Latest news with #EricRassbach
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California ends ban on special education funds for children in religious schools
The state of California agreed in federal court Monday to stop barring children with disabilities who want to attend religious private schools from receiving special education funding. For decades, children with disabilities have been able to access federal funding for free special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The federal law allows some of this funding to be used in private schools as well, but California lawmakers had, until this week, disqualified religious private schools from access to this program. A group of Orthodox Jewish parents and schools first brought a lawsuit against the California Department of Education in 2023 over this state law, which barred them from receiving IDEA funds to send their kids to Orthodox Jewish schools. The parents argued that their children should be able to receive an education that is in line with their Jewish traditions and beliefs while also providing a quality education that meets their needs. California Parents Sue Over Law Preventing Religious Schools From Using State Funds For Special Ed Students "It's outrageous that California politicians are using religion as an excuse to deny special education benefits to kids with disabilities," Nicholas Reaves, senior counsel for Becket, a legal group representing the parents, previously told Fox News Digital. "Excluding religious schools from programs which help these children reach their full potential is just plain wrong." Read On The Fox News App In October, a federal appeals court agreed, declaring that California was violating the Constitution by requiring schools to be non-religious for families to apply for these funds. The case returned to district court. On Monday, California and the Los Angeles Unified School District agreed to a court order that permanently prohibits them from enforcing a "nonsectarian" requirement to access the special education funding. Becket hailed the court victory in a press release. "California spent decades treating Jewish kids like second-class citizens. Today's settlement ensures that Jewish kids with disabilities can access the resources they need and deserve—just like everyone else," Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said in a statement. Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On School Choice Case Involving Catholic Charter School The California Department of Education did not return a request for comment. Fox News' Kendall Tietz contributed to this article source: California ends ban on special education funds for children in religious schools
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The impossible task of defining religion
This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night. Earlier this year, I spoke with a college class about the relationship between religion and entertainment. I talked about my coverage of the movie 'Conclave,' the member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who was then competing on 'The Bachelor' and religion's role in the Olympics. But when it came time for the Q&A portion of my presentation, there weren't any questions about faith-related movies and shows. Instead, one of the students challenged me to talk more broadly about religion in American life. 'Who counts as religious?' he said. Based on my conversations with religion researchers over the years, I knew that was a doozy of a question. And so, I didn't really try to answer it. I just talked about how it works in surveys, which typically rely on people's self-identification. (In other words, researchers sort people into the 'religious' group if they describe themselves as 'religious.' It's a simple as that.) The student didn't challenge my response, but that didn't stop me from feeling a bit lame. The question of 'Who should count as religious?' has popped into my head several times since that presentation, and I've struggled to come up with a more definitive answer. I returned to that query again last week as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about faith-based tax breaks. As part of their effort to define the limits of religious exemptions, several justices reflected on how to define religion under the law. The justices, as well as the attorneys involved in the case, wrestled with whether the legal definition of religion should focus on sincerity of beliefs or a sense of duty to a higher power — or some combination of both. I got a kick out of a moment that Justice Amy Coney Barrett shared with attorney Eric Rassbach, who was arguing on behalf of the Catholic groups that brought the case. After asking Rassbach to articulate a line between religiosity and non-religiosity, Barrett said, 'It's kind of a big question, right?' As I took notes on the conversation, I nearly shouted, 'You can say that again!' Catholic Church announces 'painful' end to partnership with U.S. government. Here's why it matters Q&A: Meet the Latter-day Saint couple combatting religious stereotypes on reality TV The religious significance of Trump's tariffs How far can red states go to oppose Planned Parenthood? Supreme Court debates Medicaid restrictions Will Duke sue HBO over 'The White Lotus'? What it's like to attend church in space Wrestling Church is a unique event in the United Kingdom that's bringing people to religion — and to wrestling. Held in traditional religious spaces, the event enables regular churchgoers to learn more about the wrestling community and wrestlers to learn more about organized religion. It mixes prayer and faith-filled reflections with sweaty, loud wrestling matches. Gareth Thompson, founder of Kingdom Wrestling, the charity that leads the program, recently told The Associated Press that Wrestling Church grows out of his belief that both wrestling and a relationship with God can change your life. 