Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Recently President Obama nominated the former dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General to the United States Supreme Court. Kagan has been a liberal force in academia and has represented the federal government before the Supreme Court for the last year. The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman announced that her confirmation hearings will begin on June 28, 2010. This will allow for the confirmation hearings to be completed in time for a final vote on the nomination before the Senate’s August recess.
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.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
This week, in Salazar v. Buono, the United States Supreme Court saved a Cross that has been dedicated as a war memorial in San Bernardino, California. The Cross stands no more than eight feet tall, but has been the center of a lengthy legal battle regarding whether or not the Cross can remain standing despite the constitutional challenges that were brought by the ACLU on behalf of an Oregon resident who maintains that he regularly visits the area.
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 The bill further provided that the land was to revert to federal ownership if it was no longer maintained as a war memorial.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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
On the last day of the legislative session, the Hawaii legislature passed a bill legalizing civil unions. If signed into law by Governor Linda Lingle, Hawaii will become the sixth state to grant essentially all the rights of traditional marriage to same-sex couples. Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage, although in no state has same-sex marriage been established through a vote of the people. As has occurred across the Nation, the Hawaiian legislature failed to allow the people to vote when it approved the equivalent to same-sex marriag
e. If Governor Lingle allows this bill to become law, she will strike yet another blow to democracy.
She has not stated whether she will veto the bill or allow it to become law, but she has until July 6, 2010, to make a decision. As Advocates continues to fight for traditional marriage through its defense of California’s Proposition 8, we will be in prayer that Governor Lingle will recognize the role of traditional marriage in society and take a stand to protect both traditional marriage and the people’s vote.
Prayerfully consider a gift today to help in our continuing fight to protect your religious freedoms and constitutional liberties.
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.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
On May 6, 2010, Christians and people of all faiths around the Nation will recognize the National Day of Prayer. Although Obama will not hold a public ceremony as past presidents have done, he will sign a proclamation to recognize the day. The National Day of Prayer was established by Congress in 1952, and President Reagan signed a resolution in 1988 to observe it on the first Thursday in May. Each May, Americans are encouraged to pray for this Nation, the government, and those who lead and serve whether it is on the city council, in the military, or in Washington D
.C.
Last week, a federal district court judge in Wisconsin held the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional, while stating that the day violated the "separation of church and state." This phrase is never found in the Constitution but is often cited as support for extracting religion from the public square. Please listen below for information from Advocates' Associate General Counsel, Jennifer Monk, regarding the significance of the National Day of Prayer and the recent court decision holding it unconstitutional.
Click here to listen to audio from Associate General Counsel, Jennifer Monk
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.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
When Justice Stevens announced his retirement from the United States Supreme Court, the guessing game began regarding who President Obama would choose to nominate as his replacement. As we wait for that decision, which the White House says should come within the next several weeks, it is crucial to consider the impact Stevens’ retirement will have on the Court other than the appointment of its newest member. Justice Stevens solidly voted with the liberal block of the Court, and it is reasonable to assu
me his replacement will as well. Nevertheless, as Advocates’ General Counsel explains below, his retirement may have a positive impact on religious liberty and traditional family values in more subtle ways.
Listen HERE for audio from Robert Tyler
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.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Attorneys for the Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) are making their final preparations for oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. The Court will consider Christian Legal Society v. Martinez a week from Monday now that all briefing has been completed. Please stand in prayer with Advocates as we monitor this important case and the inevitable impact it will have upon the future of religious freedom.
At issue in this case is the fundamental question: “Can an officially recognized Christian university student organization require its members and officers to be Christians?”
While in a separate case the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld the clear constitutionality of a group requiring its members and leaders to agree with the group’s core religious viewpoints, the liberal Ninth Circuit, relying on its prior decision in Truth v. Kent School District, held in CLS that it was impermissible to make such a requirement. In Truth, Advocates for Faith and Freedom fought for the legal principle that members in high school clubs have a constitutional right to associate with like-minded individuals. This right was denied by the Ninth Circuit in a shocking opinion. In the CLS case, the Ninth Circuit relied on Truth to deny more students basic religious liberty, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Advocates is hopeful that the outcome of this case will have a positive impact on students across the Nation and that the Supreme Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Truth. Join with us in praying that the United States Supreme Court will strike down the Ninth Circuit’s logic in CLS and Truth and that the Justices will hear the value in protecting the rights of Christian students during the upcoming oral arguments.
