First Liberty Briefing: Recent Episodes
First Liberty Institute
First Liberty Briefing is an exclusive podcast hosted by First Liberty Institute’s Deputy General Counsel Jeremy Dys.
In about 90-seconds, once a week, Jeremy recalls the stories that have shaped America’s religious liberty, from the founding era to current legal battles and more. It’s an insider’s look at the stories, cases, people, and laws that have made America the world’s leader in protecting religious liberty.
Rhode Island Police banned an elderly blind woman from visiting her local park because she was handing out copies of the Gospel of John. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Gail Blair was a nurse at Johns Hopkins. But, she walked away from nursing in 1989 and toward an unexpected encounter with the police.
A degenerative condition that causes gradual vision loss drove Gail away from nursing. At just 37 years of age, she could no longer see. She and her husband moved to a place just about a block away from Wilcox Park and Westerly Public Library. She learned how to independently navigate the sidewalks that lead to and from her home and sit in the park.
As passersby strolled past in this 10-acre park, Gail would engage them in conversation, telling them about Jesus and sharing with them a copy of the Gospel of John. In 2019, park authorities accused this 63-year old blind woman of “accosting” park goers and blamed her for littering when they found copies of the Gospel of John on the ground. They asked the police to ban her from the park under threat of arrest if she were to trespass in the future.
Sighted persons are free to cross into the park and have conversations with anyone, but park officials called the police on a blind woman who shared her faith with others.
First Liberty and its network attorneys filed a charge of discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights because banning a blind woman from entering a public park simply because she offers people she meets religious material is outrageous and discriminatory.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
A newly naturalized citizen, Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that the phrase “so help me God” in her naturalization ceremony was a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, the courts did not agree. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
America’s newest citizens start their official lives as Americans with the words, “so help me God.” One new citizen took advantage of her new rights as an American to sue Congress.
Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that those four little words—"so help me God”—violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution. She asked a court to invalidate the phrase and enjoin its use during her naturalization ceremony. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected that request.
The First Circuit concluded that, “Recent developments in Establishment Clause jurisprudence . . . suggest that the mere presence of a historical pattern now carries more weight.”
One of those “recent developments” was First Liberty’s case at the Supreme Court of the United States: American Legion v. AHA. Judge Juan Torruella, writing for the First Circuit, concluded that American Legion approves the use of “so help me God” because such words are “a ceremonial, longstanding practice” that lack “a discriminatory intent” and, therefore, bear a presumption of constitutionality.
Thus, thanks to the American Legion case, and the analysis of Judge Torruella, these four words that have joined the 136 other words to make up this nearly 100-year old oath will be among the first words America’s newest citizens get to say well in to the future.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
South Bay United Pentecostal Church in California asked the United States Supreme Court to invalidate a state ban on the size of religious gatherings of more than ten people. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The COVID-19 pandemic gave the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court something to think about—and not just washing their hands.
In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, a church asked the court to invalidate the State of California’s ban on religious gatherings of more than ten people. On the eve of the Supreme Court’s review of that claim, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded that limitation to 25% of a church’s occupancy or 100 people, whichever is fewer.
Four of the Justices agreed that California’s restrictions treated places of worship less favorably than comparable secular businesses.
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wondered why churches were required to cap attendance at 100 people or 25% when “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries” did not.
“The Church and its congregants” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses.” And, since “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices,” he observed, why not churchgoers?
In the end, the case becomes something of an academic exercise, binding only on the parties to the case. Still, it’s quite concerning that only four of the nine Justices of the nation’s highest court would conclude, as Justice Kavanaugh did that California “may not discriminate against religion” even in a pandemic.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Governing public health is an important task, but it is not more important than following the Constitution. If people can practice social distancing and go to Kroger or Home Depot, then they should be allowed to gather in a similar fashion for their weekly religious service. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
“But what of that enduring Constitution in times like these? Does it mean something different because society is desperate for a cure or prescriptions?”
Those are among the opening words of Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, a federal judge of a federal district court in Kentucky, as he issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church.
We filed for a TRO in that case because Kentucky’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak had prevented in-person religious gatherings, but did not restrict other secular gatherings like it. So, while Kentuckians could visit their local grocery store or hardware store, following proper social distancing measures, they could not employ the same social distancing measures and attend in-person religious meetings.
To that, Judge Tatenhove said, “If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.”
Certainly, protecting the public health is an important task of governing, but not if it comes at the expense of the Constitution. As Judge Tatenhove put it, “It would be easy to put [the Constitution] on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient. But that is not our tradition. Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Governor Andy Beshear and others have been preventing in person worship services despite churches’ willingness to adhere to social distancing and appropriate hygiene guidelines while allowing gyms, stores and the like to re-open. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
It seems that some state officials think that Americans who go to church only go to church.
Maybe that’s an overstatement, but it at least appears that Governor Andy Beshear, and others, treat religious Americans differently. The lockdowns associated with COVID-19 suggest that some officials think that Americans are capable of shopping safely, but religious Americans are incapable of worshipping safely.
In a per curiam decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wondered at this distinction. The litigants, church members, simply wanted to be treated equally. The court said, “They are willing to practice social distancing. They are willing to follow any hygiene requirements.” And, yet, the Court explained, “The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same.”
Then the Court asked this, “aren’t the two groups of people often the same people—going to work on one day and going to worship on another? How can the same person be trusted to comply with social-distancing and other health guidelines in secular settings but not be trusted to do the same in religious settings?”
The Sixth Circuit enjoined Governor Beshear’s order preventing in-person worship services. After all, the Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
First Liberty Institute is asking Congress to provide immunity from lawsuits to houses of worship and religious nonprofits during this world-wide pandemic. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
All of us are hopeful for the day everyone is declared immune from the threat of COVID-19. Recently, hundreds of pastors and religious leaders sent a letter to members of Congress asking for a different kind of immunity: from lawsuits.
As Kelly Shackelford, our firm’s president said in written testimony submitted to the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, “Whether Orthodox Jewish synagogues in New York, inner-city churches in Houston, or faith-based non-profits providing spiritual and humanitarian relief from coast to coast, these religious organizations and their leaders are each concerned about a new threat to our nation’s faith communities: a swarm of lawsuits blaming houses of worship and religious ministries for any person who attended a religious gathering or received food or shelter from a charity or ministry and subsequently contracted COVID-19.”
Sure, the lawsuits might ultimately prove meritless, but should churches, synagogues, and others really have to litigate these claims? That’s why we worked to spearhead a letter signed by nearly 300 religious leaders around the country, asking Congress to include immunity from lawsuit for America’s houses of worship as they reopen.
Churches, synagogues, and America’s houses of worship have provided critical care, comfort, and calm in the midst of the uncertainty caused by a worldwide pandemic. They should not be punished for their many kindnesses by a wave of lawsuits when this is all over.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Judge Justin Walker sides with religious freedom when Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services on Easter Sunday. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Easter is a special day on the Christian calendar. But for On Fire Church in Louisville, Kentucky in the Spring of 2020, it would be more than special; it would be memorable.
They intended to hold a drive-in Easter service, since the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from meeting in person. But, Mayor Greg Fischer forbade it. Actually, the mayor said the police might attend too, but only to write down license plates and force attendees into a 14-day quarantine.
First Liberty sought a temporary restraining order late on Good Friday. Less than 24-hours later, Judge Justin Walker granted the TRO, explaining that the mayor’s actions were “violating the Free Exercise Clause ‘beyond all question.’”
He noted that “Louisville . . . targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services, while not prohibiting a multitude of other non-religious drive-ins and drive-throughs—including . . . drive-through liquor stores.” Concluding, “if beer is ‘essential,’ so is Easter.”
Judge Walker’s opinion recalled the experience of the Pilgrims who, he said, understood that, “No place, not even the unknown, is worse than any place whose state forbids the exercise of your sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Even in times of worldwide pandemic, the First Amendment does not hand in a doctor’s note and take the day off. Rather, it preserves and defends the first of our freedoms given to us by God himself.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
As large group gatherings have been placed on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, Pastor Charles Hamilton from Greenville, Mississippi, prepared to preach to his usual Sunday crowd via a drive-in church service. However, the Mayor suspended these gatherings and it took two lawsuits and an intervention for the discrimination to stop. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
It was a warm spring Thursday evening in Greenville, Mississippi. One would have said it was a perfectly normal evening for King James Bible Baptist Church to host a Bible study, but things were hardly normal.
A highly communicable virus had infected the world. Everyone was shut down, or so it seemed. The town’s mayor had even cancelled all gatherings in the town, including religious gatherings.
Still, Pastor Charles Hamilton made adjustments and readied himself to preach to a bunch of cars. Well, he meant to preach to people, but they were confined to their cars. That week, the mayor of Greenville had even prohibited so-called drive-in church services where parishioners drove to the church, parked in the lot, and stayed in their cars, listening through the closed doors and windows to hear Pastor Hamilton preach.
It was a strange time. Nonetheless, Pastor Charles Hamilton was shocked when he walked outside. The entire police force was there, piling out of their cruisers. One officer rushed to inform Pastor Hamilton that his rights had been “suspended.”
Pastor Hamilton thanked the officer, picked up his Bible, and continued to preach anyway.
We don’t know what the officers thought about the sermon that evening, but we do know this: it took two lawsuits and the intervention of the Attorney General of the United States to get Greenville’s mayor to stop discriminating against Pastor Hamilton.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Are the recent restrictions imposed by state officials in response to COVID-19 a violation of your religious freedom? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A global pandemic has gripped the nation’s attention in the Spring of 2020 and rightly so. In response, some state officials are imposing restrictions upon the gathering of large numbers of people in one place at a time.
Are such restrictions Constitutional? As my law professors used to say: it depends.
Temporary, evenly applied restrictions on religious gatherings may be permissible. Government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling reason for doing so. But, even then, government must use the least burdensome approach that achieves that compelling interest.
So, temporary restrictions to reduce the spread of a global pandemic is almost certainly a compelling reason, so long as the government is not treating religious institutions unfairly compared with how it treats other comparable gatherings.
Those restrictions need to be applied evenly and temporarily. For instance, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s famous threat to shut down synagogues who disobey his orders would almost certainly violate the constitution if he attempted to enforce it.
Likewise, Mayor Errick Simmons, of Greenville, Mississippi, was wrong and unfair to send the entire police force to surround our clients at King James Bible Baptist Church for having a drive-in church service, but leave the local drive-in hamburger joint alone.
The Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic. Even in times of a worldwide pandemic, it’s good to know religious liberty is protected.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Despite doing her best to find a solution that would reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community, Justice of the Peace, Dianne Hensley is still under fire for not personally performing a same-sex marriage due to her religious beliefs. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Dianne Hensley is a Justice of the Peace in Waco, Texas. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, she has been looking for a way to reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community.
She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she understands that many of her gay friends do not share that conviction. If she, like most of the local justices of the peace stopped officiating weddings altogether, those without ready access to low-cost alternatives suffer most.
So, she assembled a referral list of wedding officiants, including a walk-in wedding chapel just 3 blocks from the courthouse. That arrangement worked, until the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, without having received a complaint, initiated an investigation. That resulted in an official “public warning” with likely worse sanctions to follow should she continue.
Surely in 2020, we can find a way to protect those with religious beliefs that prevent them from officiating weddings with which they morally disagree, while also accommodating the marriage of anyone lawfully allowed to wed.
We’ve filed a lawsuit against the Commission, alleging their punishment violates Dianne’s religious liberty. Rather than punish her, the Commission ought to have recognized Dianne’s effort to balance her faith with the needs of her community — a type of basic, human, and much needed fairness missing in much of America today.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Despite long standing amendments like the Blaine Amendment, religious organizations should be just as deserving of participating in public programs as anyone else. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
We have discussed the history of anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments on this program before. If you recall, it was Senator James Blaine who, in the mid-1800’s, proposed language ultimately adopted within state constitutions that prevents government dollars flowing to religious institutions, even to this day.
It’s a curious thing that, in 2020 two organizations, one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions, yet only the secular organization may qualify for participation in public programs.
Government officials need not rely upon the overall ability, educational or professional qualifications, financial stability, or facilities of a religious organization to decide whether it may participate. Rather, they may exclude religious organizations because they are religious organizations. Their religion may be the sole criterion for exclusion.
In January of 2020, the Supreme Court once again heard arguments over the constitutionality of Blaine Amendments in Espinoza v. Montana. In a friend of the court brief, First Liberty Institute argued that religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else.
The promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion, welcoming religious organizations to compete in the public square on equal footing with other organizations.
If they are to be denied, let it be for legitimate reasons having not the whiff of religious discrimination. Government should never tolerate the codification of religious bigotry.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Despite both Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor cases, states like California are continuing to try and subvert the Weldon Amendment, and force citizens to violate their conscience. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services recently announced through its Office of Civil Rights that HHS is pursuing an enforcement action against the State of California.
You see, something known as the Weldon Amendment guards against states accepting federal dollars to require those using its health insurance to fund abortion services.
It seems that the State of California has required The Guadalupanas Sisters, a Catholic order of religious women headquartered in Los Angeles to fund abortion services through the premiums they pay in insurance services.
Now, if the State of California fails to provide assurances to HHS that it will end the practice, the federal agency plans to refer the state on for further investigation, if not prosecution.
You would think that, in the years since our Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby and over the years of litigation concerning the Little Sisters of the Poor that states would begin to understand that they can’t force its citizens to violate their religious conscience.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, “In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The opinions written by judges are important in all cases, but when it comes to religious freedom cases, the words and manner in which a case is written can either expand religious freedom or lessen it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The measure of a federal judge may be what he or she writes. Or maybe that a judge writes. Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit never seems to miss the chance. And his opinions are worth reading.
Take for instance his separate opinion in Horvath v. City of Leander. While he mostly agreed with the majority’s decision, he raised concerns that the lower court relied upon Employment Division v. Smith, a case often relied on to curtail the First Amendment’s promise of the free exercise of religion.
That led him to articulating the importance of words, pushing back against efforts to reduce the promise of the Free Exercise Clause to the mere “freedom of worship.” Properly understood, Judge Ho helpfully explains, the Founders intended the First Amendment to “extend beyond mere ritual and private belief to cover any action motivated by faith.”
Care for the text may even mean that we shed any reluctance to hold government officials personally accountable for violating someone’s religious liberty. As Judge Ho reminds us, we ought instead to be “concerned about government chilling the citizens-not the other way around.”
After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower it.
The point, for Judge Ho, is that in guarding the text of the First Amendment, we refuse efforts to redefine it into lesser terms while rejecting judicial additions to it.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The religious freedom rights of our men and women in the U.S. military is constantly coming under attack, and First Liberty is fighting back each and every time. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You have heard me refer to Mikey Weinstein and his deceptively-named Military Religious Freedom Foundation on this program more than once.
Over the last couple of months, this group of anti-faith activists has certainly shown a dogged resolve to brazenly attack the right of our service members to live out their faith.
After the MRFF sent a legal demand to the Department of Defense regarding our client, Shields of Strength, a Christian company that graciously provides replica dog tags with inspirational Bible verses to active-duty service members, veterans and their families who want them, we had to take action. We’ve now sent two demand letters on the topic—one to the Army and another to the Navy—insisting the DOD respect our client’s religious liberty.
But that’s not all. Before Christmas of 2019, the group complained about an inflatable Santa Claus on an Army base, claiming that the display was unconstitutional because it stood wearing military camouflage, a lapel reading “Christmas Force” and held a small sign with the phrase, “God Bless America.” Not only that, they also called out the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO for selling Jesus-themed candy canes.
These may sound silly, but we can’t risk not taking them seriously. Just as our service members never give up when fighting for our freedoms, First Liberty will never give up on our mission to fight for their First Freedom.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
All school organizations should be treated the same. When school officials at the University of Iowa exempted non-religious school organizations from its human rights policy and not groups like InterVarsity, they were held personally liable. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Holding government officials personally liable for violating an organizations religious liberty seems harsh, but is an important—and difficult—job of the federal courts.
At the University of Iowa, university officials exempted a number of groups from their human rights policy. Sports clubs could distinguish by gender. The military dental club restricted membership by military members. Even acapella groups meeting on campus were allowed to restrict membership by gender.
But, the university told the InterVaristy Christian Fellowship chapter that requiring its leadership to adhere to historic religious convictions on human sexuality was wrong and resulted in the club being deregistered.
The club sued the university and the court held that not only did the University violate the law, but the university officials who investigated the student group were to be held personally liable for the constitutional violation. In civil rights litigation, if a plaintiff demonstrates that a state official acting under color of law deprives a citizen of any of the rights and privileges found in our Constitution, courts may hold them personally liable.
Holding university or government entities liable is one thing, but when the full weight of federal law lands on the backs of individual bad actors, it has a deterring effect. Moreover, reminding state officials that they have a responsibility to protect the religious liberty rights of Americans makes them all the more cautious to come close to violating our first freedoms.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Despite an article in Christianity Today claiming tax exemptions are leading churches to be more parasitical than independent, tax exemptions help to protect and promote the autonomy of churches. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The January 2020 edition of Christianity Today features the headline, “The Hidden Cost of Tax Exemption.” The author makes his case for why American churches may be better off for refusing what he calls the “government largesse” of tax exemptions.
The article portrays churches in America as “basically parasitical” with pastors feeding on the benefits their churches drain from their host community without returning much noticeable benefit. The story contends that the appeal of the tax exemption is rooted in a historical desire to propagate racism and further discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
The story ends with these words, “It might not be such a bad thing to lose tax-exempt status . . . The true church of God, after all, is not reliant on its special status in the tax code. We can walk by faith and not by government largesse.”
In truth, rather than make churches more ideologically faithful, the loss of tax exemption for churches would invade upon church autonomy and curb religious liberty.
The “true church of God” is less a target to be taxed or a parasite to be crushed and more a quiet blessing upon a world in need of the peace they preach and acts of service they humbly perform. A local gathering of religious believers should be viewed as a human right of religious association and free exercise worthy of protection, rather than a potential stream of revenue.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Judge Thomas Griffith’s ruling in Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB is a great example of what the Establishment Clause is supposed to do, limit the role of government in the affairs of religious groups. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The reach of the First Amendment is extensive in securing the religious liberty of individuals and organizations, including colleges and universities.
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB. When Duquesne, a Catholic university, refused to bargain with a group of adjunct faculty seeking to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board stepped in, recommending that the union be certified. But, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the Catholic university.
Judge Thomas Griffith, authoring the opinion, notes that our Constitution restrains government agencies from excessive involvement with religious organizations. “The Establishment Clause,” he writes “limits governmental involvement in the affairs of religious groups, and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards the freedom to practice religion, whether as an individual or as part of a group.”
That is critical, he said, because it means religious institutions retain the independence required to pursue religious activity, inculcate its religious identity, and teach according to its religious tradition. After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower its creep into every aspect of our lives.
The importance of this decision cannot be understated. Its immediate impact should be welcomed by religious colleges and universities around the country. Furthering the autonomy of religious institutions to be unapologetically religious and free from government intrusion is an unambiguous goal of the First Amendment.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
On Religious Freedom Day 2020, President Trump announced new initiatives that his administration is taking to preserve religious freedom in America. Learn more about these three key initiatives at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
On Religious Freedom Day 2020, we celebrated a major victory for the rights of students, teachers, coaches, public employees, and religious organizations who want to freely live out their faith in school, at work, and in ministry.
Two of our clients, Coach Joe Kennedy and Hannah Allen, joined our president, Kelly Shackelford, in the Oval Office of the White House while President Trump announced new initiatives aimed at preserving religious freedom.
First, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated guidelines on prayer and religious expression in public schools. The updated guidelines expand upon previous guidelines and will help students freely live out their faith, without as much interference by school officials. No student should fear discrimination for simply expressing their faith while at school.
Second, the White House announced that nine federal agencies proposed new administrative rules to ensure that religious organizations and their secular counterparts are treated equally by the federal government. Religious organizations deserve to be treated just like secular organizations.
Finally, the Office of Management and Budget issued new guidance requiring that the administration of federal grants is consistent with the 2017 Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran. Religious organizations should never be disqualified from federal grants just because they are religious.
These actions by the Trump administration are an important step in helping end religious discrimination, while ensuring people of faith will be treated equally when they seek to partner with federal or state governments to provide services to communities nationwide.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
After two years since First Liberty filed a lawsuit against the Village of Airmont, New York, the orthodox Jewish community will finally have its day in court. Get the full update and learn more at FirstLiberty.org/briefing.
In 2018, we filed a lawsuit alleging that government officials in the Village of Airmont, New York and the Suffern Central School District had engaged in a deliberate effort to dissuade Orthodox Jewish residents from staying in or moving to the Village of Airmont.
Town officials required multiple rounds of permitting and endless inspections, costing tens of thousands of dollars for Orthodox Jewish residents to be able to use their own homes for religious meetings. They were even threatened with criminal sanctions by the Town of Airmont.
Even when presented with the prospect of the United States Department of Justice weighing in against them, town officials would not relent, filing motions to dismiss the legal action. In January of 2020, Judge Vincent Briccetti issued an opinion, denying the town’s motions to dismiss.
My colleague, Keisha Russell said, “Our clients are thrilled that they will get their day in court. We are pleased that the judge dismissed the effort by both the Village of Airmont and the Suffern School District to avoid accountability for their discriminatory actions.”
Perhaps this will make town officials more receptive to treating its Jewish residents with respect. The Orthodox community in Airmont just wants to be left alone to peacefully worship and coexist without fear of criminal prosecution.
The First Amendment and federal law protect the right of all Americans to pray together in their homes free from unreasonable and intrusive government interference.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
No one can deny Lawrence VanDyke’s excellent credentials for the federal court system. Attempting to deface his reputation nonetheless, the ABA and its progressive counterparts in the Senate questioned his impartiality toward LGBTQ litigants due to his faith. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
President Trump and I have a common friend in Lawrence VanDyke. I know Lawrence from the time he’s spent volunteering with First Liberty Institute and as solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana. President Trump nominated him to an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As you might guess, he took a few shots during his confirmation hearing. This time, the real culprit seems to be the American Bar Association. Somehow, the ABA is perceived to be a neutral evaluator of judicial nominees. So, rating Lawrence as “not qualified” is a severe blow to his nomination.
When senators inquired if he would be fair toward LGBTQ litigants, Lawrence’s emotions got the better of him. Choking back tears, he managed to say, “It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God. They should all be treated with dignity and respect.”
No one can honestly and credibly attack VanDyke’s sterling credentials. No one even tries. But attacks on someone’s legal research, writing, and advocacy are not in the playbook for today’s progressive left, which is driven by a militant secularism that worships at the altar of wokeness.
Lawrence VanDyke is a compassionate man with a brilliant intellect who has donated hours and hours of his professional career defending religious liberty. I hope the senate ignores the ABA’s biased letter and confirms my friend, Lawrence VanDyke.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
A Cameron, Missouri, school district superintendent has received a series of complaint letters regarding religious activity in school. However, these letters are rife with unsubstantiated claims and unidentified sources. In order to be taken seriously, legal demand letters require litigants and facts—not anonymous threats and gripes. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America, whether that is Tim Tebow’s eye black or Coach Kennedy’s silent prayer.
However, with these public displays of religions often come needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored.
A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent, demanding an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity.
But something always seems to be missing with these letters: A litigant.
Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — such a letter amounts to little more than a public gripe.
Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior.
Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In a recent speech, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith. Ignoring both the Constitution and precedent, secularists are now accusing him for his “proselytizing religious speech.” Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
We recently discussed Attorney General Barr’s excellent speech on religious liberty. But, he’s not the only one in the Trump administration talking about religion.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also delivered a speech that progressives found troubling because he dared note that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith.
The fourth in line to the presidency admitted to learning a great deal about leadership while at West Point, in his service in the Army and Congress, and as director of the CIA. Yet Pompeo focused on how his faith has informed his leadership.
Secularists now demand that the Inspector General of the United States investigate and punish Secretary Pompeo for his “proselytizing religious speech.”
It may come as a surprise to some that even civil servants look to their personal faith in making leadership decisions. When those decisions align with calls for social justice and progressive calls for economic equality, the Left celebrates.
Yet, admit that a secretary of state relies upon his faith to be humbler, listen better, and make wiser decisions, and suddenly it crosses the line into a constitutionally dubious attempt to establish an official church of the United States.
Americans of every walk of life — elected or not — are free to be known by their faith in both public and private life. More than that, they are free to rely upon that faith in their disposition, dialogue, and decisions.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Upon receiving a Gospel tract in the mail, New York resident Annmarie Trombetta sued the sender for causing “severe emotional distress” due to “extreme and outrageous conduct.” Thankfully, a New York trial court concluded that sharing God’s Word isn’t intentionally harmful. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You will be pleased to know that a New York trial court has declared that proselytizing someone does not rise to the level of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Back in 2015, Lauren Kruse mailed a religious pamphlet to Annmarie Trombetta. The pamphlet, also known as a ‘tract,’ featured a cartoon depiction of someone who is sent into the "lake of fire" to "burn in hell" because they did not follow the version of Christianity promoted by the pamphlet which is evangelical Baptist.
Eventually, she learned that Lauren had sent her the tracts. Lauren explained that she was concerned for Annmarie’s eternal soul, along with many others to whom she had sent the tract.
Annmarie sued Lauren, including a claim for the intentional affliction of emotional distress, which requires a showing of (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress.
Ultimately, the court noted that the “First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the courts of this State from evaluating the religious beliefs of a church or individual,” and, further, “While the court understands why the plaintiff found the tract and email disturbing, the court does not find that the conduct rose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
And, for the majority of Americans, that’s a good thing.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Religious exemptions to the Contraceptive Mandate are under attack once again. After several states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration for protecting the rights of religious objectors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that RFRA does not permit a broad religious exemption from this very mandate. The case now heads to The U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You would think that, in light of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision a few years ago and the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the so-called contraceptive mandate, the fight over forcing religious adherents to compromise their religious convictions would be over.
You would be wrong. First Liberty recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging them to review yet another Little Sisters of the Poor case. This case stems from lawsuits filed by several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, against the Trump administration for providing religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against religious objectors, concluding that RFRA does not permit a broad religious exemption from the Contraception Mandate, jeopardizing the exemptions granted to the nuns and others. The Little Sisters appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
We argue in our brief that this decision ignores binding precedent and forces the courts to evaluate the sincerity of an employees’ religious convictions—which is against the law. Left alone, the Third Circuit’s decision threatens religious freedom by allowing courts to assess which religious convictions are reasonable.
As my colleague, Keisha Russell said when we filed the case, “Enough is enough. The Supreme Court of the United States needs to finally protect Little Sisters of the Poor and all other religious objectors from government-forced violations of their faith.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Along with many of her peers, Skylar Carson, a student within the Steamboat Springs (CO) School District, was forced to read and analyze explicit lyrics in her “Music Literature” class. In doing so, her teacher had broken school policy (requiring parental consent to teach controversial material). No student should have to undergo such treatment—and neither teacher nor school district should get away with it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Skylar Cason started her school day like any other, by attending her “Music Literature” class. She left with feelings of guilt and shame no student should be forced to endure while at school.
Steamboat Springs School District teacher Ryan Ayala decided to required students to fill-in-the-blanks in which a district-approved textbook had censored out much of the lewd and vulgar language of the infamous poem, “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg—words mostly used by pornographers.
Then, he assigned students to analyze the song, “Teenagers take off your clo” which seems to normalize sexting and ends by the singer noting his power over now nude teenagers as he holds their clothes.
None of this came with a warning—not to Skylar, nor to her parents. School policy permits teachers to instruct on controversial materials, but they are required by that policy to obtain parental permission before they do. No one at Steamboat Springs School District told Skylar’s parents and, therefore, they could not request an alternative assignment or exercise the option to opt-out in order to protect her religious conscience.
