The COVID-19 emergency shouldn’t divert the media from getting prepared for an unusual pileup of big “culture war” news that will break at the U.S. Supreme Court during the weeks through early July.
Pending decisions the media will need to interpret involve abortion, religious conscience claims, gay and transgender rights, taxpayer aid for students at religious school and (yet again) religious objections to mandatory birth-control coverage under Obamacare. Next term, the court will take up the direct conflict between LGBTQ advocacy and religious conscience, an uber-important problem.
These cases will show us how the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch (age 52, seated 2017) and Brett Kavanaugh (age 55, seated 2018), will be reshaping court edicts on religio-cultural disputes.
Here are the imminent decisions to be ready for.
Espinoza v. Montana (docket #18-1195) — This regards the venerable “Blaine amendments” in many state constitutions that forbid religion-related aid by taxpayers. Does a state violate the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection” clause if it denies generally available public scholarships to students who attend religious schools?
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, incorporating Trump v. Pennsylvania (19-431) — Last week, the court heard arguments in this case involving claims of religious rights vs. women’s rights. Did a Trump administration setup properly exempt religious objectors from the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to arrange birth-control coverage?
June Medical Services v. Russo (18-1323) — Louisiana requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which pro-choice advocates say hobbles women’s access to abortion. In 2016, a Supreme Court with different membership threw out such a regulation in Texas
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, incorporating St. James School v. Biel (docket # 19-267) — The court heard the argument on this Monday via a COVID-era telephone conference. This Catholic school case from California poses whether under the Constitution’s religious freedom clause schools and agencies can discriminate in hiring workers who are not officially ordained “ministers” but may carry out some religious functions. In a similar Lutheran case in 2012, the high court said yes.
Harris Funeral Homes v. E.E.O.C., incorporating Altitude Express vs. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County (#18-107) — Does the Title VII federal civil rights law against discrimination by “sex” also cover sexual orientation and gender identity disputes?
Next term the nation’s highest court will decide a further case on which federal appeals court rulings disagree.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (19-123) — Does government violate Constitutional religious freedom by requiring foster-care providers to make placements with LGBTQ couples when that conflicts with their beliefs?
Writers will want to consult the ever-invaluable SCOTUSBlog, with its analytical journalism and texts of filings and briefs in all Supreme Court cases. There they’ll find a cornucopia of major and minor players have joined in the assorted issues such as the following.
The nation’s two largest religious bodies, the Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention, and largest African-American body, the Church of God in Christ; Episcopal Church, Orthodox Church in America, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, important evangelical organizations (Billy Graham association, InterVarsity, World Vision, Young Life), Jewish groups on both sides, and liberal Hindu, Muslim and Sikh activists.
Among politicians, President Donald Trump filed along with 161 Republican and 186 Democratic members of Congress (including four Veep prospects, Senators Duckworth, Harris, Klobuchar and Warren), and the governments of 18 states.
Also the Becket Fund, Christian Legal Society, Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, AFL-CIO, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 22 LGBTQ groups, pro-life organizations, many religious schools, the American Bar Association and numerous law professors — including the University of Virginia’s Douglas Laycock (.pdf here), whose briefs are always perused by savvy journalists. Note his defense of religious freedom claims here (.pdf) and here (.pdf).
Other key sources.
ReligionLink backgrounder on the pending cases is here.
From the right (the old church-state left), analysis by journalist-attorney David French.
From the modern left, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a go-to that believes citizens need both freedom of religion and from religion. Publicists are Liz Hayes (lhayes@au.org) or cell 724–493-2834 and newcomer Naomi Paiss (paiss@au.org) or cell 202-440-0875.
ybvdadminuser
