Skip to main content


Showing posts with the label Supreme Court

The Sabbath at the Supreme Court

 By Zachary Groff - Posted at Reformation21: Published June 30, 2023 Over the past several months, I’ve been tracking the progress of what I call “Uncle Gerry’s Case.” Gerald Groff [1] is an Evangelical Christian of the conservative Mennonite variety hailing from beautiful Lancaster County, Pennsylvania who has become a champion of religious liberty, the Christian Sabbath, and “reasonable accommodation” under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While “Uncle Gerry’s” particular case is not quite over, significant progress has been made with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Groff vs. DeJoy, Postmaster General. The ramifications of this landmark decision may be far-reaching as lower courts receive careful (and unanimously endorsed) direction on how to assess “undue hardship” in the accommodation of religion in the workplace. Since the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, employers are prohibited under Title VII from discriminating against employees and potential employees on the basis of race, co

Putting the Judiciary in Its Place

Posted at Christian Heritage Fellowship: The United States Constitution does not allow for three equal branches of government. The judiciary was intentionally made the weakest of all three branches. January 22, 1973 (Roe vs Wade) was a glaring act of social engineering by a judiciary determined not to be constrained by the Constitution. “We the people” are the first three words of the Constitution, but since the 1940s, American government has been dominated by, “We the judges.” Sanctity of human life, Bible reading and prayer in public schools, the display of the Ten Commandments, Christmas nativities, same-sex marriage, and a host of additional social, religious, and moral issues have been decided, not by “We the people,” but by “we the judges.” Throughout the twentieth century, the judiciary has accrued powers for itself that America’s Founding Fathers never intended. The Declaration of Independence, listed four abuses (complaints 8, 9, 15, and 18) that were associated with

Court ruling to help Christian teachers, supporters say

By Tom Strode - Posted at Baptist Press : WASHINGTON (BP)-- Christians and other teachers in public schools, as well as the school-choice movement, stand to benefit from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today (June 27) that public-sector unions may not require fees from nonmembers, supporters of the ruling say. In a 5-4 opinion, the high court ruled against such mandates by government and public-sector unions and overturned a 41-year-old Supreme Court decision in the process. The justices decided such a requirement on workers who refuse to join the union is a violation of free-speech protections in the First Amendment. "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees," Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion. A union procedure that automatically deducts fees from a nonmember's wages "violates the First Amendment and cannot continue," he said. "Neither an agency fee nor any o

US Supreme Court Asks Washington Supreme Court to Revisit Florist Judgment in Light of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling

By Heather Clark - Posted at Christian News Network : WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Washington State Supreme Court to revisit a ruling against a florist who was found guilty of discrimination for providing referrals to a regular customer who wanted her to furnish his same-sex ceremony, directing the court to review the matter in light of the high court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, which found that hostility toward religion unfairly influenced the legal judgment. The Washington Supreme Court will now need to examine whether or not Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers received a fair trial by the state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled earlier this month in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that decision-makers must be neutral toward religion in contemplating whether or not a violation of the law was committed, not being prejudiced against it. “As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view

Let Them Eat Wedding Cake: The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker (But Only Him)

By Kevin Cain, J.D. - Posted at Apologetics Press : Justice Kennedy (who authored the 5-4 Obergefell opinion recognizing constitutional protections for gay marriage) strikes again authoring the majority opinion on the long-awaited Colorado baker and gay wedding cake case. 1 While many were looking forward to the Supreme Court addressing the issue of conflicting interests (gay rights versus free exercise of religion), the Supreme Court side-stepped this issue and resolved this particular case in such a way that it will have little impact on other cases in the future. Justice Kennedy was joined by six other justices with two justices dissenting, making the opinion a 7-2 split. This case involved a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The gay couple filed a charge against the baker alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission found that the baker discriminated ba

Two Concerns About the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling

By Shane Vander Hart - Posted at Caffeinated Thoughts : The Supreme Court released its much-anticipated ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on Monday morning. The Court found in a 7 to 2 decision that Colorado Civil Rights Commission did violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. I am not surprised the Court found in Jack Phillips’ (the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop) favor ( the justices’ statements during oral arguments led me to think it was going to be a favorable ruling ), but that they did so with such a firm majority. I am pleased that the Court ruled in Mr. Phillips favor. This decision is a win. Had it gone the other way it would have been a terrible setback for religious liberty. So this is a victory, but this ruling is not the watershed decision many of us hoped it would be. It did not strike down Colorado’s SOGI law. It did not require an exemption for religious liberty or religious conscience. What the opinion says is that the

