The First Amendment was upheld in 2025 session, but the debate continues
Their intentions were good.
Shielding kids from so-called 'sexually explicit' materials. Ensuring our children's education is aligned with values that uphold morality. Permitting chaplains to fill the gaps for mental health support at our public schools.
Let's think about the children, they said. Let's protect the children!
But good intentions don't always equate to good legislation, as we saw during the 2025 legislative session with bill after bill that pushed ideological principles, imposed Christian doctrines and would have done little more than chip away at our First Amendment rights.
Since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, these 45 words have been integral to democracy. It protects our fundamental rights to free expression and speech, to practice religion or no religion at all, and to protest our government, among other rights.
Upholding these rights is the sworn responsibility of our elected leaders. But the culture warriors among our state legislative assembly seemed wholly unconcerned. And that's extremely alarming!
Take Senate Bill 2307, for example. Legislators narrowly passed this bill that sparked contentious debate in committee hearings and on the legislative floor, with much of the discussion focused on fears that children might discover library books featuring teenagers in same-sex relationships or depicting families with two dads or two moms.
If community members don't want to engage with certain ideas or topics – or let their kids engage with certain ideas or topics – they don't have to. Substituting state control for parental judgement is not the answer. In fact, that's censorship. And once you allow the government to censor someone else, you're also giving the government the power to censor you or something you like later.
Similarly, religious freedom was up for debate this year, too.
Not long ago, religious freedom was largely viewed across the ideological and political spectrum as a bedrock value of American democracy that transcended partisan agendas. Every individual and family — not politicians or the government — get to decide for themselves what religious beliefs, if any, they adopt and practice. But in statehouses across the county, religious freedom debates are now at the epicenter of the culture wars as some believe certain Christian ideals should be reflected in political decisions.
North Dakota lawmakers attempted to require public schools to post prescribed copies of the Ten Commandments in public school and university classrooms and other school spaces with House Bill 1145 and they wanted to encourage local school districts to allow taxpayer-funded chaplains in our public schools with House Bill 1456.
As enshrined in the First Amendment, however, religious freedom includes two complementary protections: the right to religious belief and expression and a guarantee that the government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others. These dual protections are supposed to work hand in hand, allowing religious liberty to thrive and safeguarding both religion and government from the influences of the other.
The ACLU's opposition to these bills doesn't mean we don't believe protecting children or ensuring their education is guided by strong moral values isn't important. It's just that parents already have the right and ability to do so. And what's right for one family may not be right for another. That's not up for someone else to decide.
Fortunately, Gov. Kelly Armstrong vetoed Senate Bill 2307, and an attempt to override the veto failed. House Bills 1145 and 1456 failed, too. Protecting our First Amendment rights like this is essential for a vibrant and open society where individuals can express themselves freely, hold the government accountable and participate in the democratic process.
But just because the 2025 legislative session is over doesn't mean the fight for our First Amendment rights in North Dakota is over. Far from it. The state legislature isn't the only place these debates are happening. We're seeing similar efforts at local community library boards, school boards and city councils across the state, too. You can bet the culture warriors among our legislative body will try again during the 2027 session, too.
