Too often, Americans of faith still meet opposition, often from government itself. Over the next four years, the Supreme Court could change this — for the better.
Too often, Americans of faith still meet opposition, often from government itself. Over the next four years, the Supreme Court could change this — for the better.
A s President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office for his second term, the Supreme Court of the United States, which includes three of his appointees, has the opportunity to continue its trend of upholding religious liberty and cement its legacy as a Court that helped restore the free exercise of faith in America.
Over the past several terms, when faced with far-reaching religious liberty cases, the Court sided with both the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
American Legion v. American Humanists Association upheld the 40-foot Bladensburg, Md., WWI Peace Cross memorial. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District found post-game prayer by a public high school football coach constitutional. And in Groff v. DeJoy, a unanimous Court granted victory to a former postal carrier who lost his job for observing the Sunday Sabbath. In each of these cases, the Court set aside decades-old precedent that had been hostile to religious freedom and incongruent with the Constitution.
Yet even as these decisions continue to ripple through our law and culture, we have more work to do. While these important victories changed the religious liberty landscape for the better, too often, Americans of faith still meet unwarranted opposition — often from government officials. That’s why, this term, First Liberty has asked the court to review a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that sided with the City of Stockton in firing former Fire Chief Ron Hittle. Stockton wrongfully terminated Fire Chief Hittle simply for attending a leadership conference hosted at a church. He did so because his supervisor suggested he receive leadership training, so Chief Hittle chose to attend one of the nation’s leading leadership conferences — Willow Creek Church’s Global Leadership Summit — which was hosted at a local church.
Our petition to the Court raises an important but little-known issue. A decades-old Court precedent from the early 1970s prevents meritorious employment discrimination cases from reaching a jury. Plaintiffs in Title VII employment cases often face the added burden of disproving the employer’s given reason for the adverse employment decision without ever having a chance to make their case to a jury of their peers.
In another case, we’ve asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower-court decision that forced Bethesda University in California to include board members who do not follow the university’s firmly held religious beliefs. Remarkably, a California court thought it should be able to dictate to a religious university who should lead that school. In truth, secular courts are not competent to evaluate the religious character of religious organizations and should be barred from interfering.
We’ve also asked the Court to uphold the rights of parents by reversing a decision made by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which prevents parents from litigating pro se on behalf of their children in federal court. In this case, a parent wished to represent his minor child in a lawsuit against the School Board of Hillsborough County, Fla. However, when he tried to act for his child, the court ruled that he cannot do so unless he is an attorney. This decision, which prevents parents from representing their own children, deprives parents of their constitutional right to make critical decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their kids.
Other cases this term involve the religious rights of prisoners, the inclusion of religious schools in charter-school programs, and the freedom of religious organizations to choose health care plans that line up with their faith — all opportunities for the Court to restore our first freedom.
Today, we approach the anniversary of the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom — the forerunner to the First Amendment — which was penned by Thomas Jefferson and adopted on January 16, 1786. In the groundbreaking document, Jefferson stated that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,” and “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
The religion clauses of our First Amendment echo Jefferson’s words. The First Amendment’s establishment clause pledges that the government will not coerce religious exercise by establishing a state church, while the free exercise clause proactively protects the free exercise of faith.
If the rest of this term follows the Supreme Court’s recent trends, we will be well on our way to restoring that vision of religious freedom — a vision imagined by our Founders and enshrined in our Constitution.