, we are susceptible to lies and weak in our ability to fight these lies. God has given us His word to fight Satan and his lies, and we need to recover all of God’s word, its serrated edge and all. Mark your calendars for October 6th-8th, as we fight, laugh and feast with fellowship, beer and Psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers, hanging with our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and more. Early bird tickets sale now!. Lastly, and I actually like this play here. DeSantis Signs Bill Requiring High Schools to Observe ‘Victims of Communism Day’ https://www.ntd.com/desantis-signs-bill-requiring-high-schools-to-observe-victims-of-communism-day_776951.html According to the NTD: “Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Monday that requires “Victims of Communism Day” to be observed annually in public high schools across the state. The bill, known as HB 395, requires public schools to tell students about genocides, famines, and persecutions under communist regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Soviet Union. The bill passed the Florida House and Senate unanimously earlier this year. “We want to make sure that every year folks in Florida, but particularly our students, will learn about the evils of communism, the dictators that have led communist regimes, and the hundreds of millions of individuals who suffered and continue to suffer under the weight of this discredited ideology,” DeSantis said Monday morning. The Victims of Communism organization has estimated that communist regimes have caused the deaths of at least 100 million people via political purges, religious persecutions, mass starvation, and other crimes against humanity during the 20th century. Chief among those regimes is the CCP, which is believed to have left around 80 million Chinese people dead.” This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are trying to build a cancel-proof media platform, and we need your help. Join today and get a discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN and have a great day. Have a great day. Lord bless

Ok, ok, it's been a full month since the last episode.  But good things come to those who wait!  We are back, and hope you'll tune in as co-hosts Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck discuss the latest in national security legal news, including: The questions associated with neutrality and co-belligerency (and especially "qualified neutrality") in relation to US and allied support to Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War The Supreme Court's decision to grant a stay in Lloyd Austin v. U.S. Navy SEALS 1-26, in relation to a district court order (based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) barring the Navy from enforcing its policy precluding deployment of personnel who refuse COVID vaccination) Another GTMO detainee (Hassan bin Attash of Yemen) cleared for release A guilty verdict against an Islamic State member (a formerly-British citizen who was part of the quartet known as "the Beatles") charged with involvement in the horrific abuse of captives And, yes, lots and lots of crowing over the early-season success of the Mets, along with other frivolity!

Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty