Religious Freedom

  • October 3, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Rob Boston, the Director of Communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia captured headlines recently by declaring that nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from favoring religion over non-religion.

    “I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia told a crowd at Colorado Christian University Oct. 1.

    “We do Him [God] honor in our Pledge of Allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” he added. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

    It’s not the first time Scalia has made such comments. In 2009, he told an Orthodox Jewish newspaper published in Brooklyn, “It has not been our American constitutional tradition, nor our social or legal tradition, to exclude religion from the public sphere. Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.”

    The “American tradition” that Scalia refers to doesn’t have much of a history. “Under God” was slipped into the Pledge in 1954 as a slap at godless Communism. “In God We Trust” wasn’t codified for use on paper money until 1956 – again, it was a Cold War-era slam at the Soviets. (The use of the phrase on coins is older. It was a desperate ploy by the North to curry favor with the deity during the early months of the Civil War.)

  • October 3, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Lyle Denniston looks at what is next for same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court at SCOTUSblog.

     A ruling from the U.S. Court for the Fifth Circuit closed all but eight Texas abortion clinics, reports Sarah Kliff of Vox.

    In Alliance for Justice’s blog, Meghan Jones and Christopher Brook discuss State v. Heien and why law enforcement ignorance of the law is not an excuse for Fourth Amendment violations.

    Eliot Hannon reports in Slate on the religious discrimination case against Abercrombie & Fitch that the Supreme Court will hear this term.

    Daniel Gutiérrez discusses in Jacobin the how migrant workers bear the brunt of capitalism’s challenges to labor. 

  • November 26, 2012

    by Amanda Simon

    The Supreme Court today revived challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate and contraceptive coverage provision. The challenge, brought by Liberty University, has now been given new life. With its 5-4 ruling in June, the Court held that the ACA and its coverage provisions were constitutional. Now, the future of the mandate is a bit hazier.

    Though the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, Liberty University v. Geithner, in September, the Supreme Court today ordered the appeals court to rehear the challenge, opening the door to what could be a significant legal battle. Liberty University, a Christian college founded by the controversial TV preacher Jerry Falwell, brought the suit saying the ACA violated its First Amendment rights as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring the school to provide insurance that could be used for abortions.

    The Fourth Circuit based its dismissal of the university’s case on standing, saying it could not challenge a tax that had yet to be implemented. However, in its ruling on the ACA, Talking Points Memo reports, “the Supreme Court dismissed the standing argument, implicitly conceding that taxpayers may challenge the ACA’s mandates, even ones that have yet to take effect — providing Liberty an opening to move forward with its case.”

  • October 9, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Mr. Mach is a co-counsel for the plaintiff in Salazar v. Buono.

    The Supreme Court heard argument last Wednesday in Salazar v. Buono, an Establishment Clause challenge to the federal government's display of a Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve. The Court's questions focused largely on esoteric procedural doctrine, and while it's always risky to predict the outcome of a case based on oral argument, it seems unlikely the Court will rule on the broader constitutional issues in the case - namely, whether the plaintiff, a devout Catholic and former National Park Service employee, had standing to challenge the display of the cross; and whether, before it tried to transfer the cross to a private party, the government violated the First Amendment by displaying the sectarian symbol on federal land. (The lower courts decided those issues in favor of the plaintiff in the first round of the case, and the Bush Administration chose not to seek Supreme Court review at the time. As a result, the Court now appears disinclined to revisit those rulings.)

    But while the Supreme Court ultimately may pass on the loftier constitutional questions in Buono, Wednesday's argument did have some dramatic moments. In the most heated exchange of the morning, Justice Antonin Scalia peppered Peter Eliasberg, the ACLU attorney arguing for the plaintiff, with questions about the significance of the cross. Justice Scalia bristled at Eliasberg's suggestion that a World War I memorial featuring only a Christian cross sends a message of exclusion and religious favoritism, asking, "The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" After Eliasberg responded that the cross "is the predominant symbol of Christianity," Justice Scalia pushed back, suggesting that there was no constitutional problem with the display because "the cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead." Eliasberg resisted, explaining that "the cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians." "I have been in Jewish cemeteries," continued Eliasberg, the son of a Jewish World War II Navy veteran. "There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."