President Donald Trump has made good on a campaign promise to Evangelical Christians when he announced on Jan. 31st that Judge Neil Gorsuch is his choice to fill the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Many conservative court watchers see Judge Neil Gorsuch, who serves on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as a solid replacement for the late Antonin Scalia, who died nearly a year ago. One of Gorsuch's highest profile rulings was in favor of Hobby Lobby, which successfully sued the Obama administration over its birth control mandate for health care coverage.
"I thank God that if confirmed, this administration will have delivered on one of its most critical campaign promises—to appoint a judge in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the original intent of its framers," Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement.
Southern California pastor, Greg Laurie of Harvest Christian Fellowship, also praised the pick.
The Supreme Court announcement was Trump's third major pro-life action since his inauguration. During his first week in office, Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding for any foreign non-governmental organization that offers referrals for abortions. The Trump administration also signaled its strong support for human life by sending Vice President Mike Pence to speak at the Jan. 27th March for Life in Washington D.C. Vice President Pence was the highest ranking federal official to ever attend the annual prolife march.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage in conflict with their beliefs. The decision was issued in a 5-4 ruling Monday morning. The enormous forty-nine page majority opinion was written by Justice Alito, with Justice Kennedy writing a four page concurrence. Justice Ginsburg was joined in her dissent by Justice Sotomayor, with Justices Breyer and Kagan each filing their own dissenting opinions.
The major question in the case was whether a corporation would have protection under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). According to the Supreme Court, yes they do. The Court held that closely held corporations are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. This means that RFRA gives protection not only to individuals, but also to closely held corporations. A closely held corporation is a private corporation with limited shareholders, usually family members or other close associates. RFRA is a federal statute that only applies to actions of the federal government and does not apply to the state.
Yesterday, March 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the religious liberty issues at stake with the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare): Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. andConestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. What are these important cases about?
Obamacare requires that businesses provide health care for their employees, and that health care must include coverage for all contraceptives, at no cost to the employees.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties have stated that they don't have a problem covering most forms of birth control for their employees, but their religious beliefs do not support the use of emergency contraceptives meant for use after conception because they believe that the result of these emergency contraceptives is an abortion.
The question that these companies are presenting to the court is – do for-profit businesses have the right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners in the workplace? At issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether a federal law passed in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects Hobby Lobby from being forced to pay for emergency contraception.
At issue in the Conestoga case is whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the company from being forced to pay for emergency contraception.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are joined by at least 45 other for-profit companies that have brought cases to trial regarding the contraception mandate of Obamacare. In addition, there are separate cases right now that focus on the rights of religiously-affiliated organizations and the mandate.
It will likely be a few months before we hear a decision from the Supreme Court in these cases. In the meantime,please pray for the companies as they continue to stand up for religious liberty.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case regarding compulsory prayer before governmental meetings. The town of Greece, NY, decreed in 1999 that all town board meetings would begin with prayer. The vast majority of clergy asked to lead the prayer are from Christian churches, which some say violates their First Amendment right to freedom of religion, since individuals have vastly different belief systems.
What do you think? Do you think that compulsory prayer before governmental meetings should be done away with? Do you think the town should have to simply provide prayer in a more inclusive way, honoring different belief systems? Or, do you think they should be allowed to continue in the way they've conducted business for the past 10+ years? Join the discussion on Facebook and let us know!
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in our case of student versus teacher. Our client, Chad Farnan, was a sophomore in a high school Advanced Placement European History class, when he had to endure almost daily statements from his teacher that Chad argued were an unconstitutional attack on Christianity and religion, including the statement: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." A district court decided that one of the teacher's statements was unconstitutional, as it expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.'" Both parties appealed this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the district court's decision and declared that the teacher involved had qualified immunity – meaning that, since there was no clear precedent of a teacher being held liable for his or her statements expressing disapproval of religion, this teacher could not have known that his statements would be unconstitutional.
"They can't hold the teacher liable because the law was not clearly settled. Because they can't hold him liable, the law will never become clear on what teachers can say in class."
Please join us in prayer as we continue to work in defense of the religious and individual freedoms of our students!
In January, the freedom of religious institutions to choose their staff and ministers who best reflect the beliefs and values they hold dear was supported by the highest court in our country – the United States Supreme Court.
A teacher at a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in Michigan was fired, and she told the school that she had consulted with an attorney and planned to fight back about her job termination. However, the case went before the Supreme Court, who ruled that the teacher's case would not move forward.
Advocates celebrates the decision of the high court, which solidifies the liberties of churches and religious organizations to make decisions that will best serve their congregations and constituents – without fear of governmental interference.
We have defended countless churches and religious institutions from unconstitutional intrusion by the government into their affairs. If you, your church, or your religious organization encounter discrimination or violation of your religious freedoms, we are here to help!