Latest news with #FirstLibertyInstitute
The Hill
23-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Proponents hope to make Ten Commandments next Supreme Court test of religion in schools
State laws requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms keep losing in court, but that won't matter if they win at the highest court in the land. Outside advocates believe supporters of laws in Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas are actively trying to get the cases before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, those supporters are consistently suffering legal losses, including in some of the most conservative courts in the country. Lawsuits have challenged the laws, which use similar language to mandate posters of the Ten Commandments, on the grounds that they violate students' and parents' First Amendment rights. But supporters believe this is a Supreme Court that will see them differently. 'I don't think anybody is surprised that these policies, these laws in the states that seek to put the Ten Commandments back in schools, have been challenged in court. They're making their way through the proper channels, and we still are very confident that at the end of the day, when these cases get to the Supreme Court, that they're going to uphold them based on the new history-and-tradition test,' said Matt Krause, of counsel with the First Liberty Institute. The so-called Lemon test that was previously used to determine whether a measure violated the Establishment Clause was undone in the high court's 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District decision, which determined a public school football coach's First Amendment rights were violated after he was suspended for praying on fields after games. 'I think once they threw out the Lemon test and instituted this history-and-tradition test, there's really no way for this — this matter that was decided under the Lemon test — to be fully resolved without the Supreme Court speaking on it, and so they've given us the history-and-tradition test, but it hasn't been fleshed out necessarily in the last several years,' Krause said. 'This Ten Commandments case, I think, helps give the justices the opportunity to provide even more of a framework of what they started in Kennedy,' he added. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, considered perhaps the most conservative such court in the country, ruled last month that Louisiana's Ten Commandments law is unconstitutional, it made a point to note 'it is the Supreme Court's 'prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.'' But opponents of the laws say it is not a done deal the Supreme Court would side with them, let alone even decide to take up the cases. 'The problem is, I just don't think the court itself — this court — would be friendly to a claim that it's permissible to post the Ten Commandments in the public schools. In other words, I think [proponents] are operating on a misconception,' said Bob Tuttle, professor of law and religion at the George Washington University Law School. 'So the people that won the case in Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District made a big point of going around and telling the school districts that all kinds of things had changed in the law now, and they were free to bring religion back into public schools, and that is not what the case stood for at all,' Tuttle added. The 6-3 majority conservative justices have tended to side with right-wing concerns on religion and education, including this term when they ruled along ideological lines in favor of parents who sought to remove their children from instruction that included LGBTQ-themed books. But the high court also rejected the nation's first openly religious charter school in a 4-4 decision after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. 'I don't think the Supreme Court is going to see this, and if they did see it, they would be forced to make a choice. I mean, they would be forced to really confront radical change in Establishment Clause law affecting the teaching in schools, and they have not done that,' Tuttle said. Others argue there have been signs throughout the whole process that Republicans were aiming to create a more friendly court to push this sort of legislation through. Emily Witt, senior communication and media strategist for Texas Freedom Network, pointed to state lawmakers rejecting all amendments to the Ten Commandments legislation besides one where the state attorney general would have to represent school districts if the law was challenged. 'I think that says that they are expecting to be that this bill will result in a lawsuit, which is a misuse of taxpayer funds, and also says, you know, that you're trying to pass something that is not constitutional,' Witt said. 'In this case, from our perspective, there's been a decades-long strategy on the right to stack the courts, to pass legislation that is going to have to go through a judicial process because it really tests the boundaries of the Constitution, and so that that is a big worry for us, that this could go to the Supreme Court, and unfortunately … [it] could rule in a way that, from our perspective, does not respect our Constitution,' she added.