We know that attacks on our First Amendment rights won't stop – and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota is prepared to continue the fight.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Budweiser Stock (BUD) Looks Merrier as it Makes Trump-Friendly U.S. Investment Pledge
President Trump is likely to have raised a glass today to Budweiser-owner Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD) after it revealed plans to invest $15 million in its facility in St. Louis. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Shares in BUD were 1% higher in pre-market trading. Domestic Brew Although that figure by itself is unlikely to pop any corks in the White House, it does show that AB InBev is making good on its previously announced $300 million commitment to boosting U.S. manufacturing. It also follows its announcement earlier this month of a new $9 million investment in its Baldwinsville, NY brewery and a $17 million investment in its Houston brewery. This, of course, has been one of the key pillars of Trump's tariff strategy – to increase domestic making of stuff and having American workers do the hard graft. The funds, announced today, will support supply chain infrastructure to transport domestically grown ingredients to the company's St. Louis, Missouri brewery and help deliver beer brands including Budweiser and Bud Light to consumers. Tariff Defense AB said it has invested nearly $2 billion over the last five years in 100 facilities across the U.S., but the onus on manufacturing in the States has no doubt been spurred on by the strategy of the Trump administration. In order to avoid crippling tariffs, a number of high-profile firms have committed to ramping up U.S. spending, from tech giants such as Apple (AAPL) and Nvidia (NVDA) to motor manufacturer Honda (HMC) and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca (AZN). Budweiser has previously said it was boosting investments in key brands and ramping up efforts to grow at-home consumption, as spending elsewhere – including in bars – remains pressured. In the first quarter AB InBev said overall volumes declined by 1.9%, impacted by weak demand in China and Brazil. However, it added that North America and Europe showed 'resilience', with top and bottom-line growth. Is BUD a Good Stock to Buy Now? On TipRanks, BUD has a Strong Buy consensus based on 7 Buy ratings. Its highest price target is $90. BUD stock's consensus price target is $78.83, implying a 28.07% upside.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Ranger fired for hanging transgender flag in Yosemite and park visitors may face prosecution
Advertisement Joslin said their firing sends the opposite message: 'If you're a federal worker and you have any kind of identity that doesn't agree with this current administration, then you must be silent, or you will be eliminated.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Park officials on Tuesday said they were working with the U.S. Justice Department to pursue visitors and workers who violated restrictions on demonstrations at the park that had more than 4 million visitors last year. The agencies 'are pursuing administrative action against several Yosemite National Park employees and possible criminal charges against several park visitors who are alleged to have violated federal laws and regulations related to demonstrations,' Advertisement Joslin said a group of seven climbers including two other park rangers hung the flag. The other rangers are on administrative leave pending an investigation, Joslin said. Flags have long been flown from El Capitan without consequences, said Joanna Citron Day, a former federal attorney who is now with the advocacy group Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility. She said the group is representing Joslin, but there is no pending legal case. On May 21, a day after the flag display, Acting Superintendent Ray McPadden signed a rule prohibiting people from hanging banners, flags or signs larger than 15 square feet in park areas designated as 'wilderness' or 'potential wilderness.' That covers 94% of the park, according to Yosemite's website. Park officials said the new restriction was needed to preserve Yosemite's wilderness and protect climbers. 'We take the protection of the park's resources and the experience of our visitors very seriously, and will not tolerate violations of laws and regulations that impact those resources and experiences,' Pawlitz said. It followed a widely publicized instance in February of demonstrators hanging an upside down American flag on El Capitan to protest the firing of National Park Service employees by the Trump administration. Among the climbers who helped hang the transgender flag was Pattie Gonia, an environmentalist and drag queen who uses the performance art to raise awareness of conservation issues. For the past five years, Gonia has helped throw a Pride event in Yosemite for park employees. She said they hung the transgender flag on the iconic granite monolith to express that being transgender is natural. This year, Trump signed an executive order changing the federal definition of sex to exclude the concept of gender identity. He also banned trans women from competing in women's sports, removed trans people from the military and limited access to gender-affirming care. Advertisement Gonia called the firing unjust. Joslin said they hung the flag in their free time, as a private citizen. 'SJ is a respected pillar within the Yosemite community, a tireless volunteer who consistently goes above and beyond,' Gonia said. Jayson O'Neill with the advocacy group Save Our Parks said Joslin's firing appears aimed at deterring park employees from expressing their views as the Trump administration pursues broad cuts to the federal workforce. Since Trump took office, the National Park Service has lost approximately 2,500 employees from a workforce that had about 10,000 people, Wade said. The Republican president is proposing a $900 million cut to the agency's budget next year. Pawlitz said numerous visitors complained about unauthorized demonstrations on El Capitan earlier in the year. Many parks have designated 'First Amendment areas' where groups 25 or fewer people can protest without permits. Yosemite has several of those areas, including one in Yosemite Valley, where El Capitan is located. Park service rules on demonstrations have existed for decades and withstood several court challenges, said Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers. He was not aware of any changes in how those rules are enforced under Trump. Associated Press journalist Brittany Peterson contributed reporting from Denver.