We sent a letter to the superintendent, asking that the teacher be required to apologize for the lack of forewarning and that the entire district undergo several hours of sensitivity training.
No student should feel guilt or shame—much less have their religious conscience violated by the actions of a teacher.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
While elementary students in Knoxville, Tennessee, can legally opt for Bible study time during their school days, complaints have recently arisen regarding this practice. Critics should recall that The Supreme Court of the United States approved and even commended this tradition in Zorach v. Clauson. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Is it possible for public school students to go to a church or synagogue to receive religious education during the school day? In fact, yes it is.
Release time education is one such example. Instruction provided by release time education is not and cannot be provided by the school, and no school support or participation of any kind is allowed—including transportation. No student is required to participate, and no student can participate without specific parental consent and it cannot be held on school property.
In Tennessee, for example, students from Sterchi Elementary School are released during the school day to travel to the Church at Sterchi Hills. There, some 70 students spend about an hour of time receiving a Bible lesson.
Some will raise complaints about the religious instruction received during release time, but those are entirely unfounded. The Supreme Court of the United States approved the idea almost 70 years ago in a case called Zorach v. Clauson. The Justices recognized that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” and went on to not only uphold release time programs as perfectly lawful, but further explained that “[w]hen the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it then follows the best of our traditions.”
So according to the Supreme Court, Bible release time is not merely lawful — it exemplifies what it means to be an American.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
An atheist group has criticized Wayne Ivey, Sheriff of Brevard County, Florida, for lettering “In God We Trust” on the exterior of his police department’s vehicles. This accusation is nothing short of ridiculous—even the United States and the State of Florida claim this phrase as their official mottos! Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Sheriff of Brevard County, Florida, Wayne Ivey, made a decision that one group hates, but you will probably love.
He decided to put new lettering on all of his cruisers and department vehicles. That lettering is the National Motto, “In God We Trust.” That merited Sheriff Ivey a nasty letter from a group of atheists. Usually this group cites a few cases to make their point, but this time, they didn’t cite a single case in support of their demands that he remove the motto from the vehicles.
That’s probably because it is nearly impossible for them to cite any binding case invalidating the National Motto. As we have observed before on this program, every federal appellate court to have considered the motto has deemed it perfectly constitutional. This past summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to review the constitutionality of the motto appearing on our coinage.
More ironically, not only is “In God We Trust” the official motto of the United States, the State of Florida adopted the phrase as its official state motto as well. So, it’s a little hard to figure how it would be inappropriate—much less, illegal—for a sheriff in the State of Florida, within the United States, to publish the state’s official motto on his cruisers.
We sent a letter to Sheriff Ivey letting him know he’s on solid ground with his decision. And, with that support, I’m happy to report that he’s not changing his mind anytime soon.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In a recent speech, Attorney General Bill Barr emphasized religious liberty’s importance in our federal republic. Echoing the Founders, he maintained that religious liberty promotes individual self government and morality—needed virtues in American citizenry. Additionally, Barr explained why governmental neutrality depends upon religious liberty’s protection. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Another Trump Administration official has come out in favor of religious liberty, this time with one of the best speeches on the topic in modern memory.
Bill Barr serves the nation at Attorney General. In October of 2019, Barr delivered a speech to his law school alma mater, Notre Dame.
The entire speech is worth reading, but his primary point was to explain that the framers of our Constitution believed self-government was only as effective as the people were moral. Without a common moral commitment to restrain them, people will turn to tyranny to have moral restraints forcefully applied or licentiousness brought about by the complete absence of morality. The Constitution succeeded because its framers relied upon the ethics of Judeo-Christianity in drafting it.
But, as Barr notes, the problem now is that “militant secularists” are engaged in “an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.” He says, “The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.”
That’s what his critics fail to grasp. To them, neutrality means government-enforced secularity. But, the genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it guards against hostility masquerading as secularized neutrality.
America’s founding era is replete with efforts by the founding generation to preserve space for people of faith to exercise religion independent of the government’s preferences. Such historic toleration is what is rightly called, “neutrality.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Opeleika, Alabama officials prohibit a tradition of student-led prayer over the loudspeaker before football games. This ban directly violates a standing state law. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Prayer under the Friday night lights is once again in the crosshairs of activists.
In Opeleika, Alabama, school officials ended the practice of students praying over the loudspeaker prior to kickoff. Sadly, the decision ignores the law the Alabama legislature passed in 1993. According to the law, the legislature meant “to properly accommodate the free exercise of religious rights of its student citizens in the public schools.” But, not merely their rights within the school building, but also (and this is quoting from the law) “at public school events,” including football games.
In fact, the law explicitly says that “non-sectarian, non-proselytizing student-initiated prayer, invocations and/or benedictions, shall be permitted [at] school-related sporting events.”
One court, upholding the law, explained: “So long as the prayer is genuinely student-initiated, and not the product of any school policy which actively or surreptitiously encourages it, the speech is private and it is protected.”
And what about those who don’t like the prayers? Well, the same court explained that they are simply “free not to listen, and to express their disagreement by not participating in any way.”
In other words, genuinely student-initiated prayer is nothing to be feared and everything to be protected. Alabama law makes it abundantly clear: students may pray over the loudspeaker at public school football games. Driving religious expression by students off of public property is never the right option.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The City Council of Cleveland, Ohio desires to reinstitute the practice of legislative prayer before its meetings. As legislative prayer is a long-standing and constitutional practice upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court—and even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cleveland Councilmembers should not fear legal retribution for reincorporating it into their meetings. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Legislative prayer is as old as the United States. In fact, offering a prayer before a public meeting should be one of the least questionable topics of our day.
That is why some on Ohio’s Cleveland City Council would like to bring the practice back to its meetings. Thankfully, the law supports them if they do.
Not only has the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the practice of legislative prayer—twice—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has even said that the lawmakers themselves can lead such invocations.
That’s partly why we litigated The American Legion v. AHA where Justice Samuel Alito agreed with our understanding of the First Amendment and noted that “religiously expressive” practices, such as legislative prayer, that have long been a part of our nation’s history and heritage, bear “a strong presumption of constitutionality.” Just a few weeks later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives noted that presumption of constitutionality extends to legislative prayers.
As we recently explained in a letter sent to the Councilmembers, the Cleveland City Council is on solid legal ground to restart its practice of legislative prayers. Extending that level of freedom to all Americans, whether they are private citizens or elected officials, reflects the very best of the American brand of freedom.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
When Drew Brees, the New Orleans Saints’ quarterback, endorsed “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” he received a lot of criticism from the “woke” culture. Nonetheless, the Constitution protects Brees’ freedom of speech as well as the right of students to read their Bibles at school. Building on these principles, First Liberty has successfully defended individuals maligned for expressing their faith in the academic and professional spheres. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Drew Brees is not only a Super Bowl winning quarterback, he’s been an outspoken advocate for several issues dear to his heart. That includes his faith.
But when he cut a public service announcement for a project by Focus on the Family called, “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” the woke, cancel culture whipped itself into the usual frenzy. The whole situation made me think of a few of our past clients.
For instance, officials in Georgia removed Dr. Eric Walsh from being a public health official over something he said in a sermon as a lay minister. Giovanni Rubeo, just 12 years old at the time, was told he could not read his Bible during free reading time at school.
Drew Brees probably won’t lose his job like Dr. Walsh did, but I worry about kids who actually do bring their Bible to school, like Giovanni did. While the law is crystal clear that students have every right to carry, read, and reference their Bible at school, we all brace for the next student who runs up against the teacher who doesn’t think the student should have the freedom to do so.
All of us ought to appreciate Drew Brees for what makes him different from us, even if that is his religion. That’s what our commitment to religious liberty and the guarantee to exercise that religion in public demands.
By the way, in case you’re wondering, we won Dr. Walsh’s case and, after several exchanges with Giovanni’s school, they admitted their teacher made a mistake. So, don’t be afraid of living out your faith in public either. We’re here to help.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Cases have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court hinging on the court’s definition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The justices’ potential altering of this definition would greatly injure the democratic process as well as the state of religious liberty in America. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The day after the Supreme Court of the United States opened the 2019-2020 term of the court, the Justices heard argument in three cases over what is meant by a single word in a federal statute.
The cases involve two homosexual men and one transgendered woman terminated from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. The federal statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of, among other things, a person’s sex. That’s the word up for debate.
Activists have labored since at least 1974 to update Title VII’s definition of sex to include any number of gender identities and sexual orientations, but Congress has declined to act.
Part of the reason for that has to do with the very real fear expressed by religious conservatives at the potential loss of key religious liberty protections. They fear becoming the next Aaron and Melissa Klein.
Cutting off that democratic debate—one that allows concerns for the protection of religious liberty to be accounted for—is unwise. The question everyone should be asking is what does yet another decision on a significant cultural question by judges mean for our democratic republic?
Equality and nondiscrimination means very little in the hands of a democracy that can be altered by the stroke of the judicial pen.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Activists challenged Lehigh County in Pennsylvania for retaining a cross symbol among the various elements displayed in its county seal. Following the precedents set in The American Legion v. AHA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld Lehigh County’s right to include the cross in its seal. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Activists who dislike the presence of anything religious in public can no longer safely assume that judges will order religious symbols hidden from public view.
In recent decades, progressives have turned to the courts to accomplish what ought to be done in the political arena. No less is that true than when it comes to religiously expressive symbols that appear in public. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA is correcting the faulty understanding of the First Amendment.
In Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, for instance, that county’s seal includes various elements symbolic of their community, including a cross. That, activists say, establishes a religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Mercifully, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed.
Judge Thomas Hardiman explained that what matters is less how old a particular religious symbol is and more whether its use fits within our country’s longstanding traditions.
He said, “The Lehigh County seal fits comfortably within a long tradition of State and municipal seals and flags throughout our Republic that include religious symbols or mottos which further confirms its constitutionality.”
Rather than allow judges to force the removal, destruction, or censoring of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, The American Legion line of cases safeguards the history of our country, the text of our Constitution, and the simplicity of a self-governed local community.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Because Jeremy and Kristy Morris shared the Gospel via their annual Christmas display, their HOA sued them. This legal action amounts to nothing more than unlawful religious discrimination in housing, an injustice that First Liberty has taken on in the fight for our constitutional freedoms. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Some months ago on the First Liberty Briefing, I introduced you to Jeremy and Kristy Morris. Located in northern Idaho, the Morrisses have been embroiled in a lawsuit with their homeowners association over their annual Christmas display.
But, they don’t just put up Christmas lights to look at them. The Morrisses want to bless others with their light display. And so, they decided to spread a little Christmas cheer by inviting folks onto their yard, sharing the Gospel with them over a cup of hot chocolate and asking for donations for disadvantaged kids in the area.
But the HOA told them to get rid of the lights and based their disagreement with the display on the Morrisses’ religion. Jeremy and Kristy sued and convinced a jury that the HOA engaged in unlawful religious discrimination in housing. But, the judge overruled the jury and entered judgment in favor of the HOA instead.
In October 2019, First Liberty and our volunteer attorneys at Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher appealed the judge’s decision and asked the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the jury’s decision.
As Kristy Morris explained, “I had to go to court because I invited my neighbors for Christmas. I truly hope the judges on the Ninth Circuit will free us to be able to once again celebrate Christmas and raise money for charity.”
Me too. No one should have to fight to spread a little Christmas cheer outside their own home.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Judge Tammy Kemp has received criticism for giving her Bible to a convicted felon in an act of compassion and mercy. Any judge that hands any holy writ to someone in an effort to encourage the improvement of his or her life is legal and worth defending. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Everyone seems to have been moved by the remarkable story of forgiveness and mercy of Brandt Jean, brother of Botham Jean tragically killed in 2018 by an off-duty police officer in his own apartment.
Many have even taken note of Judge Tammy Kemp’s actions as well. After sentencing was complete, Judge Kemp descended from the bench, visited with the Jean family, and was moved to give her personal Bible to Amber Guyger, the newly sentenced felon, when she greeted her.
Ignoring the example of humanity, healing, and mercy demonstrated by Judge Kemp, the Freedom From Religion Foundation stepped in to ruin the moment. They filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, calling the act of Judge Kemp an “abuse of power.”
Our country has a longstanding tradition of respecting the reality that our leaders have both a professional, official role and yet may retain their personal humanity. Not only should Judge Kemp be permitted to be human, including the parts of her humanity informed by her religious beliefs, any judge that hands any holy writ to anyone in any effort to encourage the improvement of their lives is worth defending.
The protests of Judge Kemp should stop and those protesting ought to join the rest of the nation celebrating the compassion and mercy Judge Kemp demonstrated. We should all be thankful the law allows Judge Kemp’s actions. We stand with her and will gladly lead the charge in defending her noble and legal actions if necessary.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
For the first time in U.S. presidential history, President Donald Trump hosted a meeting at the United Nations dedicated to religious freedom. This is an extremely important step on the path to eradicating religious persecution across the world. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Never in American history has a United States president hosted a meeting at the United Nations dedicated to religious freedom.
But, in late September 2019, as the delegations from around the world descended on the UN General Assembly in New York City, President Donald Trump hosted a meeting focused on international religious freedom.
He explained that, “The United Sates is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God,” but then admitted that “the religious freedom enjoyed by American citizens is rare in the world.”
Indeed it is. As he explained, “Approximately 80% of the world’s population live in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.”
President Trump called upon them to “end religious discrimination.” After announcing the formation of a coalition of U.S. businesses that will work to protect religious freedom globally, President Trump ended with this observation, “Too often, people in positions of power preach diversity while silencing, shunning, or censoring the faithful. True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs.”
Indeed it does and, whatever else might be said of President Trump’s foreign policy, his administration appears concerned for the persecuted church. As he said to the persecuted church, “The United States of America will forever remain at your side and the side of all who seek religious freedom.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In a recent town hall, Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke contended that religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage. His statement is an overt attack on The First Amendment and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s promise of the continued protection of religious liberty in Obergefell v. Hodges. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
At yet another town hall event for Democratic presidential hopefuls, candidate Beto O’Rourke once again peeled back the veneer of political centrism to reveal a disturbing threat to religious liberty.