'People say, 'Oh, wrestling and Christianity, they're two fake things in a fake world of their own existence,'' he said. 'If you don't believe in it, of course you will think that of it. But my own personal experience of my Christian faith is that it is alive and living, and it is true. The wrestling world, if you really believe in it, you believe that it's true and you can suspend your disbelief.' The Rev. Natasha Thomas, priest in charge at a church that's hosted several Wrestling Church events, told the AP that embracing the unique activity is a way to keep her church relevant at a time when less than half of English people now consider themselves Christian. 'It's not church as you would know it. It's certainly not for everyone,' she said. 'But it's bringing in a different group of people, a different community, than we would normally get.' As IVF becomes more accessible in the U.S., doctors, government officials and even religious leaders will need to spend more time thinking and talking about the ethics of preimplantation genetic screening, according to a recent New York Times column, which argued that the country is at risk of entering an era where we seek not just healthy babies, but optimized ones. The question often comes up when I'm talking to friends and colleagues: Is it time to quit social media? I'm not ready to log off sites like Facebook and X yet, but even I was shaken by a new American Storylines essay about the ways social media use can actually make us less social. Please make time in the week ahead to read Taffy Brodesser-Akner's beautiful essay for The New York Times Magazine about what we lose when we lose interest in learning about the Holocaust. My family checked an important task off our faith-related to-do list on Friday by going to a fish fry event at a local church. They're common fundraisers in our area of Wisconsin since several of our neighbors are Catholic and abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears likely to side with Catholic Church and Trump in key religious exemption case
The Supreme Court appeared likely to side with a Wisconsin-based Catholic Charities group in its fight with the government over a state ruling it says "distorts" and "undermines" its mission of caring for the sick and poor. The Trump Justice Department has filed a brief in support of the charity, arguing exemptions in federal tax laws, like the Wisconsin tax law, protect the rights of religious institutions. The group, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, is appealing a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that found that because it does not conduct "typical" religious activity, it is not exempt from the state's costly unemployment payment program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a Wisconsin law exempting religious nonprofits from the program does not apply to the charity group, because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and serves and employs non-Catholics and does not attempt to convert individuals, they said. Trump Makes Endorsement In 'Important' Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Catholic Charities, however, argues that helping the disabled, elderly and those living in poverty — regardless of their faith — is a core tenet of their religious practice. Read On The Fox News App The group's attorney, Eric Rassbach, with the religious liberty law firm Becket, argued during the hearing that Catholic teaching forbids Catholics from conditioning assistance on acceptance of the church's teachings. "The Wisconsin Supreme Court got it wrong when it interpreted a state-law religious exemption to favor what it called 'typical' religious activity and when it held that helping the poor can't be religious, because secular people help the poor too," he said. The group is seeking to be exempt from the state's unemployment compensation program so it can join the Wisconsin Catholic Church's private program, which they say would save them more money than paying into the state program. Pope Francis' Doctors Considered Ending Treatment, Said 'There Was A Real Risk He Might Not Make It': Report In nearly two hours of often heated debate, a majority on the bench seemed to agree the state engaged in an unnecessary entanglement over defining whether Catholic Charities should be treated differently from other similarly situated secular groups. Attorneys for Wisconsin faced intense questioning from the justices about the state entangling itself in religious doctrine and practice, thus violating the First Amendment by denying a religious organization an otherwise available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior. "Isn't it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn't be picking and choosing between religions," questioned Justice Neil Gorsuch. "Doesn't it entangle the state tremendously when it has to go into a soup kitchen, send an inspector in, to see how much prayer is going on?" he asked. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Raises Eyebrows With Comment That First Amendment 'Hamstrings' Government Even some of the court's liberal justices seemed to have concerns with Wisconsin's ruling. "There are lots of hard questions in this area," said Justice Elena Kagan. "But I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions and we certainly don't do it based on the contents of the religious doctrine that those religions preach." "The reason why we're so worried about entanglement is because it gets us enmeshed in the content of religious doctrine," she said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett commented during the hearing that "the problem here is how to figure out what the line is." Alan Rock, executive director of the Catholic Charities Bureau, told Fox News Digital that following the hearing, he is "confident the Supreme Court will ensure our freedom to serve all those in need according to our Catholic faith." Exclusive: Groundbreaking New Prayer Book Designed For Demographic Most Targeted For Abortion "The state of Wisconsin said that our work isn't religious. The state denied that our care for those in need is driven by our faith, simply because we serve everyone and do not try to convert those we serve. That view distorts the heart of our mission and undermines our ability to care for the most vulnerable," he said, adding, "We look forward to the Court's ruling." Speaking with Fox News Digital after the hearing, Bishop James Powers, head of the Catholic Diocese of Superior, said that Wisconsin is "punishing Catholic Charities for following this example of Christian love." "We do not help the needy because they are Catholic — we help them because we are Catholic," he said. "The Good Samaritan did not ask about the wounded man's faith: He simply saw a neighbor in need and responded with mercy. That is the model Catholic Charities has embraced since its founding."Original article source: Supreme Court appears likely to side with Catholic Church and Trump in key religious exemption case
Fox News
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court appears likely to side with Catholic Church and Trump in key religious exemption case
The Supreme Court appeared likely to side with a Wisconsin-based Catholic Charities group in its fight with the government over a state ruling it says "distorts" and "undermines" its mission of caring for the sick and poor. The Trump Justice Department has filed a brief in support of the charity, arguing exemptions in federal tax laws, like the Wisconsin tax law, protect the rights of religious institutions. The group, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, is appealing a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that found that because it does not conduct "typical" religious activity, it is not exempt from the state's costly unemployment payment program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a Wisconsin law exempting religious nonprofits from the program does not apply to the charity group, because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and serves and employs non-Catholics and does not attempt to convert individuals, they said. Catholic Charities, however, argues that helping the disabled, elderly and those living in poverty — regardless of their faith — is a core tenet of their religious practice. The group's attorney, Eric Rassbach, with the religious liberty law firm Becket, argued during the hearing that Catholic teaching forbids Catholics from conditioning assistance on acceptance of the church's teachings. "The Wisconsin Supreme Court got it wrong when it interpreted a state-law religious exemption to favor what it called 'typical' religious activity and when it held that helping the poor can't be religious, because secular people help the poor too," he said. The group is seeking to be exempt from the state's unemployment compensation program so it can join the Wisconsin Catholic Church's private program, which they say would save them more money than paying into the state program. In nearly two hours of often heated debate, a majority on the bench seemed to agree the state engaged in an unnecessary entanglement over defining whether Catholic Charities should be treated differently from other similarly situated secular groups. Attorneys for Wisconsin faced intense questioning from the justices about the state entangling itself in religious doctrine and practice, thus violating the First Amendment by denying a religious organization an otherwise available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior. "Isn't it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn't be picking and choosing between religions," questioned Justice Neil Gorsuch. "Doesn't it entangle the state tremendously when it has to go into a soup kitchen, send an inspector in, to see how much prayer is going on?" he asked. Even some of the court's liberal justices seemed to have concerns with Wisconsin's ruling. "There are lots of hard questions in this area," said Justice Elena Kagan. "But I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions and we certainly don't do it based on the contents of the religious doctrine that those religions preach." "The reason why we're so worried about entanglement is because it gets us enmeshed in the content of religious doctrine," she said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett commented during the hearing that "the problem here is how to figure out what the line is." Alan Rock, executive director of the Catholic Charities Bureau, told Fox News Digital that following the hearing, he is "confident the Supreme Court will ensure our freedom to serve all those in need according to our Catholic faith." "The state of Wisconsin said that our work isn't religious. The state denied that our care for those in need is driven by our faith, simply because we serve everyone and do not try to convert those we serve. That view distorts the heart of our mission and undermines our ability to care for the most vulnerable," he said, adding, "We look forward to the Court's ruling." Speaking with Fox News Digital after the hearing, Bishop James Powers, head of the Catholic Diocese of Superior, said that Wisconsin is "punishing Catholic Charities for following this example of Christian love." "We do not help the needy because they are Catholic — we help them because we are Catholic," he said. "The Good Samaritan did not ask about the wounded man's faith: He simply saw a neighbor in need and responded with mercy. That is the model Catholic Charities has embraced since its founding."