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.
Friday, April 9, 2010
After President Obama signed the health care bill into law, he signed an executive order purportedly prohibiting the federal funding of abortions through the bill. However, the signing of the executive order is misleading, at best, and completely irrelevant at worst. For example, abortion provider Planned Parenthood will still be funded by taxpayers. It was reported in 2009 that Planned Parenthood received approximately $350 million in government grants and contracts. Funding is often provided under the guise of “family planning” or “women’s reproductive healt
Monday, April 5, 2010
In order to either use a building or develop a piece of property for the purpose of worshiping Christ and fellowshipping with other believers, a Church must first obtain any approvals that are required by the City within which it is trying to locate. While this seems like a reasonable requirement, often a Church is discriminated against either because of the religious speech that is taking place on the property or the fact that a Church does not generate tax revenue for the City as a nonprofit entity.
When Westchester Lutheran Church and Christian School applied for approval from the City of Los Angeles to expand and update its existing site, the Church never imagined that the resulting battle would end as it did. The City gave Westchester a conditioned approval mandating that only secular education take place Monday through Friday - effectively prohibiting the speech that was to take place in the Christian school.
Advocates attorneys agreed to file a lawsuit on behalf of Westchester and, as a result of Advocates’ involvement, the City eventually agreed to remove the unlawful conditions and approve the construction. Please listen below to find out what Advocates is doing to protect against this discrimination and the millions of dollars it costs churches and Christian schools around the Nation each year.
Click here to listen!
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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
In a little over a month, on April 19, 2010, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case entitled Christian Legal Society v.
Martinez. The Supreme Court will consider whether a university can refuse to officially recognize a student organization solely because it requires that members and officers of the organization sign a statement of faith. The University of California, Hastings College of Law requires all registered student organizations to comply with a California law stating that the organization must allow “any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs.” Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) requires its members to attest in writing that, among other things, “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is Lord of my life.”
This case found its way to the United States Supreme Court through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit ruled against CLS and relied on its prior ruling in Truth v. Kent School District. Truth, an Advocates case that asserted the same constitutional rights on behalf of the Truth Bible Club at a high school in Kent, Washington, ended a short time ago when the Ninth Circuit stated that the Club did not have a constitutional right to associate with like-minded individuals. The Ninth Circuit refused to recognize that forcing a club to allow members and, even more significantly perhaps, leaders, that refused to agree to the beliefs that formed it foundational principles and reason for existing was constitutionally problematic. Now, the United States Supreme Court will reconsider that ruling.
We are grateful that the Supreme Court is willing to reconsider the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in CLS as it solidly rests on the legal principle the Ninth Circuit errantly established in Truth. So often the Ninth Circuit rules against religious freedom, and the Supreme Court’s rare review of cases makes it seem like an impossible uphill battle. CLS and Truth stand as a hopeful reminder of a simple fact. The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Circuit by the Supreme Court. As a result, hard fought precedent, regardless of whether it is ultimately “lost”, often lays the groundwork for a victory that will protect religious freedom for generations to come. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will grant a victory in the CLS case, and, in doing so, will protect the rights of Christian students in high schools and colleges across the Nation to gather together.
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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Don’t let anyone tell that there is no hope for America! This week, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Pledge of Allegiance as a constitutional political exercise that is not in violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.” The liberal circuit also upheld the constitutionality of our nations motto, “In God We Trust.” Rulings like this should give the patriots resilience to keep fighting for the values our nation was founded upon. Here are some of the excerpts from the Ninth Circuits’ opinion:
“The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God—the Founding Fathers’ belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; indivisible—although we have individual states, they are united in one Republic; with liberty —the government cannot take away the people’s inalienable rights; and justice for all—everyone in America is entitled to “equal justice under the law” (as is inscribed above the main entrance to our Supreme Court). Millions of people daily recite these words when pledging allegiance to the United States of America.”
“Congress had two primary purposes in including the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge: (1) to underscore the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers that God granted certain inalienable rights to the people which the government cannot take away; and (2) to add the note of importance which a Pledge to our Nation ought to have and which ceremonial references to God invoke.”
“We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.”
Here is our message to you: “Keep the faith.” We will continue to fight for religious liberty and the values our nation was founded upon. When Ninth Circuit issues a ruling that preserves our nations heritage, you should be encouraged that the conservatives of this nation are rising-up and that the battle for our culture will not be lost!
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.