Asked if he thought that religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage, Beto wasted no time casting off the shackles of centrism and told the world what the left really believes.
"Yes,” O’Rourke said immediately, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for any one or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”
That’s a far cry from former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s promise in Obergefell v. Hodges when he said “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost sincere conviction” their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality.
Indeed, Kennedy promised that “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
Yet under an O’Rourke administration, organized religion will have to pay its own freight.
O’Rourke’s purpose is to expand the borders of the increasingly far left. He will not win the presidency. Still, we ought to take with deadly seriousness that he is saying what his party is increasingly thinking.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
After the American Legion decision was announced, an activist group is trying to remove a cross from a memorial on Vero Beach. Removing the cross from the monument would reveal a hostility toward religion, which Justice Alito ruled against in The American Legion case. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
There has been a war on religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices occurring in public for some time. The Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA put an end to that, but some haven’t given up the fight.
Back in 1964, residents of Vero Beach, Florida put up a “Lest We Forget” monument. The monument itself looks to be maybe four feet high and about as wide. On top, sits a cross, at the most 19 inches tall and 12 inches wide.
In 2017, a group of activists threatened Vero Beach officials, demanding they remove the memorial or at least knock off the cross from atop the monument. But, nothing came of it. Now, after The American Legion v. AHA, the same group is making noise once more.
I’m not sure why. As you may have recently heard on the First Liberty Briefing, the Supreme Court has explained that monuments like this are “presumptively constitutional.”
The passage of time may further reinforce that this memorial is in keeping with the history and tradition of our country, but what is certainly true is that those opposed to the cross on top of this memorial have no neutral solution. Taking a sledge hammer to the cross atop this memorial would reveal a certain hostility toward religion that, as Justice Samuel Alito observed in The American Legion v. AHA, tearing down monuments in the name of the law would be “evocative, disturbing, and divisive”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The landmark decision in The American Legion case protects war memorials from destruction all across the country. Americans no longer need to fear these religious symbols on government property. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Over the last five episodes, we have been winding our way through the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case The American Legion v. AHA. Before we move on to other areas of religious liberty, let’s tie the whole thing together.
It’s undeniable that The American Legionis a landmark decision. The days of activist courts catering to the offense of those who would illegitimately weaponize the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to attack religious symbols on public land are over.
Not only is the Peace Cross safe from destruction, so are the hundreds of war memorials honoring veterans across the country.
Our Founders would’ve been appalled at attempts by activists to purge the landscape of religious symbols in our country.
We are a religious people, living in a diverse society. None of us should be surprised at the presence of religious symbols interspersed with secular ones in the public square. Quite simply, Americans need no longer fear reprisals against the display of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or the national motto on government property.
It is fitting that a memorial to the men who died in the “war to end all wars,” now ends the war to end all memorials with religious shapes or symbols. Thanks to the efforts of The American Legion, and some good lawyering at First Liberty Institute, today we have more freedom than we did just a few weeks ago.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Lemon Test is the main proponent in religious monuments and symbols being torn down. While the American Legion case didn’t overrule the Lemon Test, the Justices expressed significant skepticism of it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Over the last few episodes, we have been making our way through First Liberty’s latest Supreme Court case, The American Legion v. AHA. Today, it’s all about Lemon.
Of course, we’re not talking about citrus, but the test stemming from the court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman from several decades ago. Lemonhas been the primary means by which opponents of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices have torn down, erased, or ended them. But, thanks to The American Legion case, those days are over.
In the words of a plurality of Justices, “Lemon ambitiously attempted to distill from the Court’s existing case law a test that would bring order and predictability to Establishment Clause decision making.”
But it didn’t. So, the plurality expressed significant skepticism of the test, but stopped short of overruling it.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, evaluated all the ways the Lemontest has been applied, concluding that unless the state action is coercive, monuments and practices rooted in our history and tradition are just fine. Justice Neil Gorsuch called Lemon“a misadventure.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, also concurring, agreed with the plurality’s thinking, but said, “I would take the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts.”
Bottom line for those who wish to attack religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, they’re going to have to find another case.
We’ll wrap up our evaluation of this case in our next episode.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The removal of the Bladensburg monument would not be considered neutral by the justices. The passage of time turns the monument into a historical monument, rather than the focus being on religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In The American Legion v. AHA, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Peace Cross was, and is, a religious symbol. The Justices even noted that some who erected the memorial had a religious motivation in doing so. But, the majority of the court rejected the idea that that religious symbolism or religious meaning meant the memorial must be destroyed.
As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the Justices, “Even if the original purpose of a monument was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment.”
Over time, he notes, “a community may preserve such monuments, symbols, and practices for the sake of their historical significance or their place in a common cultural heritage” and “as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established monument, symbol, or practice often multiply.”
In other words, what was once viewed as religious may now simply be considered historical. But, the passage of time makes that line more difficult to see. But, that’s ok.
As Justice Alito explained, “With sufficient time, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices can become embedded features of a community’s landscape and identity. The community may come to value them without necessarily embracing their religious roots.”
And, if it is so firmly rooted to the community, he concluded, “removing it may no longer appear neutral.”
On the next First Liberty Briefing, let’s talk about what The American Legion case means for the Lemon test.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Justices wanted to remain neutral and tearing down the monument would be hostile towards religion. They emphasized that respecting monuments and symbols of religion is the best way to remain neutral towards religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
This is the third in a series of episodes exploring the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case, The American Legion v. AHA. In this episode, we turn to the issue of hostility toward religion.
It’s clear that the Justices wished to respect the presence of the memorial and what it has come to mean for the people of Bladensburg, Maryland. Though opponents of the memorial clamored for neutrality, removing the Peace Cross would not be a neutral act by the government.
As the majority explained, “requiring their removal would not be viewed by many as a neutral act” and “would be seen by many as profoundly disrespectful.” Worse, the court’s majority observed, “a campaign to obliterate items with religious associations may evidence hostility to religion even if those religious associations are no longer in the forefront.”
In our next episode, we will look at that last part and the evolution of this particular religious symbol into what it means today, but don’t miss this critical point: the Justices of the Supreme Court are communicating to the nation that genuine neutrality toward religion means respecting religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices, not destroying, altering, or hiding them.
As Justice Alito explained in his majority opinion, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
Stay tuned for more.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
A lawsuit could once be filed because someone was offended by the fact that a religious monument was in a public area. Now instead of being removed just because someone dislikes it, the monument must be proved unconstitutional, which is much more difficult to achieve. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In our last episode, we learned that memorials with religious symbolism bear a “strong presumption of constitutionality,” according to Justice Alito’s majority opinion in The American Legion v. AHA. But what does that mean?
Well, to fully appreciate the court’s decision, you need to understand how these lawsuits once worked. Previously, if someone saw what the Supreme Court calls “religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices,” a lawsuit could be filed based on little more than the offense of having been exposed to such a thing on public property.
It was called “offended observer standing” and, as Justice Gorsuch made clear in his concurring opinion, “If individuals and groups could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it, we would risk exceeding the judiciary’s limited constitutional mandate and infringing on powers committed to other branches of government.”
Instead, those merely offended by the presence of a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice must now rebut the presumption that such religious displays are constitutional. That’s a far more difficult standard to overcome and one certain to dissuade suits from even being filed.
Of course, there’s a reason why the court shifted the burden. On our next episode of the First Liberty Briefing, we will discuss how the Justices are combatting hostility toward religion.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices rule that the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Prince George County, Maryland should remain standing. The majority opinion acknowledges that the memorial’s age makes it a part of the community. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
It may have been a long time coming, but the freedom First Liberty Institute secured in The American Legion v. AHA is significant.
You will recall that at issue in the case was the Peace Cross, a World War I monument Gold Star Mothers erected to remember 49 sons of Prince George’s County, Maryland who died in the Great War. That idea came in 1919 and The American Legion dedicated it in 1925.
Everything was fine until 2013 when someone decided they were offended at the presence of a cross on public property, ignoring the surrounding memorials to other wars in what is known as Memorial Park.
In June of 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision. Seven of the nine Justices wrote an opinion, making the decision somewhat difficult to decipher. But the clear majority of seven Justices ruled that the memorial should stay right where it is.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, explained the fact that the memorial bears religious symbolism does not mean the memorial must be destroyed or moved to private property. That is all the more true when memorials age and become a central part of the community itself. “The passage of time,” Justice Alito wrote, “gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.”
In our next episode, we will explore what this “strong presumption of constitutionality” means today.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Tim Goeglein and Craig Osten’s book, “American Restoration: How Faith, Family, and Personal Sacrifice Can Heal our Nation”, addresses solutions to cultural problems that our society is facing in religious liberty today. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Tim Goeglein and Craig Osten just released their new book, “American Restoration.” It’s a critical examination of our time and place, recognizing the cultural battles our society faces and proposing common sense solutions to the problems Tim and Craig identify.
I’m particularly taken by their evaluation of the state of religious liberty in our country today. There’s a recognition throughout the chapter that there is a clash between world views and religious liberty seems to be losing ground.
Their solution is simple, yet profound. “If we are to restore religious liberty, we must engage,” they say. “We must be involved. This is a time for a historic flood tide of faithful men and women to get involved in the media, in culture, and in public policy debates at the local, state, regional, and national levels.” That’s both vitally true and should be obvious to any reader paying close attention.
But, here’s the payoff. After calling for involvement at every level, they conclude, “But in doing so, we cannot compromise the core beliefs of our faith if we are to successfully restore America’s spiritual formation and God-given freedoms.”
Compromise erodes freedoms and that is not less true in the battle for religious freedom. The loss of religious freedom is itself a loss of freedom. And, at the same time, the more gains for the free exercise of religion we achieve, the more free our nation becomes.
The founders understood that. My friends Tim Goeglein and Craig Osten do too. Perhaps you ought to also read their new book, “American Restoration: How Faith, Family, and Personal Sacrifice Can Heal our Nation.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
South Dakota has new law that public schools will display the national motto, “In God We Trust”, and many people are unhappy about it. Every circuit court has deemed it constitutional and it has been upheld that the motto has nothing to do with the establishment of religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Under a new law, South Dakota’s public schools will now display the national motto on school property. But, not everyone is very happy displaying “In God We Trust” on public property.
One anti-religion activist called the idea “exclusionary and aimed at brainwashing American schoolchildren.”
Well, the only brainwashing seems to come from anti-religion activists with a bent to exclude, based on inaccurate information! Indeed, few words are more in keeping with our history and law than the National Motto.
Francis Scott Key included the line, “And this be our motto: ‘in God is our Trust’” in the further verse of the Star Spangled Banner. It went on our coins in 1864 and became the official motto in 1956, a year before it appeared on all our currency. It’s even displayed above the Speaker’s Rostrum in Congress!
Every one of the 11 circuit courts of appeal to consider the motto has deemed it constitutional. The Ninth Circuit has twice upheld the motto, explaining in one case that the motto “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
So, the next time you hear someone suggest that it violates the constitution, just use the words of the Sixth Circuit who determined that a court removing the motto from government property would be “ludicrous.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Supreme Court of the United States sends Aaron and Melissa Klein’s case back to Oregon Courts to ensure the Klein’s had a fair trial and address the $135,000 state sanction that was put on them for discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently sent our case involving Aaron and Melissa Klein back to Oregon. You may be wondering: why didn’t the Justices just decide the issue once and for all?
It’s a fair question, and only 9 Americans really know the answer, but perhaps part of the reason is that state-sanctioned hostility to religion keeps getting in the way. By remanding the case for review in consideration of the Masterpiece Cakeshopdecision, it seems the Justices are asking the lower court to ensure, first, that the Kleins had a fair trial.
That could be difficult. Oregon’s administrator evaluating the charges suggested that the Kleins needed to be “rehabilitated.” But, only the guilty are in need of rehabilitation. Prejudging the case seems unfair.
But, the Justices seem even more concerned with ensuring state officials respect the religious beliefs of those accused of discrimination. Issuing a $135,000 penalty for “emotional damages” and imposing a gag order barring any public speech discussing their beliefs on the situation, suggests that the State of Oregon was less than respectful toward Aaron and Melissa’s religious beliefs.
In other words, it seems that the Justices are trying to stop the bleeding, stemming from an unfair process and state-sanctioned contempt for religious beliefs in public. Once that bleeding stops, perhaps the court can diagnose and treat the actual problem.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Saying “So help me God” at the end of the oath is a part of our country’s history and tradition. Removing it is taking away the acknowledgement of accountability outside oneself. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives recently decided to remove the phrase, “so help me God” from the end of the oath.
Witnesses appearing before Congress now end the oath that they will bear truthful witness before the body without invoking anything higher than themselves or the politicians they face. Call it a “Congressional pinky promise.”
Representative Steve Cohen told the New York Times, “I think God belongs in religious institutions: in temple, in church, in cathedral, in mosque — but not in Congress.”
George Washington tagged the phrase “so help me God” to the end of his initial oath of office on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. The tradition stuck and eventually became part of federal law in 1966.
In other words, like “In God We Trust”and “God Bless America”and the Pledge of Allegiance’s “under God,”the phrase “so help me God” is part of our history and tradition.
But, beyond history and tradition, acknowledging accountability outside oneself, or the men and women assembled on the dais of a congressional hearing room, is important in our republican democracy. In other words, the use of the phrase “so help me God” acknowledges there is something to which each of us are accountable beyond ourselves and beyond government.
When we proudly reject these limitations upon our authority, we assert ourselves as an authority unto ourselves.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Federal policy states that their research and education grants must comply with all Federal law, regulations, and policies. Yale is receiving federal grants, so their discrimination of religion is violating federal policy. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
When a student group demanded that Yale Law School end financial assistance to students choosing to intern or work for faith-based organizations, Yale complied. Now, they’re under investigation.
Yale University’s endowment is $29.4 billion. Yet, it receives in excess of $480millionin federal grants and contracts. As a private institution, Yale is entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion; however, under federal policy, federal contractors and grant recipients are not.