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears swayed by Catholic charity group's tax exemption bid
The Supreme Court on Monday seemed swayed by a Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief in Wisconsin in a case that could drastically alter eligibility for religious tax exemptions. A Wisconsin chapter of Catholic Charities, a social services arm of Catholic dioceses nationwide, challenged the top state court's determination that it does not qualify for a religious tax exemption because it isn't 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau is controlled by the Diocese of Superior but claims it was denied an exemption from a state unemployment tax because it serves and employs non-Catholics, completes work that could be administered by nonreligious groups and doesn't attempt to proselytize, or sway those it serves to become Catholic. Eric Rassbach, a lawyer for Catholic Charities, argued no court would hold that clergy members who preach on Saturday aren't ministers because preaching on Sunday is more typical, nor would a court suggest that religious leaders who help the poor aren't ministers because secular leaders help the poor, too. 'By that measure, Mother Teresa might not qualify,' Rassbach said, suggesting the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in declining to qualify Catholic Charities for the exemption. The justices sharply pressed Wisconsin over its contention that whether a group receives the tax exemption hinges on if it proselytizes or engages in activities that express and instill religious doctrine. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Wisconsin's lawyer, Colin Roth, what changes Catholic Charities would have to make to qualify for the exemption under the state's perspective. Roth suggested saying the Lord's Prayer before serving a meal. 'You don't get the soup unless you pray first,' Justice Samuel Alito interjected. Justice Sonia Sotomayor posited that it might be a matter of religious doctrine not to say the Lord's Prayer before serving a meal, suggesting it would be 'problematic' to qualify religious groups that do have that requirement while denying those who don't. 'I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions,' she said. But Roth argued that allowing groups like Catholic Charities to qualify — where their work is largely identical to secular groups in the state — could incentivize states to cut back on religious accommodations altogether. 'Petitioners' theory ultimately leads to an all-or-nothing rule exempting all religious groups or not,' he said. The justices did weigh the limits of such exemptions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed a hypothetical in which a religion views eating meat as a sin and opens a vegetable-only restaurant. 'Do they have a claim to be exempt from state taxes, food taxes, everything else?' she asked. 'Because that's a … sincerely held belief and it's important to them and you're going to be taxing them — you're going to be taxing the exercise of their beliefs.' She also asked whether motivation should factor in deciding who's exempt, such that if one vegan restaurant was underpinned by faith and another was not, only the former would receive the exception. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned how to distinguish religion from nonreligion under the law, quipping that the high court would not wade into religious philosophy in its opinion. 'That's kind of a big question, right?' she joked. Rassbach pointed to a 'duty' owed or obligation to something 'transcendent' or 'supernatural' as the distinction. Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon, who argued for the government, urged the justices to take a narrower view. He said the plain law has two clear prongs: that any group receiving the exemption must be controlled by a church and operate for primarily religious purposes. The justices should stop short of defining religious and nonreligious work and instead find the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in its interpretation of the law regarding Catholic Charities, he said. 'Second-guessing what counts as inherently religious is just something that courts shouldn't be in the business of doing,' Gannon said, 'and so that's a problem for a court to be defining what is inherently religious.' The tax exemption case is the first of three religion cases to be argued before the Supreme Court this term. The justices will also weigh whether parents of children in public school can opt out of LGBTQ book instruction and whether an online Catholic school can become a charter school in a nationwide first. In recent years, the Supreme Court has handed a string of wins to churches and religious plaintiffs in disputes with states. A decision is expected this summer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
