On Monday, June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling on the highly anticipated Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case. The Court looked at the question of whether a university may deny a religious student organization access to school funds and facilities when the organization requires voting members to sign a “Statement of Faith.” Disappointingly, the Court determined in a 5–4 decision that a university may do so without violating the Constitution.

 

            The Christian Legal Society (CLS) filed the lawsuit on behalf of its University of California, Hastings (UC Hastings) chapter in 2004 after UC Hastings refused to recognize the student group, thus denying the group funding and use of school facilities, because the CLS chapter required voting members to sign a “Statement of Faith” and to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with biblical teachings. School officials contended that the school’s nondiscrimination policy neutrally required all student groups to “accept all comers”— regardless of whether students seeking membership were in alignment with basic tenets or behavioral requirements of the religion that formed the very basis of the group.

           

Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Ginsburg attempted to justify the school’s refusal to officially recognize CLS on the grounds that the school did not “require” CLS to admit anyone, but only denied CLS the benefits of recognition when CLS would not voluntarily admit nonbelievers as voting members. In Justice Ginsburg’s words, UC Hastings was merely “dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition.”

           

Advocates recognizes, as the four dissenting justices in the case do, however, that this Court’s holding undermines crucial First Amendment rights. Justice Alito stated that the decision runs contrary to our nation’s legacy of protecting freedom of expression, even if some find the speech disagreeable. Instead, he says, the Court majority “rests [its decision] on a very different principle: no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

Elena Kagan: Another Liberal Appointment
to U.S. Supreme Court  

            Also this week, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings took center stage.   After  being examined this week by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Kagan appears to be the inevitable replacement for retiring Justice Stevens. While Justice Stevens’ exit is good news for conservatives, his replacement by Ms. Kagan dampens the mood.

 

Kagan, who has never served as a judge in any court, does not have a judicial record that indicates how liberal she may be as a justice in our nation’s highest court.  Instead, she is probably most commonly known for her defiance of military recruiters while she served as Dean of Harvard Law School—one of the most liberal legal institutions in the nation. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, the leading Republican in the Judiciary Committee, has said that “[i]n many respects, Ms. Kagan's career has been consumed more by politics than law.”

 

And that is frightening. With as many social issues being as highly politicized as they are today—same-sex marriage, abortion, and religious free speech, for example—the last thing conservatives want to hear is that a newly appointed Supreme Court justice is more committed to “political correctness” than to upholding the Constitution as a Supreme Court justice.

 

In the end, Kagan will replace one of the most liberal justices in the High Court’s history, and we should not see much change in the outcome of cases that are argued before the justices.  Although she will receive an appointment for life, Kagan will not shift the balance of power on the Court. 

 

Please stand with us as we continue to battle for religious liberty!

 

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

 

everal times during the oral argument and during the press conference immediately afterward, lawyers arguing that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally denies equal protection under the law stated that if homosexual marriages were permitted, we would all be “more American.”

               The first time these words were uttered, I began to ponder what it meant to “be American” and how it was that this lawyer, former Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, so passionately believed in a concept of America that I so fervently believe goes against the fabric of not only what this Nation was at its inception but what still defines who we are today.  In 1789 our Nation’s founders met in Philadelphia and crafted a Constitution that could initially be described as the “American experiment” and now can truly be described as the “American experience.”  The experiment succeeded above and beyond the wildest dreams of the men who laid its foundation.  Our Constitution was and is drafted for the people and by the people—the same people who by a simple majority vote passed Proposition 8.  What Mr. Olsen argued in that courtroom was not simply that marriage itself, the bedrock of society, should be redefined but that the American experience should be redefined.

                What Mr. Olsen should have said is that he believes America would be better if Proposition 8 was overturned, not that we would all be more American.  At its core, America is a wildly successful experiment in republican democracy.  Mr. Olsen, however, would like a judge to declare that the voters of California who exercised those democratic principles should be overturned.  That will not make anyone, including Mr. Olsen, more American, as the very notion of it will redefine the democratic principles that our Constitution was carefully crafted to uphold.