Now, Senator Ted Cruz, chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, has opened an investigation. The question is whether Yale’s new policy runs afoul of President Trump’s Executive Order designed to improve “Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.”
According to the EO, the various federal agencies administering grants and contracts to the nation’s top institutions of higher learning are to, “take appropriate steps . . . to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”
Yale Law School’s policy of “no stipends for religious work” violates this policy. Taxpayers should not subsidize that decision with a half billiondollars in aid. Religious organizations provide tremendous value to the citizens of this country. Yale’s policy treats them as a scourge.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The San Antonio City Council promises no discrimination, however they removed Chick-fil-A from the airport for being closed on Sundays. The city cannot violate the First Amendment that protects citizens from religious discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You probably know by now that the City Council of San Antonio, Texas decided to remove Chick-fil-A from its airport. That is, as a part of a multi-million dollar renovation of the airport, Chick-fil-A had won the bid to have a store.
But, the city council decided that, because its owners gave money to organizations like the Salvation Army, Chick-fil-A could no longer be a part of their airport.
Of course, the mayor denies that there was any religious discrimination involved. Instead, he blamed it on the fact that Chick-fil-A—which makes more per store than Subway, Starbucks, and McDonald’s combined—is closed on Sunday.
First Liberty Institute sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation asking for an investigation into San Antonio’s decision. Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that they have opened the investigation we asked for, looking into whether San Antonio’s actions violate promises of nondiscrimination they made in seeking millions of dollars in federal grants for the airport renovation.
The San Antonio City Council may spend its taxpayer dollars as its citizens will tolerate. However, it cannot do so in a way that brazenly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. After all, federal taxpayers should not be required to subsidize bigotry against religion.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The HOA told the Morris Family they were not able to display their Christmas decorations on the basis of religion. This violates the Fair Housing Act which ensures no religious discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Jeremy Morris likes to decorate for Christmas. Actually, that’s underselling it by quite a bit. Jeremy Morris, and his wife Kristy, decorate nearly every inch of their home with Christmas lights.
The display in northern Idaho became such a hit at Christmas time, they decided to make it a community event. When folks would stop by to see the display, they would invite them onto their driveway for hot chocolate, a picture with Santa, and even an opportunity to share with them the Biblical story of Christmas.
When the Morris’s decided to move into a new neighborhood, they looked at the homeowner’s association’s covenants and didn’t see any problem with the display. Still, wanting to be good neighbors, they gave the HOA a heads up. That’s when things took a turn.
The HOA explained in a letter that “some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith,” noting that they were concerned for the “problems that could bring up.”
So, on the basis of religion, they told them they could not decorate their house at Christmas—even though houses in the neighborhood are decorated for Halloween.
So, Jeremy filed a lawsuit and a jury determined that the HOA violated the Fair Housing Act, engaging in religious discrimination. But, soon after, a federal judge overruled the jury’s verdict!
First Liberty has taken on the appeal, hoping to restore the jury’s verdict.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The United States national motto was declared by Congress as “In God We Trust”. This motto promotes patriotism and references the country’s religious heritage and is protected under the law. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The State of Mississippi has a new license plate, but not everyone is happy about it. To understand why, you need a little background.
In 1956, the U.S Congress declared “In God We Trust” to be the national motto. Since then, the Supreme Court of the United States has routinely acknowledged the important, very constitutional, place phrases like, “In God We Trust” have played in the history and heritage of our country. In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently indicated that the national motto plainly does not advance religion, it serves a secular purpose of promoting patriotism, and is simply a reference to our religious heritage.
So, now back to Mississippi’s license plates which have been redesigned to feature in the background the national motto. Someone with an axe to grind about the appearance of the letters “G,” “O,” and “D” in succession and in public sent a letter to the state’s revenue commissioner claiming the new design violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Well, First Liberty sent its own letter. Not only did we explain that the license plates featuring the national motto is perfectly acceptable under the law, we offered to represent the state—for free—should anyone be foolish enough to actually file a lawsuit over it.
Hopefully no lawsuit comes and our services won’t be needed, but Mississippi is safe to include the national motto on its license plates.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Activists insist that elected officials praying in public violates the Establishment Clause. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that all elected officials are allowed to pray if they please before public meetings. Learn more at Firstliberty.org/Briefing.
It’s easy to misunderstand the law when it’s confusing, but not when there are multiple decisions on the topic.
In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a paid legislative chaplain is perfectly permissible under the constitution. Then, in 2014, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court said those prayers could even be sectarian without violating the Establishment Clause.
But, still activists question the practice. In Mt. Sterling, Ohio, village councilmembers want to start their meetings with prayer. But, activists insist that might be “chipping away at the Establishment Clause.”
That’s hard to imagine, given that not only has the U.S. Supreme Court twice said that legislative prayers do not violate the Establishment Clause, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in the 2017 decision Bormuth v. County of Jackson that those sectarian prayers can be offered by the lawmakers themselves!
As Judge Sutton wrote, concurring in the en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit, “the United States Constitution does not tell federal judges to hover over each town hall meeting in the country like a helicopter parent, scolding/revising/okaying the content of this legislative prayer or that one.”
First Liberty Institute represented the County of Jackson in that case because we believe that all Americans—even elected officials—should be free to pray (or not) before public meetings and according to their own conscience.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Taking offense does not render a lawsuit, and this is supported by the Supreme Court of the United States. Letters of offense due to religion can be ignored because the law does not exist to resolve offense. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Lawsuits exist to redress actual injury. But, it seems that some activists think lawsuits exist to resolve offense.
You hear it all the time. Recently, activists complained about the presence of a Bible at a VA Medical Clinic. A World War II veteran donated it. He was a prisoner of war and thought it appropriate that the VA display it as part of a POW/MIA remembrance table at the clinic. Right on cue, an angry activist sent a letter claiming offense, demanding that this historic Bible be removed.
First Liberty Institute sent a letter reassuring the VA that the display is perfectly legal. We reminded them that removing any Bible from such a display could not only dishonor the memory of the brave men remembered, it might actually be unlawful. Offense is not a cause of action. And the Supreme Court of the United States agrees.
In Town of Greece v. Galloway, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, explained:
Offense, however, does not equate to coercion. Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views.
So, if you ever get a threatening letter that is based entirely upon someone being offended by the presence of a religious item or symbol, just ignore it.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Just how far must an employer go to accommodate a person’s religious belief at work? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Just how far must an employer go to accommodate someone’s religion at work? That’s a question being presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in Patterson v. Walgreens.
Darrell Patterson worked for the drugstore which promoted him to be a trainer of customer-care representatives. The company scheduled him to work on a Saturday, which interfered with his observance of the Sabbath as a Seventh Day Adventist. The company refused to let him swap shifts with a colleague working the same job, but offered to return him to his previous position, which Patterson argues would be a demotion. He refused and Walgreens fired Patterson.
The case explores whether a company must offer an accommodation to an employee if doing so will cause undue hardship. The current definition of “undue hardship” means something more than a “de minimis cost.” That’s a fancy way of saying that an undue hardship is trifling, minimal, or so insignificant that it can be ignored.
Patterson’s case has enormous potential to resolve a number of questions left unresolved by the lower courts. Employers and employees both benefit from such clarity. While employers should respect the religious conscience of its employees, the law does not require them to bend over backwards to do so. Still, employers should probably err on accommodating their employee’s religious beliefs more rather than less.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
No one likes a test, especially one based on one’s character or religious belief, and no one should be forced to pass a religious test for office. But does Article VI apply to the states? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
No one likes a test. At least not the kind that are unfair, meant as a pass/fail standard upon the character of a person.
That is why the Framers of the United States Constitution included a prohibition on a religious test for office in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. But, did that federal prohibition apply to the states?
That is a question presented by Roy Torcaso to the Supreme Court of the United States. Torcaso, a professed atheist, wished to be a notary public in the State of Maryland, but could not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution.
Justice Hugo Black explained in Torcaso v. Watkins that the prohibition on religious tests for office in the U.S. Constitution was to be extended to state constitutions as well. He wrote, “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’"
That is similar to what James Madison wrote in Federalist 52, where he explains that “the door of this part of the Federal Government, is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”
In other words, you don’t have to pass a religious test to qualify for public office in America.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Coach Kennedy, a high school football coach in Washington, was fired for taking a knee and saying a silent prayer after football games. First Liberty fought this case all the way to the Supreme Court and despite the troubling decision, they declined to review his case. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Coach Joe Kennedy’s petition to review his case. That’s a setback, but one with a silver lining.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement accompanying the denial. In one part, Justice Alito explained that the court requires additional information that further litigation should supply. In another, he criticized the Ninth Circuit’s decision, characterizing it as “troubling.”
But then the Justices noted that the petition rested solely on a free speech claim, and not a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. As he explained, that is likely “due to certain decisions of this Court,” namely the 1990 decision of Employment Division v. Smith. Justice Alito observed that the effect of that decision has been to “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause.”
As Coach Kennedy’s attorneys, First Liberty Institute is eager to return to the District Court, answer the questions the justices raised in their statement, and give the Court another opportunity to protect the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of getting fired.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court seems to understand that banning all coaches from praying just because they can be seen is wrong and contradicts the Constitution.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
New York Timesauthor, Linda Greenhouse reveals how much of the mainstream media really views the fight for the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
It is always interesting to read how the mainstream media views things like the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Timesrecently authored a lengthy commentary. Her conclusion? That the folks trying to destroy the memorial are going to lose, but that’s about it for the good news.
According to Greenhouse, a growing faction of conservative Justices of the Supreme Court that are increasingly committed to interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as permitting the display of religious symbols on public property and the Free Exercise Clause as providing, in her words, “robust protection for believers.”
To Greenhouse, this is not good because, she says, “the heart and soul of a diverse country . . . is going in one direction while the Supreme Court . . . is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.”
But, that is factually untrue. For one thing, according to recent polling 80% of Americans agree that memorials using religious imagery to remember our war dead is perfectly reasonable. Those are the real“heart and soul” of this country.
Removing religious imagery from public display does not make us more diverse. It sends a message contrary to the constitution’s promise that religion in American is to be respected in personal and public life.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Teachers are supposed to teach freedom of speech and religion, not censor it. But both teachers and school officials continue to demonstrate their fear of anything resembling an endorsement of religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
On Ash Wednesday, it is common to see individuals bearing the mark of the cross on their foreheads, part of a religious tradition reminding the faithful of their own sinfulness and the atoning work of Christ on the cross.
Evidently not everyone understands that. William McLeod, a fourth grader at Valley View Elementary School in Utah, is Catholic. He showed up to school on Wednesday morning with the traditional mark of the cross on his forehead.
His teacher took him aside, handed him a wet cloth, and instructed him to wash his forehead clean. He attempted to explain the reason for the mark, but to no avail. William spent the rest of the school day embarrassed and upset. Later, school administrators responded to complaints by his family and the teacher apologized.
Students are free to exercise their faith—even at school—so long as doing so does not interfere with the educational mission of the school. A harmless, silent mark of ash on one’s forehead does nothing to prevent such instruction. Situations like this show how afraid school officials have become of any display of religion in school.
As one court wisely put it, in situations like these, “The school’s proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speaker.”
In other words, they should teach, not censor.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Jack Phillips’ case may be over but the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a lasting impact through the case of ‘Sweetcakes by Melissa.” Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Jack Phillips’ long ordeal appears to be over. But, as Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Jack’s case, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”
That includes First Liberty’s clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein.
The State of Oregon shut down Aaron and Melissa Klein’s “Sweetcakes by Melissa,” penalizing them $135,000 for the simple act of declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Oregon rests all of its actions on a law that theoretically applies generally to everyone and, on its face, treats religious exercise neutrally.
That position is grounded in the 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court called Employment Division v. Smith. The product of the late-Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority opinion in Employment Division has been roundly criticized through the years.
The danger of Employment Divisionis that it allows laws that doburden one of the key provisions of the First Amendment—namely, the free exercise of religion—to escape meaningful judicial review. Aaron and Melissa’s case provides the Court an opportunity to correct that.
Jack Phillips’ case left American business owners wondering whether the government can prescribe what they believe and force them to confess accordingly. The Constitution prohibits government officials, high or petty, from compelling small business owners to create a message contrary to their religious beliefs.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Based on an executive order signed by President Trump in 2017 that promotes free speech and religious liberty, Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education recently announced it would no longer enforce a statute preventing religious organizations from providing education services to students. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
This episode really begins back in May of 2017. That’s when President Donald Trump, just three months into his presidency, walked to the Rose Garden of the White House and signed the Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.
That Executive Order commissioned a memo offering guidance to the executive branch by the Attorney General of the United States, then Jeff Sessions. Several months later, the Department of Justice issued that guidance and, about a year later, held a summit on religious liberty at DOJ headquarters, announcing the formation of a religious liberty task force.
That task force provided on-the-ground guidance to executive agencies like the Department of Education, which brings us to the point of this episode.
Secretary Betsy DeVos recently sent a letter to Congress explaining that the Department of Education would no longer enforce a federal statute prohibiting religious organizations from providing educational services to students. DeVos noted that the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, as explained by the DOJ in former Attorney General Sessions’ memo, requires federal law to permit religious organizations to participate at the same level as secular organizations.
I agree with Secretary DeVos who said, “Those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers should not be discriminated against simply based on the religious character of their organization.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In March 2019, the Supreme Court denied cert of a case that if left at its current status, would bar religious organizations from a general historical preservation fund program. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The white-washed churches of New England, often contrasted against the reds and yellows of fall foliage, have captured the imagination of painters and photographers everywhere. But, not the Supreme Court of the United States.
In March of 2019, the Justices declined to review an appeal from New Jersey Supreme Court case finding the funding of grants for the historic preservation of these churches unconstitutional. Such grants allowed local organizations to apply for a grant to repair things like shingles, paint, or mechanical work, but not hymn books, altar pieces, or Sunday school lessons.