Fox News
14-07-2025
- Health
- Fox News
How Florida became America's leading religious-freedom defender under DeSantis: report
The Sunshine State ranks as the nation's number one defender of religious liberty out of all 50 states, according to the First Liberty Institute's fourth annual Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. For the first time, Florida tops the national rankings, followed by Montana, Illinois, Ohio and Mississippi. Illinois and Mississippi have garnered a spot in the top five every year since the index was first released by the First Liberty Institute's Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD) in 2022. The index uses a detailed scoring system measuring legal protections and ranking states based on the percentage of possible safeguards they have adopted. This year, with 2025's rankings, nearly 55 percentage points separates Florida from the last-place state, West Virginia, which has been last on the index for three years in a row. "We find that the states are laboratories of religious liberty where different protections for free exercise can be implemented and tested," CRCD Executive Director Jordan Ballor wrote in an introduction for the 2025 index. "One of the major goals of the RLS project is to raise awareness of what different states are doing. There are positive lessons to be learned from this experimentation, as states that have been at the vanguard of protecting religious liberty can serve as exemplars for states that have lagged behind." The index's accompanying report points out that Florida "is an exemplar" for how state lawmakers can improve their protections around religious freedom. According to the report, the Sunshine State has improved nearly 20 percentage points since the first RLS index was released in 2022. Much of this improvement came from legislation passed in 2023 strengthening religious protections that allow healthcare providers to refuse to participate in medical procedures or services, such as abortion or sterilization, based on their religious or moral beliefs. The report also pointed to Florida's passage of legislation in 2022 protecting houses of worship from discriminatory treatment during pandemics and other emergencies. "Florida holds several #1 rankings, leading the nation in education, economy, and tourism – and now, Florida is #1 in religious liberty," said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. "We're grateful for this recognition from the First Liberty Institute, which has just named Florida the number one state in the nation for protecting religious liberty." "This year's findings show clearly that states taking legislative action are pulling ahead," added Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO and chief counsel at First Liberty. "Under the leadership of Gov. DeSantis, Florida passed real laws that protect real people, and now the Sunshine State is the national leader in protecting religious liberty. It's time for more states to follow Gov. DeSantis's example and adopt strong religious liberty laws." While Florida was pointed to in the RLS index as an "exemplar," the report stated that religious freedom was becoming increasingly "tenuous" in the blue state of Illinois. The move downward for the Land of Lincoln was not because the state repealed protections, but mainly because it has not implemented new protections that other states, like Florida, have, the report noted. Per the 2025 RLS report, almost all of Illinois' protections came when the state was more conservative between 1934 and 1998. In an effort to demonstrate the dangers of "complacency," the report also pointed to Colorado when Republicans "routinely" had control of both houses of the state legislature. The environment was friendly toward religious liberty, but lawmakers did not pass much in the way of protections, according to the report. It said the state's complacency contributed to Colorado's "abysmal" 43rd-place finish in the 2024 RLS rankings and 34th finish in the 2025 rankings released Monday. The First Liberty Institute said the results of the 2024 election may give some people the idea that passing laws protecting religious liberty is not as important, but the conservative Christian legal group warned this is "emphatically not the case," noting that data shows passing such laws is just as critical amid a "favorable" political climate.
Winnipeg Free Press
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court to consider reviving lawsuit restricting evangelizing in small Mississippi town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker. Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court. Lower courts found he couldn't file a civil-rights lawsuit because he'd been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn't open either, effectively denying him a day in court. The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren't about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like 'Jezebel,' 'nasty,' and 'drunkards' at people passing by. The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated 'protest zone,' and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group's 'desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.' Olivier's attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum. Sundays Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
San Francisco Chronicle
03-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court to consider reviving lawsuit restricting evangelizing in small Mississippi town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker. Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court. Lower courts found he couldn't file a civil-rights lawsuit because he'd been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn't open either, effectively denying him a day in court. The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren't about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like 'Jezebel,' 'nasty,' and 'drunkards" at people passing by. The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated 'protest zone," and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group's 'desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.' Olivier's attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
Hamilton Spectator
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Supreme Court to consider reviving lawsuit restricting evangelizing in small Mississippi town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker. Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court. Lower courts found he couldn't file a civil-rights lawsuit because he'd been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn't open either, effectively denying him a day in court. The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren't about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like 'Jezebel,' 'nasty,' and 'drunkards' at people passing by. The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated 'protest zone,' and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group's 'desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.' Olivier's attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