The Supreme Court Myth

Posted at The Quixotic Iconoclast: The idea is being put forward by both major parties that the future of Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance because of Supreme Court nominations that will be made during the next 4-8 years. People are urged to vote for a candidate that they might otherwise abhor, so that their side can prevail in Roe v. Wade. Is that true? Can we solve this just by supporting the right party? The best case study for this idea is the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey . At the time of the decision, Republicans had been in control of the White House for 12 years. Because President Carter made no nominations to the Supreme Court, Republicans had nominated every Justice appointed since 1969. Eight of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans. Only Justice White, appointed by President Kennedy, was the nominee of a Democrat. This was the perfect opportunity for Republican nominees to overturn Roe v. Wade. They had an 8-1 majority over Democrat

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Emergency Injunction to Block Girl From Using Boys’ Restroom

By Heather Clark - Posted at Christian News Network : WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a Virginia school district’s request for an emergency injunction to temporarily halt a lower court ruling that would have required officials to allow a female student who identifies as male to use the boys’ restroom. The court voted 5-3 to grant the injunction while the matter is being considered for an appeal, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan siding with the student. As previously reported , Gavin Grimm, now 17, told reporters in December 2014 that she began using the boys’ restroom after obtaining permission from the school principal when she expressed disapproval over being forced to use the nurse restroom. Read more...

Alabama Supreme Court Unanimously Dismisses Pleas to Defy U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

By Heather Clark - Posted at Christian News Network : MONTGOMERY, Ala. — While expressing reluctance and issuing sharp rebukes against the nation’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday unanimously dismissed pleas from family groups who requested that the court defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex “marriage.” Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program had filed requests with the court, as well as Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen, asking that it uphold the state’s ban on same-sex nuptials. “It is ordered that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed,” the court wrote in its unanimous order, with separate concurring opinions being released by the justices. Read more... See also: Alabama Supreme Court Rejects U. S. Supreme Court’s Marriage Opinion   (Liberty Counsel) Alabama Supreme Court Narrowly Avoids Confrontation With SCOTUS On Same-Sex Marriage   (Religion Clause)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead at West Texas Ranch

By Heather Clark - Posted at Christian News Network : MARFA, Texas — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on Saturday at a ranch in Texas where he was staying for a hunting excursion over the weekend. The 79-year-old justice had been quail hunting at Cibolo Creek Ranch near Marfa on Friday and retreated to his room after dinner. When he did not appear at breakfast in the morning, a worker went to his room and found his body. It is believed that he died in his sleep of natural causes. Scalia, appointed in 1986 by then-President Ronald Reagan, was the longest-serving justice on the current Supreme Court. “I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. “He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the court and the country he so loyally served.” Read more... 

Renewed gay marriage ban in Ala. debated

By David Roach - Posted at Baptist Press : MONTGOMERY, Ala. (BP) -- A Southern Baptist judge in Alabama is among the supporters of state chief justice Roy Moore's renewed order that probate judges stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. "I absolutely agree with his reasoning behind why [Moore] is doing what he's doing," said Nick Williams, probate judge in rural Washington County and a former Southern Baptist pastor. Moore "has every right to issue administrative orders when the court system seems to be in chaos." Moore issued an order Jan. 6 stating Alabama's 68 probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to" the state's ban on same-sex marriage. In his order, Moore implied the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June, which declared same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, applied only to Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee -- the jurisdiction where the case orig

Obama Admin Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Strike Law That Could Close Most Texas Abortion Facilities

By Heather Clark - Posted at Christian News Network : WASHINGTON — The Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to strike down new abortion regulations in Texas that some say would close most of the abortion facilities in the state. The brief was one of 45 filed by entities from across the country, including members of Congress and various state attorney generals. As previously reported , in 2013, following the passage of several safety regulations for abortion facilities, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against Texas officials, asserting that the new requirements would have an adverse affect on most facilities. A federal judge appointed by then-President George H.W. Bush soon placed an injunction on portions of the new law, including the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility, and that facilities be held to the same standards as surgical facilities. District Judge Le

SCOTUS Takes Cases Challenging Obamacare Birth Control Mandate

Posted at The Federalist: The Supreme Court has decided to take up all seven of the cases challenging the Obamacare mandate that requires workplaces to provide birth control to female employees. Read more here...