At least a few Justices viewed the denial of these funds to churches as religious discrimination. A perplexed, and unequivocal, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for Justices Alito and Gorsuch, said in a statement, “Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion.”
Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of more unvarnished religious discrimination. The government deciding that religious organizations are ineligible to participate equally in the public square merely because they are religious is precisely the type of religious discrimination the Founders were trying to prevent. Justice Kavanaugh is absolutely right in declaring this to be “pure discrimination against religion.”
No state official should discriminate against people of faith, or the religious organizations they operate, based merely on their religious status.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the last word in our case of Chabad of Irvine, a small Orthodox Jewish congregation in California that has been fighting for their free exercise rights for years. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
We’ve covered practice of Kaporos on this program before. If you’ve forgotten, Kaporos is a sacred religious ceremony performed by Orthodox Jewish congregations for several millennia. In the ceremony, which takes place during the holiest days of the Jewish calendar, the atonement of sins is contemplated through prayer and the kosher and humane killing of a chicken.
But, as we’ve discussed previously, animal rights activists in California sued to force government officials to prohibit the ceremony. First Liberty network attorneys argued that it is not the role of the government to tell religious communities how to peacefully exercise their religious beliefs.
In fact, over the last few years, First Liberty and network attorneys successfully defended the Chabad of Irvine, a small synagogue in Orange County, California, against two lawsuits brought by activists opposed to kaporos. But, of course, the animal rights activists appealed the dismissal of one lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9thCircuit.
Well, about a week after oral argument, the Ninth Circuit came out with its decision. It’s conclusion? That the animal rights groups didn’t even have the legal ability to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
While it was decided on procedural grounds, the court’s decision brings a resounding conclusion to several years of harassment by lawsuit of a peaceful religious practice.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Whether it is in word or deed, senior members of President Trump’s administration are proving to be strong advocates of the importance of religious liberty. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Two public appearances by senior members of the Trump Administration show the Administration’s fundamental commitment to religious liberty. And it’s more than just words.
In answer to a question from a reporter, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out the administration’s foreign policy when it comes to religious freedom. He said, “Because it’s at the heart of all the freedoms that every individual should have, right?”
Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker spoke at length about the importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the Heritage Foundation on Religious Freedom Day. He explained, “RFRA promotes authentic tolerance—because RFRA makes a solemn promise to the people of this nation that we can find a place for them, regardless of who they are, and regardless of their beliefs.”
Both of these agencies have backed those words up with action. The Trump State Department hosted a “Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom” in 2018 and plans are underway for another in 2019. The DOJ has issued guidance on religious liberty to all executive agencies, launched its “place to worship” initiative that protects houses of worship, and been active in litigating violations of religious liberty.
Whether it involves matters of foreign policy or domestic relations, it is good to see an executive branch committed to defending religious liberty in both word and deed.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent the government from establishing a religion, not keep religion out of the public sphere. First Liberty argued before the Supreme Court and asked the Court to change its perspective. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Many of you have followed First Liberty’s case before the Supreme Court of the United States over the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial. We hope the case will provide much needed clarity to the interpretation of the First Amendment.
The Framers intended for the Establishment Clause to guard against the government establishing a national church. Read more broadly, it prevents state officials from coercing the religious beliefs and actions of its citizens. Unfortunately, as Justice Clarence Thomas has said, this area of the law is “in hopeless disarray.”
We can lay the blame at the feet of a case from 1971 called,Lemon v. Kurtzman. That decision has led to variety of confusing, court-created tests. Local officials, not knowing what to do, often ban religion. That kind of hostility to religion is something the Founders never intended.
We propose an alternative: that the U.S. Supreme Court replace those tests with an alternative more in keeping with what the Founders had in mind.
Unless the state coerces someone into a religious belief or exercise or enacts laws or policies that purport to actually establish an official religion, there is no violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Passive displays do nothing to coerce anyone into belief or religious exercise. They just stand there, reminding us of the service and sacrifice of something we would forget if we did not see a visible reminder.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
First Liberty has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case of Aaron and Melissa Klein, an Oregon family who was forced to shut down their business and fined $135,000 for not baking a same-sex wedding cake. The question now is, will the Court side with Gobitis or Barnette? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The right to differ with popular beliefs and opinions has long been an American principle.
Back in the late 1930’s, the Gobitis children had a religious objection to saluting the flag. The Supreme Court upheld their expulsion in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and that’s when the harassment of America’s Jehovah’s Witnesses took off.
Just a few short years later, the Supreme Court revisited its decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Justice Jackson’s majority opinion explained that if the Bill of Rights allows the state to compel one to salute the flag, it also permits “public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.”
So it is with First Liberty clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein. Can the state compel small business owners to speak a message contrary to their religious beliefs? That’s a question we hope the Supreme Court might soon answer.
And, we hope that answer is consistent with Justice Jackson’s in Barnette whenhe wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Let’s hope the Supreme Court protects America’s small business owners and their First Amendment right to differ.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Bladensburg WWI veterans memorial is a symbol of honor and sacrifice of the 49 men from Prince George’s County, Maryland who fought and died in service to their county during WWI. First Liberty is fighting to defend the veterans memorial from destruction. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
They came from many walks of life. Several were simple laborers. One was a well-known surgeon. Another, a legend and past recipient of the Medal of Honor whose heroism in World War I earned him the Distinguished Service Cross. But, they all came from Prince George’s County, Maryland.
Educated or not, white or black, rich or poor, their bodies were interred under small grave makers in cemeteries far too distant for their families to ever visit.
In 1925, a local post of The American Legion erected the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial to honor 49 men from the county who gave their lives serving in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War I.
The Fourth Circuit determined the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional. First Liberty Institute, and our network attorneys at the international law firm Jones Day, appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. By June, we should have a decision.
I think the Gold Star mothers who designed the Bladensburg memorial in 1919 would be pleased. They chose the shape of the memorial to recall the crosses marking the countless American graves on the Western Front of that war.
Surely the Constitution permits Gold Star Mothers to erect a simple memorial that mirrors those that marked the graves of their sons buried on the battlefields of Europe.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Despite the presence of Article VI to the Constitution, confirmation hearings for judicial nominees have continued to include questions pertaining to the nominee’s religious viewpoints. This is not fair, nor permitted by the Constitution. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Confirmation hearings have been interesting of late. Some senators are asking questions of nominees that are more than tough. They are unfair.
My favorite example of this came when Sen. Cory Booker asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao whether she believed homosexuality is a sin. That’s a question that seems out of line because it invites the nominee to assert a theological pronouncement.
Senator Mike Lee thought so too. He said, “I can’t fathom a circumstance in which it’s ever appropriate for us to ask a nominee about his or her religious beliefs about whether x, y or z is a sin.” Senator Lee then had to remind Sen. Mazie Hirono of Sen. Booker’s actual question about sin when Hirono shot back, “It is not that we all ask ‘do you think such and such is a sin, etc., etc.'”
These questions may in fact violate Article VI of the Constitution, which guarantees that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Forcing citizens to adhere to a specific religious ideology—or none at all—violates the rights common to our humanity, rights endowed to us by our Creator. Article VI exists to keep the halls of government open to an ideological variety of Americans.
That’s something our senators would do well to remember.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Seth Clark, a salutatorian from Akin, Illinois decided to quote the Bible in his graduation speech. A community member complained that religious content would be shared on school grounds. But there’s a neat and surprising story. Listen to how the situation turned out by listening to FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Akin, Illinois is a small town in the heartland of our country. There you will find salt-of-the-earth folks growing the crops that feed the rest of us. Everyone knows everyone, so it was no surprise when the Clark’s boy, Seth, was announced the salutatorian of his graduating grade school class.
But, when word got around that Seth was going to quote from the Bible in his speech, someone complained. That complaint reached the school board and, soon enough, Seth was told that the Constitution would not let his speech with religious content be delivered on school grounds, to a captive graduation ceremony audience.
Well, that was that…or so it seemed.
The story has a bit of a surprise ending. A neighbor who lived across from the school offered up his front porch. So, when it came time for Seth’s speech, the audience turned around. There, on the front porch of this iconic Midwestern town was Seth Clark holding forth, giving the speech that he always wanted to give.
Perhaps you live in one of those towns where folks still stop to chat on the front stoop on a cool summer’s evening. If not, you need to know that the Constitution never requires a student’s private remarks be given on private property.
“It was the proudest moment of my life,” said Seth’s Mom. Well, I suppose it was.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The State of Florida has a new law on religious liberty. The “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” codifies much of the case law protecting religious expression in public school. Learn more about what this means for students and school employees by listening to FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The State of Florida has a new law on religious liberty. The “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” codifies much of the case law protecting religious expression in public school.
Under the new law, schools are instructed to treat voluntary student religious expression in the same way as other viewpoints being expressed. Students are given the backing of the state in their manner of religious dress. Groups of students are given the space to form student religious clubs and gather to pray, just like any other club.
School employees benefit under the law as well. The new law expressly states, “Employees may not be prevented from participating in religious activities on school grounds that are initiated by students at reasonable times prior to or after the school day.”
Finally, the law requires the Florida Department of Education to develop a model policy establishing a limited public forum at certain times for the voluntary expression of religious viewpoints by students and personnel. This provision, which is required to be adopted by each school district throughout the state, will undoubtedly provide direction for how to handle things like graduation speeches, school board meetings, and maybe even ahead of athletic contests.
There’s nothing earth-shattering in this new law, but whenever a state takes the time to codify what the courts have determined the First Amendment requires, it’s a good thing for religious liberty.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In April of 2017, the Indiana General Assembly passed, and its governor quickly signed, a measure providing students with the chance to take an elective surveying the worlds religions, Learn more about this law at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Hoosier state has taken steps to codify important religious liberty protections for Indiana’s students.
In April of 2017, the Indiana General Assembly passed, and its governor quickly signed, a measure providing students with the chance to take an elective surveying the worlds religions, while outlining the civil liberties afforded to its students in Indiana’s public schools.
The new law provides each local school district the freedom to offer an elective course that will study the historical, cultural, and literary contributions of the world’s major religions.
At the same time, some of the critical civil liberties protected by the law include protecting a student’s right to express their religious beliefs in class and class assignments, the right to pray before, during, and after the school day, and the right to access a school’s facilities in the same manner that secular groups do.
Of course, many of these protections are found in policies issued by the United States Department of Education. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see a state dedicate significant legislative effort to religious liberty. Students should not be required to hide their faith at school, nor should they be punished for daring to discuss their religious beliefs while at school.
Religious liberty should be our national priority. It’s good to see that, at least for one state, it’s a clear priority for their students.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Protecting the rights of minority American religions like Sikhism, Native American religions and Islam help protect mainstream or majority religions. Learn more about the cases that help further all religions at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Sometimes our listeners ask why we spend so much time discussing cases involving minority American religions, like Sikhs, Native Americans, or Muslims.
The short is answer is that our mission at First Liberty is very simple: we protect religious liberty for all Americans.
But, it’s also historical. If you look at the body of caselaw governing religious liberty, some of the most consequential cases have arisen from minority faiths.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, for instance, debated whether the State of Wisconsin could compel Amish families to send their children to public school against their religious practices.
In the 1980’s, the Supreme Court decided Goldman v. Weinberger examining whether an Air Force regulation violated the First Amendment by prohibiting an airman from wearing his yarmulke.
More recently, in Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court examined whether a corrections system could present a compelling justification for allowing quarter-inch beards, but prohibiting half-inch beards.
And, then there’s the case with the funny name: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah. That case examined whether a city ordinance discriminated against the religion of Santeria by prohibiting ritual animal slaughter.
The bottom line is this: whether it is a mainstream denomination or a minority religion, religious liberty for one is religious liberty for all. And, the loss of religious liberty for one religion is a loss in liberty for everyone.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
While the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) often provide protection for a citizen’s religious freedom, it is not always a guarantee. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Two new cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point do not want to wear the tar bucket.
If you’re not familiar with the uniform of West Point cadets, when on parade, cadets wear a plumed shako hat or, as they are commonly called, a “tar bucket.” The cadets object to wearing the hat because it would force them to remove their turban. That is a problem chiefly because the cadets are Sikh and the turban is a religious observance for the men.
So, while the United States Army has provided accommodation for Sikh soldiers in the past, this new lawsuit questions whether that accommodation need extend to the parade grounds. And, it is an interesting question. Clearly, forcing the cadets to remove their turban would be, in the words of the cadets, “blasphemous.” Yet, there is something to the tradition and uniformity found in the military dress of our nation’s military academies.
Congress, thankfully, has helped provide guidance in the settling of such matters. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress insists that the government identify its compelling interest and restrict the free exercise of religion in the least restrictive manner possible whenever a citizen alleges a substantial burden to his free exercise of religion. RFRA does not guarantee an outcome in any case.But, it does make the government justify its behavior.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Donna Dunbar and her husband have served their community faithfully for many years. In doing so, Donna hosts a Bible study in the social room of her condominium, that is until the condo association board adopted a new resolution, without warning, forbidding all religious activities in the room. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Donna Dunbar and her husband Clarence love to serve their community in Port Charlotte, Florida. They founded a soup kitchen, at which they donated over 4,000 volunteer service hours—an act that won them the President’s Volunteer Service Award.
But, things aren’t has rosy at their condominium. Donna is a lay minister in the Seventh Day Adventist tradition. She welcomes a few of her friends to the social room at her condo each week for a Bible study. The room is used by lots of people. Some play games there, there’s a weekly poker game, and even a regular movie night for all to attend.
Until recently, Donna’s Bible study was no big deal. But, without any announcement or warning, the condo association board adopted a resolution putting an end to the use of the common areas of the condo for religious purposes, including Donna’s Bible study. Someone even put a sign on the organ in the room that said, “Any and all Christian music is banned!”
First Liberty Institute filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging that Donna’s condo broke the law with such a discriminatory policy and asking Secretary Ben Carson to undertake an investigation into this matter.