               Advocates exists to protect the Constitution and the principles upon which it was drafted—principles that Mr. Olsen now needs to redefine to successfully argue that American voters no longer have a right to answer questions of almost unparalleled social significance.  In January, we filed a motion to intervene in this case on behalf of the County of Imperial, which is necessary to assure that the decision can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  We are expecting the judge to rule on both the motion to intervene and the constitutionality of Proposition 8 shortly.  As we move forward, I remain hopeful that Mr. Olsen’s attempt to redefine American democracy will fail.  I remain even more hopeful that as a Nation we will embrace what it means to “be American” and treasure our liberty, freedom, and democracy enough to passionately defend it – even at great cost.

Jennifer Monk
Associate General Counsel 

              This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates. 

 

 

Corbett made numerous comments that we believe expressed his disapproval of Christianity, not just one.

            We have asked the Ninth Circuit to expand the district court’s ruling and recognize the unconstitutionally hostile classroom environment we believe the teacher created as a result of the numerous comments he made expressing his disapproval of religion.  Dr. Corbett also filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the district court incorrectly held that he violated the Establishment Clause. 

            This case was originally filed when Chad was a sophomore honors student at Capistrano Valley High School enrolled in Dr. Corbett’s Advanced Placement European History class.  Chad alleged that while teaching the class, Dr. Corbett spent an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that were not only irrelevant to history, but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students.  As a result of Dr. Corbett’s statements, Chad filed a federal lawsuit in 2007 for a violation of his First Amendment rights.

            This case recognizes that far too often the Establishment Clause is invoked when it is perceived that the government is somehow endorsing religion, but is not applied with equal force when the government acts in a manner that is hostile towards religion.  The district court judge noted the following:  “The Supreme Court’s comments with regard to governmental promotion of religion apply with equal force where the government disapproves of religion.” 

           As the briefing continues at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, please be in prayer for wisdom and favor with the Court.   

          This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

            This unprecedented lawsuit centers on whether the UC school system can discriminate against private religious schools by denying recognition of college preparatory courses taught by religious high schools, merely because the courses are taught from a religious perspective.  In most cases, students applying for admission to a UC school must show that they have taken a minimum number of pre-approved college prep courses at their high school.  In order for courses to be approved, each high school must submit their curriculum in advance to the UC for approval.

            The lawsuit contends that the UC school system has refused to approve over 150 courses that were intended to be taught by Christian, Catholic, and Jewish high schools merely because they were to be taught from a religious viewpoint.  The Ninth Circuit ruled against Calvary and ACSI, a ruling that shockingly refused to recognize the constitutional right of Calvary and other private schools to teach from a religious viewpoint without government interference. 

            Please be in prayer as the Supreme Court reviews this important case and considers whether it will reconsider the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 

            This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

            Kagan was nominated to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, and although recognized as liberal she will likely not represent a significant shift of the ideological balance that currently exists.  Kagan has never before sat as a judge on any level in the federal court system, and if confirmed will decide the first case of her career as a Supreme Court Justice.  While her scholarly writings and prior speeches offer a glimpse into her thoughts on a variety of controversial subjects that she will confront on the Supreme Court, the inability to review prior decisions she has written as a sitting judge leaves significant speculation that will certainly be the focus of questioning at her Senate confirmation hearings.

            As Advocates is currently working on a brief to the Supreme Court and will have further cases reach the Supreme Court within the next several years, likely including the Proposition 8 case, we are committed to praying for all involved as the nomination process moves forward.

            This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

            In 2004, Congress ordered that the land on which the Cross rests should be transferred in a land swap to a private owner.  The bill further provided that the land was to revert to federal ownership if it was no longer maintained as a war memorial.  The federal district court judge that heard the case ruled that the Cross was to be covered by a plywood box because the display was unconstitutional.  Not surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit agreed and held that the display was unconstitutional.  

            Advocates’ attorneys filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the American Legion Department of California, supporting the constitutionality of the Cross and Congress’ authority to allow the land swap to take place in order to assure the continued existence of the war memorial.  The Supreme Court stated that Congress’ actions were constitutional when it permitted the land to be swapped to a private owner, with some Justices also arguing that the Oregon resident who brought the lawsuit, Mr. Buono, was not sufficiently and directly impacted to file the lawsuit.  

            This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.