|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home  News & Opinions Press Room
Press Room
 On the final day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009-10 term, my colleague James Gibson and I walked over to the Court. We expected the Court to announce its decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case in which the BJC had filed an amicus brief (pdf), as well as the remaining decisions of the term, which included significant cases on executive power and gun laws. We also wanted to witness the end of an era. It was senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens’ last day on the Court after 34 years of service.It turned out to be a more time-consuming, but also much more interesting, excursion than we expected. Fortuitously, we were seated in the front of the lawyers’ section, just a few feet from the raised bench where the justices preside. In honor of the occasion, many lawyers, journalists and visitors (men and women) sported bow ties, Justice Stevens’ signature look. After the marshal called the Court to order and the justices were seated, Chief Justice John Roberts began with the announcement that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s husband of 56 years, Martin David Ginsburg, had died the night before. Speaking on behalf of the other justices and their families, the Chief recalled the life of a devoted husband and father, accomplished legal scholar, and beloved Georgetown professor. Justice Ginsburg sat still and appeared stoic, her face only briefly betraying emotion when the Chief recounted their wedding three years after they met on a blind date. It was as if the black robes she and her colleagues wear somehow augmented her personal strength beyond what could be expected. Chief Justice Roberts concluded his remarks by ordering that the Journal of the Court reflect that the day’s adjournment of the 2009-10 term was in honor of Martin David Ginsburg. The Court then turned to the business at hand: the announcement of the term’s remaining decisions. Among those announced, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez took relatively little time. Justice Ginsburg began by reading aloud from her 5-4 majority opinion, saying that the case was decided on the stipulated fact that Hastings School of Law had an “all-comers” policy for its recognized students groups. This meant that no organization could turn away any student for any discriminatory reason — including religion or sexual orientation. For the majority, this defeated any claim that the Christian Legal Society (CLS) was singled out for unfair treatment based on its religious beliefs and requirement that members sign a faith statement and agree to live by the organization’s core values. Despite claims by CLS that the university’s policy was not accurately reflected in the stipulation, the Court upheld the university’s broad non-discrimination policy, holding that the policy did not violate CLS’s First Amendment expression and association rights. The justices were divided along typical lines, this time with the liberals in the majority, joined by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the conservatives in dissent. The case is likely to be limited in its reach unless other public schools and universities begin adopting similar “all-comers” policies. Some aspects of the majority’s opinion, however, could prove troubling to religious groups in other contexts. The finding that the Hastings policy was “viewpoint neutral” rested on the majority’s analysis of CLS’s membership requirements simply as “conduct” rather than as a manifestation of the group’s “Christian perspective.” The concurring opinion of Justice Stevens and the dissent written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito revealed sharp differences among the justices. Characteristic of his perspective in many free exercise cases, Justice Stevens was dismissive of arguments that religion should be treated differently and that CLS should be allowed to define its membership by excluding students. In the dissent, Justice Alito railed against “political correctness” being used by the majority as a basis for ignoring CLS’s First Amendment rights and for tolerating what he characterized as Hastings’ discrimination against the group. The other decisions announced included McDonald v. Chicago, which struck down a handgun ban in Chicago. Justice Alito read extensively from the majority opinion. Providing a history of various developments in doctrines of incorporation (the process by which federal constitutional rights bind state and local authorities), he laid the groundwork for the Court’s 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms applies not only to the federal government but also to state and local governments. In a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a law enacted to reform accounting oversight in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals), dissenting Associate Justice Stephen Breyer expressed pointed criticism of the majority’s views on the extent to which executive authority could be delegated. At some length, he questioned the majority’s decision that the President of the United States must be able to remove regulatory personnel hired by the Securities and Exchange Commission and strongly warned that it could lead to unconstrained presidential power to dismiss numerous federal employees. At the end of the session, Chief Justice Roberts again spoke in a noticeably more gentle tone, noting the retirement of Frank D. Wagner, the Court’s Reporter of Decisions. Tasked with preparing the decisions of the Court for official publication, correcting formatting and citation errors, and writing official case summaries, Wagner had served for more than two decades. The Chief then acknowledged Justice Stevens’ imminent retirement, and read a letter congratulating him. The letter was signed by the other justices, as well as by former Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter. The letter revealed their respect, admiration and good wishes for Justice Stevens. After the Chief humorously paused to allow Justice Stevens “time for rebuttal,” Stevens responded briefly and humbly with appreciation, a bit of humor and some historical observations. Chief Justice Roberts then thanked the Court staff and members of the Bar before wishing everyone a good summer and adjourning the Court until the next term, which begins in October. As the justices rose to depart, the Chief Justice broke with protocol and motioned for Justice Stevens to take his place in leading the justices out of the chamber. Even beyond the CLS case — the impact of which will become clearer as future litigants contest its meaning — it was a significant day at the Court. The proceedings provided a glimpse of the institution’s unique role in our government and the complex relationships among the nine justices. The beginning and end of the session were marked with statements that showed great respect for the Court and the personal contributions and sacrifices of those who are part of its work, evoking smiles and a few tears. The announcement of decisions, however, had an entirely different feel. As justices read some lengthy portions of majority opinions and dissents (an occurrence that has been rare historically but has become more frequent on an increasingly divided Court), some of their colleagues sat with tight jaws, raised eyebrows and what appeared to be painful restraint. The strongly worded opinions reflected deep ideological divides, as the Court stands at the cusp of another transition in its composition.
|
|
High school students write about landmark JFK speech concerning religion and politics on its 50th anniversary
 WASHINGTON – The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has announced the winners of the 2010 Religious Liberty Essay Scholarship Contest, sponsored by the Religious Liberty Council of the Baptist Joint Committee.
High school juniors and seniors from 17 states entered. In their essays, students reacted to John F. Kennedy’s landmark 1960 speech about the relationship between his religion and his politics and the separation of church and state. September 12 marks the 50th anniversary of the speech.
Click here to read about the winners. |
When Baptists in America study their history, they typically respond with pride. The denomination’s longstanding witness on behalf of religious liberty can be traced to the first Baptists in England, who boldly proclaimed that God alone was the ruler of conscience. As Thomas Helwys put it to King James, the king is not God, but a mortal man, with no power over the souls of his subjects.
Baptists claim Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a refuge for religious liberty when he was kicked out of Puritan Massachusetts; and John Clarke, who established the first Baptist church in Newport, R.I. They led a religious-liberty experiment on this continent that eventually would take root and spread. Virginia Baptist John Leland had a pivotal role in the disestablishment movement and pressured James Madison for a constitutional amendment to protect religious liberty, embodied as our “first freedom” in the Bill of Rights. At the foundation of our faith is freedom.
From our beginnings and throughout our history, Baptists have made their mark on behalf of the separation of church and state as the best means to secure religious liberty for all. Yet, for some, pride in the historical contributions of Baptists does not translate into bold support for religious-freedom protections today. Baptist Americans, like all Americans, benefit from the constitutional tradition that keeps our government from establishing religion and interfering with religious practices. In many communities, however, we are in the majority and have lost sight of the compelling story that informs our freedom.
As a church-state lawyer, I know that many current religious-liberty disputes involve fine distinctions and do not always warrant comparison to the lack of liberty our Baptist forbears faced. But I also believe Baptists who claim our religious-liberty legacy with pride should be careful not to take freedom for granted. If we fail to exercise our freedom responsibly or lose sight of the importance of having a government that is neutral toward religion, we can hardly claim the mantle of those Baptist heroes whose stories we love to tell.
In disputes over the relationship between the government and religion today, there remains a significant need for those who are willing to speak truth to power with the conviction of historic Baptists. There is no question that most Americans cherish their religious identity and that religion is on display, not just in our homes and houses of worship, but in the public generally. It is a natural consequence of the freedom our Constitution protects. However, when religious monuments are displayed on government property in a context that aligns the government with a religious message, our freedom is threatened.
Shouldn’t every historic Baptist oppose those (even if it is a fellow church member) who would act as “king” over the consciences of others by using the state to promote a favored faith? If we stand against religious establishments, how can we sit back and let the government choose which Scripture or symbols to promote on behalf of its citizens? Aren’t those decisions best left to the consciences of individuals and faith communities? Whether it is a solitary cross on federal land or a monolith engraved with a version of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, government-sponsored religious displays run counter to the principle that the government should not interfere with the religious choices of individuals. The distortions of history and religion used to justify government involvement in such matters underscore this point.
Similarly, as Baptists opposed paying taxes to support a church established by the state, can they really not notice the importance of debates over government funding of religious education through vouchers or government funding of social services provided by religious entities? Just because the lines have been blurred and the terrain is difficult does not mean there is not a strong role for Baptists to play in ensuring that the government does not use taxpayer funds to support religion.
Most importantly, claiming the legacy of Baptists for religious liberty means understanding what it is like to be a minority fighting against a government that has joined forces with the religious institutions of the majority faith. We should be the first to understand the struggles of religious minorities and ensure that our government does not use differences in religious beliefs or practices to draw political divisions or to coerce people in matters of faith.
As Baptists, we are called to lead -- or we risk losing the historical claim to the religious freedom that has been among our proudest legacies for more than 400 years. |
|
Baptist Joint Committee urges district court to uphold ruling in Forsyth County, N.C.
July 8, 2010
 WASHINGTON – A policy inviting religious leaders to use meetings of the Forsyth County (N.C.) Board of Commissioners as a platform to promote their faith is unconstitutional, threatens religious liberty and degrades religion by entangling it with government, says a Baptist church-state organization in a friend-of-the-court brief (pdf) filed Tuesday.
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed an amicus brief in the appeal of a case brought by two residents of Forsyth County, N.C., who filed suit in March 2007 against the county. The residents challenged the county’s practice of allowing sectarian government-sponsored prayers at county board of commissioners meetings under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and sections of the North Carolina Constitution. They claimed the Board’s prayers advance Christianity and have the effect of affiliating the Board with it.
Click here to read the rest of the BJC statement. Click here to download a pdf version of the brief.
|
|
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty comments on ‘Christian Legal Society v. Martinez’ ruling
June 28, 2010
 WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that public colleges and universities may require recognized student organizations to comply with an “all-comers” policy in order to receive associated benefits. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court rejected the Christian Legal Society’s (CLS) claim that the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law’s policy violated its rights to free speech, expressive association and free exercise of religion.
In a 5-4 decision authored by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court says Hastings did not violate the Constitution in requiring CLS “to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition” because its “all-comers” policy was applicable to all student groups, religious and secular alike, on the Hastings campus. The Court went on to say that Hastings “may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership.”
Click here to read the rest of the BJC statement on the ruling. Click here to download a pdf of the brief filed by the BJC in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Click here to read a Q&A on the case with BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman. |
|
|
Beware. In battles over religious displays on government property, such as in the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent church-state decision, a win for a religious display is not a win for religion. In Salazar v. Buono, the Court reviewed a challenge to a statute that would transfer a cross and the government land on which it stands to a private party. The lower courts had stopped the transfer, holding that it was an attempt to keep the stand-alone cross atop Sunrise Rock that would continue the underlying constitutional violation.
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court was severely fractured—the five in the majority having four different opinions and the dissenters having two — and the case is not over (it was remanded for further consideration). The case provides little guidance for lower courts that must decide other cases about religious displays on government property. Instead, led by a plurality decision by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court gives us another tangled Establishment Clause decision that lowers the wall of separation and devalues religious symbols.
|
|
|
 The retirement of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens brings to a conclusion the second-longest tenure in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. At the term’s end, Justice Stevens will have served 34 ½ years, just two years shy of his immediate predecessor, Associate Justice William O. Douglas. Much has changed over the past three and a half decades. Justice Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford and confirmed by the Senate in 1975 as a moderate conservative; he will leave the bench as a leader of the Court’s liberal wing. As is the case with all justices, he undoubtedly changed his views somewhat over the years, but Stevens attributes the shift mainly to the Court’s moving to the right rather than his drifting to the left. The Senate confirmed Stevens by a whopping 98-0 vote, a mere 17 days after he was nominated. His successor, no doubt, will take much longer to confirm, and no one expects such unanimity from today’s Senate. Click here to read BJC Executive Director Brent Walker's entire column on John Paul Stevens. |
|
|
 May 10, 2010
WASHINGTON — At today’s White House announcement of her nomination to succeed Associate Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said, “law matters. . . it keeps us safe . . . it protects our most fundamental rights and freedoms.”
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty hopes the nominee, if confirmed, will protect our most fundamental freedom — religious freedom — with a commitment to principles of both no establishment and free exercise embodied in our “first freedom.”
Click here to read more from the Baptist Joint Committee regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
|
|
 One of the more intriguing concepts taught in law school is the hypothetical “reasonable person.” This mythical individual — who always acts properly, regardless of context — is a means of analyzing liability and other legal issues. The reasonable person does not remove the safety guard from a lawn mower when there are numerous, easily readable, large-print warnings not to do so. The reasonable person does not juggle butcher knives. The reasonable person does not believe that a carbolic smoke ball will cure the common cold.
The reasonable person also shows up in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government entities cannot take actions that a reasonable person would interpret as an endorsement of religion. In this area, however, it is not always clear what a reasonable person would perceive. In recent years, a number of controversies — and some lawsuits — have risen in communities where public school graduations (as opposed to voluntary, non-school sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies) are held in religious venues, such as Christian churches. |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| |
|
|
|
|
A florist who has been sued by Washington State's Attorney General over her refusal to provide services to a same-sex marriage has returned legal fire. Baronnelle Stutzman filed suit against the AG in response, alleging a violation of First Amendment rights.
The counter suit, filed b... |
|
Christian evangelists who traveled to an Islamic culture festival in
Dearborn, Michigan with signs and megaphones intended to cause a stir
and provoke a reaction. They certainly did. Their anti-Islam sentiments
spoken at festival attendees angered some young people who responded by
hurling b... |
|