After all, such unequal treatment of citizens shows hostility to religion and violates federal law and the First Amendment.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Many know about Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers in Oregon who lost their bakery and were fined $135,000 because they politely refused to bake a cake that conflicted with their religious convictions. But the media doesn’t show the attacks the Kleins have faced from those in their community. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You probably know the story of Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers in Oregon forced out of business and fined $135,000 by the state when they politely declined business that would have forced them to violate their religious convictions.
What you may not know is that, after the State of Oregon pronounced them guilty of discrimination, private citizens were eager to show their contempt for the Kleins.
Many of the comments they received are so vulgar that I cannot repeat them here. But, here is a tame sampling.
One person, writing on Facebook said to the Kleins, “I hope your shop burns.” Another chimed in, noting that she hoped Aaron and Melissa would “burn in Hell.”
One man sent a message that said, “I hope you lose your house and have to live on the streets.” One woman even said, “We hope your children get cancer and die.”
When the government declares that citizens like Aaron and Melissa are not entitled to the Constitution’s promises of religious liberty and free speech, its people push aside any goodwill that allows people to coexist peacefully with beliefs with which they may disagree.
Aaron and Melissa have asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review their case. We hope the court will accept the appeal, if only to remind everyone that it is possible to live peacefully as neighbors even when we disagree.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Public schools are allowed to release schoolchildren for religious education at the request of their parents in an effort to accommodate the faith and wishes of parents. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In 1975, residents of Harrisonburg, Virginia sued their school board. The lawsuit questioned the school’s practice of releasing students from school to receive religious instruction.
The Virginia Council of Churches had been providing religious instruction for Harrisonburg schoolchildren since 1923. In 1963, the classes moved from the public school classroom to off-campus trailers. For about an hour a week, 27 classes of elementary school children, with the consent of their parents, walked out of class and into the awaiting trailers. Those who did not opt-into the program, simply stayed behind.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit approved of the release time program for religious instruction. The court explained that the school was merely accommodating the wishes, and religious beliefs, of parents. Any effect of the city aiding religious instruction was merely incidental to their administration of public education. Parents, the court recognized, had the responsibility for the education of their children, including religious education. It’s the state’s responsibility to respect and accommodate the parents.
If parents want religious instruction to be a part of that education, the Constitution provides the space for the state to so accommodate. By releasing children for religious instruction at the request of their parents, public schools show respect for the religious beliefs of their community.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Upon returning a changed man from World War I, Riley Bembry and a number of other returning soldiers erected a simple white cross, dedicating it to all who have fought and died for their country. In 2001, someone sued and a judge ordered the cross to be removed from view. Learn more: firstliberty.org/Briefing.
Riley Bembry returned from World War I a changed man. Upon his return, this former army medic, settled in Los Angeles and became a butcher. But, the city could not contain him. He headed into the Mojave Desert and became a prospector.
By the time the Great Depression gripped the nation, other veterans of the Great War had found their way to Bembry’s cabin, each seeking to escape the emotional and physical scars left from the war. Together, in 1934, they erected a simple, seven-foot monument atop a rocky outcropping not far from Bembry’s cabin, but miles and miles from anything else. They chose a common symbol to honor war-dead: a white cross and dedicated it, “To honor the dead of all wars.”
When Bembry died in 1984, Henry Sandoz, Bembry’s close friend, began to care for the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial Cross. In 2001, someone sued. A judge would eventually order the memorial hidden from view—literally covered with a padlocked bag—while the case was decided. First Liberty had the privilege of working with Henry Sandoz, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion and others to defend that memorial. Before he was a senator, Ted Cruz volunteered his time as lead counsel on the case.
Because of Henry Sandoz, Ted Cruz, Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and First Liberty, that memorial still stands today just where Bembry placed it in honor of “the dead of all wars.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The use of cross-shaped memorials has been a long standing tradition in honoring the dead. In 1915 Major John McCrae wrote the famous poem, “In Flanders Fields” and the cross reference is no mistake. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In May of 1915, Major John McCrae buried his friend. It is believed that after the burial he penned the now famous poem, “In Flanders Fields.” This is what he wrote:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
The reference to crosses was no accident. These were the markers used for temporary gravestones across Europe. When the graves were made permanent, the world community rejected efforts to convert the temporary, cross-shaped gravestones into rounded tombstones.
That is why today, across America, many veterans memorials are cross-shaped. And, that is why we defend them. Today, “the foe” of McCrae’s poem are those wishing to purge the religious from public view, including veterans memorials bearing religious imagery. But, we will not break faith, with those who died.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious acts of protests outside of the Supreme Court? Learn how a U.S. District Court decided the case at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Sometimes the substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise comes literally to the steps of the Supreme Court.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that preventing anti-war activists from demonstrating outside the Supreme Court violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The activists noted in their complaint that as a “post-denominational Christian” and “Unity Christian,” their religious beliefs compel protests against war. They insist on living out their spirituality through prayer vigils and peace walks, sometimes on the Supreme Court’s steps.
Interestingly, the court never questioned the sincerity of their beliefs, no matter how odd they seem. Nevertheless, the court determined that RFRA did not protect their religious acts of protest. Why? Because the rule restricts “only one of a multitude of means by which Plaintiffs could engage in their religiously motivated activity.” According to their own words, the steps of the Supreme Court are not the onlyplace in which to exercise their beliefs; it’s just one ofthe places they exercise their beliefs. So, while the rules might burden their religious exercise, it’s not a substantial burden since there are many avenues left open to their religious exercise.
RFRA provides broad protection to those who seek to exercise their religion, even when they attempt to do so in public.This case reminds us that RFRA correctly balances that right against the legitimate needs of government to govern.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently denied review of the court that declared a cross-shaped veterans memorial unconstitutional. A number of judges on the court disagreed with the decision and made their stances known. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to review a decision of that court that said the cross-shaped Bladensburg World War I Veterans’ Memorial is unconstitutional, not all the judges agreed.
Chief Judge Gregory noted his dissent. He said, “Nearly a century ago, Maryland citizens, out of deep respect and gratitude, took on the daunting task of erecting a monument to mirror the measure of individual devotion and sacrifice these heroes had so nobly advanced. The panel majority says their effort violates the Constitution the soldiers fought to defend. I, respectfully, think otherwise.”
Judge Niemeyer said with some exasperation, “Until this action was filed by persons who claim to be offended by the presence of the monument, no complaint had been made about its presence . . .”
But, Judge Wilkinson was poetic in his dissent. He wrote, “The dead cannot speak for themselves. But may the living hear their silence. . . This memorial and this cross have stood for almost one full century. Life and change flow by the small park in the form of impatient cars and trucks. That is disturbance enough.”
He concluded simply noting that the park in which the memorial stands, “may not be Arlington National Cemetery, but it is the next thing to it. I would let the cross remain and let those honored rest in peace.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Memorials are symbols meant to remind the living of the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny an en banc review of the Bladensburg Veterans Memorial could be setting a dangerous precedent. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Veterans’ memorials are symbols meant to remind the living of the service and sacrifice the fallen made for freedom.
That is why Gold Star mothers in 1919 started work on the Bladensburg World War I Veterans’ Memorial. They did not want the world to forget the sacrifice their sons made. So, they, along with The American Legion, erected a cross-shaped memorial. The design mirrored the universally accepted symbol erected over the thousands of graves of men who died in Europe defending freedom. No one complained for almost 100 years.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to overturn an opinion of a panel of that court that would direct a federal district to consider whether the monument should have it’s horizontal arms removed or be razed to the ground completely.
Such a decision sets a dangerous precedent for veterans’ memorials across America. If this decision stands, other memorials will be targeted for destruction as well. We will appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I encourage you to go to DontTearMeDown.com and join us in defending this memorial to the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland killed in the line of duty during World War I.
We forget what we do not see. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the Bladensburg memorial and similar memorials in close by in Arlington National Cemetery may disappear as well.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
A recent case out of Fresno regarding our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is proving that American heritage is trying to be resisted by vehement disputants. Learn what this issue entails at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
According to The Fresno Bee, the Fresno City Council is considering adding the national motto, “In God We Trust,” to the wall of the council chambers. But, at least one local resident opposes the proposal.
In the mind of one atheist protestor, the delicate balance between church and state is upset entirely by the public display of these four words. And, despite the fact that the atheist writes, “Atheists like me feel the idea of “God” has little meaning,” he encourages the local community to oppose a word which he believes has “little meaning.” One wonders how a word with “little meaning” can violate the so-called separation of church and state, but that’s another issue.
Of course, if folks wanted to purchase the article in The Fresno Bee, they would do so with coins bearing the national motto since 1864. The city council would be in good company with the United States House of Representatives which has the motto emblazoned behind the speaker’s dais. And, on the way to city hall, residents may have to drive by police or sheriff’s cruisers sporting the national motto.
Throughout America’s history, the national motto has been honored and celebrated as an expression of what it means to be an American. Any effort to prevent its display should be rejected as bald efforts to rewrite our history and destroy our heritage.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
After over ninety years of peaceful silence, the Bladensburg World War I Memorial is in jeopardy of being torn down because of it’s cross-like shape. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In 1919, American mothers who lost their sons in World War I set about developing a war memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland. And, there it has stood in peaceful silence for over ninety years, a visible reminder of the cost of freedom.
But, in October of 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reasoned that, because these mothers chose to memorialize their sons with a cross-shaped monument reminiscent of the grave markers of the thousands of American soldiers buried across Europe, the monument violates the Constitution.
Not all the judges agreed. Chief Judge Gregory issued a strong dissent reminding the court that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not require the government to purge any reference to religion from the public square. He concluded:
“This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland ‘who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.’ I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend.”
We agree with Judge Gregory. This is a Veterans Memorial. We will not break faith with the Gold Star mothers and The American Legion veterans who chose to remember their sons and brothers with this cross-shaped memorial.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Justice Alito is a proven defender of religious liberty. You may recall he authored the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, protecting the religious consciences of family-owned businesses. Learn how he’s challenging Americans to protect religious liberty at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently gave remarks to a group in New Jersey. His 45-minute presentation proved to be quite sobering.
Justice Alito is a proven defender of religious liberty. You may recall he authored the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, protecting the religious consciences of family-owned businesses. In other opinions, he has warned of the impact the sexual revolution may inflict upon the religious liberty of Americans.
In his latest remarks, however, Justice Alito told the audience, “You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. A wind is picking up that is hostile to those with traditional moral beliefs.”
But, the good justice ended with a word of caution and challenge. He said, “We are likely to see pitched battles in courts and Congress, state legislatures and town halls. But the most important fight is for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. It is up to all of us to evangelize our fellow Americans about the issue of religious freedom.”
That’s where you and I come in. Freedom—and especially religious freedom—is not a given in human history. It is something each generation must renew for itself. Telling the story of religious liberty, and its blessings, to one another is part of our responsibility as Americans. It’s also how we preserve liberty.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Government neutrality is supposed to prevent the government from favoring one form of speech over another. It does not give government officials the right to censor or scrub out all religious content from the public square. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You may often hear me say that the First Amendment requires government agencies to be neutraltoward private, religious speech. But, what does that mean?
Some take the position that when the speech of a private person or organization enters a public forum, the government must ensure that all speech within such a forum be neutral, censored and scrubbed of any religious content. But, that is not neutrality and, when a government does that, it violates the First Amendment.
Neutrality actually means that the government will neither favor, nor disfavor particular viewpoints expressed in speech. It means that the government will not promote a particular point of view, nor censor it. It means that government respects the speech of its citizens, allowing the exchange of ideas through divergent viewpoints, even those viewpoints with which those sitting in government may disagree.
So, if a school district has a flyer distribution program that allows local organizations to distribute information to the parents of its students, it is not required to make sure those flyers present a neutral message. The school board wouldn’t be neutral if it did. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial was erected to honor 49 veterans who gave their lives for their nation—but one group is suing to tear it down. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In 1925, the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial was erected to honor the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland, who gave their lives in WWI. It stands outside of Washington, D.C., in the median near the National Defense Highway. This memorial—one of the oldest memorials on U.S. soil to honor the fallen of World War I—has stood without complaint for nearly a century.
For the first time in over nine decades, the American Humanist Association voiced a complaint. They filed a federal lawsuit seeking to topple the memorial because those who erected it chose the shape of a cross to honor the fallen.
One of the mothers who supported the memorial early on noted to her senator that her son died and was buried in Europe. Though she could not visit his grave there, she said, she considered the Bladensburg World War I memorial to be her son’s grave marker close to home.
First Liberty Institute, along with our volunteer attorneys at the law firm of Jones Day, represents the American Legion who erected the memorial in 1925. This memorial was erected to honor heroes who gave their lives in defense of freedom. To tear this memorial down now would not only desecrate their memory, it would demonstrate a level of hostility to religion that our Founding Fathers warned against.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Former NFL players, Steve Largent and Chad Hennings along with two Seattle high school coaches filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Coach Kennedy’s right to take a knee after games. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You may be familiar with Coach Joe Kennedy, the high school football coach at Bremerton High School who was fired for taking a knee in silent prayer after the game. Recently, he received support from a few other football players and coaches.
First, Steve Largent, a retired Seattle Seahawk and Hall of Famer, and Chad Hennings, three-time Super Bowl champion with the Cowboys, explain to the court how football coaches were a positive influence on their lives, contending that Bremerton’s actions restrict free speech and impair coaches’ ability to serve as role models and mentors to their students.
Hall of famer or not, we should all seek to defend the right to free speech. It’s central to our American identity as a diverse, pluralistic society, where we foster the free exchange of ideas.
Second, from two football coaches at Garfield High School in Seattle. These coaches gained national media attention by joining their team in kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. In their friend-of-the-court brief, the coaches ask the court to affirm that the First Amendment protects the rights of public employees—including football coaches—to private expression.
If the Constitution protects the right of a football coach to kneel to protest injustice, it certainly protects the right of Coach Kennedy to kneel in prayer.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Government neutrality is supposed to prevent the government from favoring one form of speech over another. It does not give government officials the right to censor or scrub out all religious content from the public square. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
You may often hear me say that the First Amendment requires government agencies to be neutraltoward private, religious speech. But, what does that mean?
Some take the position that when the speech of a private person or organization enters a public forum, the government must ensure that all speech within such a forum be neutral, censored and scrubbed of any religious content. But, that is not neutrality and, when a government does that, it violates the First Amendment.
Neutrality actually means that the government will neither favor, nor disfavor particular viewpoints expressed in speech. It means that the government will not promote a particular point of view, nor censor it. It means that government respects the speech of its citizens, allowing the exchange of ideas through divergent viewpoints, even those viewpoints with which those sitting in government may disagree.
So, if a school district has a flyer distribution program that allows local organizations to distribute information to the parents of its students, it is not required to make sure those flyers present a neutral message. The school board wouldn’t be neutral if it did. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
One litigant argues that the tax code creates the new religion of “taxism” in violation of the First Amendment.Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Ben Franklin reportedly said, “There is nothing certain in life except for death and taxes.” Well, in a 548-page complaint, one man has targeted at least one of those certainties, and it’s not death.
Terry Lee Hinds contends that the United States Tax Code has violated the Constitution by establishing “taxism,” an institutionalized faith and religion. Because the tax code has the effect of favoring and even promoting organized religions through tax breaks and other benefits, Mr. Hinds believes the tax code is in violation of the First Amendment.
Well, I suppose this is the sort of case that law students are forced to grapple with, but actually have little effect in the real world. Some may dream such a lawsuit is the silver bullet to bring down our ghoulish tax system. Alas, Mr. Hinds’ lawsuit will not free us from the taxman’s visit every April 15.
For one reason, taxpayers have a lot of hurdles to overcome just to bring the lawsuit. Mere allegations—even ones dressed up in the garb of a First Amendment challenge—that they do not like to pay taxes will not be sufficient.
For now, Mr. Hinds and the rest of us will have to continue to pay our taxes and, most importantly, the religious charities and houses of worship that are exempt from them will continue to be exempt.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides a check on government when its actions substantially burden a citizen’s free expression of religion, but it does not provide protection for abuse, neglect, or other violent acts. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A woman in Indiana has attempted to use that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify her abusive behavior, but it didn’t work.
Kin Park Thaing was charged with neglect of a dependent and battery on a juvenile after allegedly disciplining her children by beating them with a hanger. The beating was necessary, she argued to ensure her son would be right with God for his immoral actions.
Part of Thaing’s defense was rooted in the Indiana RFRA, suggesting that the state was substantially burdening her religious exercise by charging her with abuse and neglect for the way she chose to discipline her children. Thankfully, RFRA does not sanction abuse, neglect, or other violent acts.
RFRA provides a check on government when its actions substantially burden the free exercise of religion, demanding that the state demonstrate a compelling justification for its actions. There can be little that is more compelling than protecting against the abuse and neglect of children.
In other words, RFRA worked. The state was able to easily demonstrate why they were compelled to charge Thaing for her abusive behavior and Thaing pled guilty to battery.
The next time someone tries to convince you that RFRA laws can protect child abusers, remind them of Thaing’s story. Show them how effectively RFRA balanced both our commitment to religious liberty and the prevention of abuse.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The rise of hostility to religion in America is Undeniable. Since 2012, First Liberty has been documenting the number of attacks against religious freedom, and it has risen 133 percent between 2012 and 2017. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Since 2012, First Liberty Institute has been investigating the rise in the number and severity of domestic attacks on religion. Each year, that investigation is compiled into our annual survey.
We started that survey because wherever we went, people would tell us that they didn’t think there was a genuine threat to religious liberty in our country. We call it Undeniable: The Survey of Religious Hostility to Religion in America because it makes such a compelling case.
In the past year, the total number of documented attacks on religious liberty has increased by over 15 percent. Over the past five years, we have seen an alarming 133 percent increase. Of the 1,400 cases documented in Undeniable, you will see a myriad of faiths represented: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh among others. Religious hostility in America does not discriminate.
But, there is hope. First Liberty is battling for religious freedom in court, but you can join that fight by simply educating yourself, and others, about the rights we each have and how we can preserve them.
If you haven’t yet, I’d encourage you to go to FirstLiberty.org today and download your own copy of the 2017 edition of Undeniable or order a free copy for your friend.
Despite the mounting hostility, First Liberty is prepared to stand against these relentless attacks for as long as it takes.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
James Gillespie Blaine proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would, prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” especially Catholic schools. Learn what Justice Clarence Thomas said about the amendment at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
James Gillespie Blaine had an interesting life. He served as Speaker of the House of Congress and in the United States Senate. Twice he served as Secretary of State, holding the position under three separate presidents. He even sought the presidency, losing to Grover Cleveland.
Blaine’s most notorious legacy, however, is an amendment that bears his name.
Blaine got his idea from a fiery speech delivered by President Grant at the height of a national controversy over the nation’s public schools, and whether religion had any place within them. In 1875, President Grant declared, “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the Church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the Church and State forever separate.”
Days later, Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would, prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” especially Catholic schools.
His amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.
That prejudice led Justice Thomas to write of Blaine Amendments in the 1999 decision of Mitchell v. Helms, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In 1991 the ACLU sent the Milwaukee police department a letter threatening to sue at Christmas because the police had an informal practice of not serving evictions on Christmas day. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
One of my family’s Christmas traditions is to read the classic Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. It’s a beloved classic, telling of the once miserly and miserable Ebenezer Scrooge whose disdain for all things Christmas softened when the spirits of Christmas past, present, and future force him to reconsider his ways.
One poignant scene in the story is of a young couple in great debt to Scrooge, standing on the edge of financial ruin and, perhaps, facing eviction from their home. It’s Christmas and, while the Ghost of Christmases Yet to Come forces Scrooge to look on, the couple’s worry vanishes as they learn of Scrooge’s death, knowing that anyone other than Scrooge will be more understanding of their plight, especially at Christmas.
Well, maybe the ACLU should read the book. In 1991, it sent the Milwaukee police a letter threatening a lawsuit at Christmas. You see, the local government had an informal practice of not serving evictions on Christmas day. The ACLU claimed that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I’m confident that not a single founding father was enough of a Scrooge so as to contemplate that a religion would be established if the police declined to evict tenants on Christmas Day.
Perhaps the local landlord that complained—and his friends at the ACLU—need a visit from Jacob Marley.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
An atheist group has attacked the state senator of Connecticut for using his personal time during the Christmas season to ring the bell outside of a local Walmart for the Salvation Army. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Maybe it’s the relentless ringing, the high-pitched clinging, or just the reminder that there’s something to this season beyond ourselves, but some find the bell ringing a little annoying. At the end of the day, though, the Salvation Army bell ringers do good work.
That’s probably why Connecticut state senator George Logan rings the bell outside of a Walmart in Naugatuck, Connecticut each year. This would be an otherwise forgettable act of kindness, except that one atheist group took their annoyance to a whole new level. They sent him an angry Christmas letter.
But, the letter was less concerned about the bell ringing and more upset that he would dare support an ostensibly religious charity. Rather than support what the group considers a “church denomination,” it strongly argued that Logan should focus his attention exclusivelyon secularcharities. This, the group suggests, would solve any appearance of promoting religion and “prevent citizens from feeling ostracized by their elected representatives.”
Well, if it’s not clear to you, let me explain that the law does not require any elected official, during his personal time, to serve only secular charities. Indeed, the Constitution protects the right of every citizen, elected or not, to serve the charity or house of worship of his choice. The galling bigotry that this organization has evidenced toward the free exercise of this citizen is appalling—especially at Christmas.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Ethicists are recommending that Canadian doctors should not be allowed to opt out of providing services to patients, even if it goes against their conscience. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A recent article out of Canada reports that ethicists are recommending that conscience laws be modified for the medical profession.
The argument suggests that physicians should not have the right to opt out of providing such services as prescribing contraceptives when a patient requests those services. According to the authors, “Doctors must put patients’ interest ahead of their own integrity. If this leads to feelings of guilty remorse or them dropping out of the profession, so be it.”
That is truly shocking language that we should take note of, especially since, as the article in the National Postpoints out, every country in the civilized world recognizes at least some form of conscientious objection. Not only do the authors suggest that certain professions should be closed to those whose integrity would require the abandonment of the conscience to practice, it fails to understand what conscience is.
The reason we provide protections for the exercise of conscience is because people should not be made by the government to make their conscience optional. As Dr. Robert George of Princeton University has put it, “The right of conscience is a right to do what one judges oneself to be under an obligation to do.”
We will see whether Canada takes up the proposal by its professors, but south of the border, we must be vigilant that we never permit the government to make optional what our Creator has made obligatory.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
With the holiday season upon us, it is important that students and teachers are aware of their religious freedom when celebrating the holidays both in and out of the classroom. To learn more: FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
As the school semester winds down to Christmas break, it’s important to take a look at all the ways students might exercise their religious freedom in celebration of the holidays.
First, schools can celebrate “Christmas” just as easily as they can celebrate “winter.” Doing so provides an educational perspective of world history and the effect of religion upon culture.
Schools can also deck the halls in Christmas decorations. Decorations can further the cultural and religious heritage educationally important to the holiday.
Third, schools can include Christmas-themed artistic expressions in school plays. As long as its presented in an objective manner reflecting the traditions of Christmas, it’s just fine.
It is fine for students to wish one another “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukkah” and even hand out gifts significant to their religious tradition.
As they can throughout the year, students can also reference their faith in school assignments, class discussions, and private speeches during the holidays. The First Amendment is not suspended during the Christmas season.
And, finally, school employees can discuss their religious, holiday traditions outside of their official roles as educators. This means teachers can attend Christmas parties and religious gatherings outside of work without fearing the loss of their job.
With that, perhaps the best way to conclude is merely to say: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and best wishes for a happy new year to all our students.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
After three years of litigation, Cornerstone Church by the Bay wins their case and can use their own property to minister to the community. Learn more about how First Liberty defended this church against the south Texas city’s zoning laws by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
After three years of litigation, Cornerstone Church by the Bay wins their case and can use their own property to minister to the community.
The south Texas church, and the private school that it runs, purchased property that they hoped would allow them to leave their rented space and continue their ministry on their own property. But, the city’s zoning laws were confusing. It allowed non-religious institutions to occupy that part of town, but the zoning rules did not allow churches there. When the church asked for a special use permit, the town’s Board of Aldermen denied the request, keeping churches from operating in that area.
Left with no other option, Cornerstone turned to First Liberty. We filed a lawsuit on their behalf alleging that the town’s zoning actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act along with the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Not long after, the court granted our request for a preliminary injunction while the litigation continued.
But, the town has decided to quit that litigation. In settling with Cornerstone, the Town of Bayview agreed to issue the special use permit the church requested over three years ago.
Houses of worship have legal rights that must be respected by local government officials. This church is now free to serve their community, on their own property, as every church should be.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In one of the most famous religious freedom Supreme Court cases, Jonas Yoder, a member of the Old Order Amish, challenged the state of Wisconsin’s law requiring students to attend school through the age of 16. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Jonas Yoder was a member of the Old Order Amish living in the State of Wisconsin. Yoder and others lived carefully according to their religious tradition, in community with other Amish and away from the influence of the modern world.
After the eighth grade, Old Order Amish schoolchildren do not continue to high school where much is taught in variance with their Amish way of life. Instead, the children return to the home where they are instilled with the virtues of goodness, wisdom, and community welfare by their family.
But these families ran into a problem as they sought to live out the religion that had motivated their families since the 16thcentury: the State of Wisconsin required students to attend school through at least the high school age of 16.
Yoder’s case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the State of Wisconsin could not compel these Amish families to send their children to high school. According to the court, “only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.”
Wisconsin v. Yoder, was among the first cases that helped articulate an important balancing test that weighed a state’s interest in governing against an individual’s right to the free exercise of religion.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Liberty Christian Center in Watertown, New York, asked for permission to use the Watertown High School Cafeteria for its religious services. The local school board denied the application and use of school property. Learn what the Constitution says about the issue at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Liberty Christian Center in Watertown, New York, asked for permission to use the Watertown High School Cafeteria for its religious services.
As their application stated, the worship services to be conducted in the public school cafeteria would include activities of music, religious instruction, and Christian testimony. But, the local school board denied the application, stating that, since New York law did not specifically authorize religious organizations to utilize public school buildings, the application had to be denied.
The court reviewed previous uses of the public school cafeteria. It found that among other uses, the school had been used to host a “Local Talent Night” which featured religious music, religious instruction, and even Christian testimony. Since both the worship service and the local talent show shared a religious purpose and context, it was unlawful for the school to permit the talent show, but deny the use of the facility for a worship service.
Some decry the use of a public school by a religious organization as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That is simply not true. The First Amendment demands that a school board be neutral toward religion. Letting a secular organization use school property, but denying a religious organization the same use, is not neutrality, it’s hostility.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The State of Florida has provided a religious exemption for parents who, for religious reasons, object to their children receiving immunizations. One parent invoked his exemption but did so at a private religious school. Learn how a state appellate court decided by listening to FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The topic of immunizations can be controversial to many. Some even have a religious objection to having their children immunized as a requirement to attend public schools.
Those objections often fall on deaf ears, but some states have provided for a religious exemption for parents who, for religious reasons, object to their children receiving the needle. Florida falls into that category.
So, naturally, when Patrick Flynn informed his Florida school that he was invoking that exemption, he was surprised to hear the school refuse to follow the law. So, he filed a lawsuit.
Now, there’s an important fact that I haven’t told you yet: the school is a private, Catholic school. It’s not a public school. As such, it is itself protected by the First Amendment to make its own policies in keeping with their faith.
A unanimous state appellate court sided with the Catholic Diocese, citing the doctrine of church autonomy. Siding with Flynn would “further his own religious views at the expense of the Diocese's on the topic of immunizations,” wrote the court. “We are convinced that a secular court should not be making the judgment as to which side's religious view of immunization is to be respected.”
In other words, while Flynn has a right to the protection of his religious beliefs, he may not use the state’s judicial arm to compel a private, religious institution to depart from its religious beliefs.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.