Fate of abortion clinics awaits high court

By Tom Strode - Posted at Baptist Press : WASHINGTON (BP) -- The fate of multiple abortion clinics awaits the consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court will have the opportunity to decide this term, which opened Oct. 5, whether state governments may enact rules that result in shutting down most abortion clinics or even the only one remaining in the state. In addition to abortion, the justices also will consider such issues as the death penalty and affirmative action in their term, which will conclude early next summer. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will review rulings by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on abortion regulations enacted by Mississippi and Texas, but the uncertainty is expected to end soon. The high court is likely to make a decision about whether to accept appeals of the lower-court decisions during its conference Nov. 6, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Read more here...

Rise Up, O County Clerks!

By Jesse Johnson - Posted at The Cripplegate : "Let me explain why I think Davis is in the right to refuse: As a Christian, she believes SSM to be sinful, and she does not want to support something that is sinful. And in this case, it is not tacit support but she is being asked to literally sign off on the license. She, as the clerk, must sing the certificate saying, 'Yep, this is a legit wedding, and I approve.'" Flashback: the year is 2004, and same sex marriage is illegal in California (by a law approved by voters in 2000 and affirmed by the State Legislature—this was the “everything but marriage” approach to the SSM issue, allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples, just without the word “marriage”). San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, ordered the county clerk to illegally start issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The California Supreme Court stepped in, ordering the process stopped. Eventually the Federal Courts stepped in

Christian schools falling in line after Supreme Court decision

By Bob Kellogg - Posted at One News Now: Some Christian colleges and universities have begun to capitulate following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to redefine marriage. Hope College, Belmont University, and Baylor University have all changed some policies to accommodate homosexual students and employees. Cultural analyst Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute says parents need to do some "serious investigating" before sending their children to what they believe is a conservative college that is theologically orthodox. Reporting on Baylor, The Washington Post said its board of regents dropped the words "homosexual acts" and other sexual references from the school's new sexual misconduct policy. Read more here...

13 States vs. ACLU: Rowan County, NC Prayer Battle

Posted at Culture News: Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that Christians have a Constitutional right to pray in Jesus' name at government meetings, one federal judge apparently "didn't get the memo" as U.S. District Judge James Beaty ruled in May that it's unconstitutional for Rowan County Commissioners to pray in opening public meetings. The Commission filed its appeal to the 4th Circuit Court two weeks ago, and since then over a dozen states have filed to support the appeal. For background, read Praying Crowds vs. ACLU in Rowan County North Carolina as well as U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Allows Christian Prayer in Civic Meetings Also read Most States Tell Supreme Court: We Pray in Jesus' Name Read the entire report here...

Will Alabama buck marriage ruling?

By Charlie Butts - Posted at One News Now: A reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual "marriage" could be forthcoming soon from the Alabama Supreme Court Liberty Counsel has filed a reply brief with the Alabama court in response to the opinion issued by "five lawyers" on the U.S. Supreme Court. Founder Mat Staver tells OneNewsNow the brief asks the state court to recognize the ruling as only an opinion that isn't grounded in the Constitution, the constitutional precedence, or the rule of law. "In fact there's precedent for state supreme courts not following bogus United States Supreme Court opinions," Staver explains. "The infamous Dred Scott decision, [which] said that blacks were not entitled to full citizenship, was not followed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court – and history pointed out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was right and the Supreme Court was wrong." Read more here...

Louisiana Supremes Slam US Supremes—'Gay Marriage'

Posted at Culture News: In setting aside a state homosexual lawsuit now moot after the recent blessing of the Gay Agenda by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Louisiana Supreme Court took the occasion to blast the highest court of the land for its "complete and unnecessary insult to the people of Louisiana" and for making "a mockery" of the Bill of Rights. "It is a sad day in America when five lawyers beholden to none and appointed for life can rob the people of their democratic process, forcing so-called civil liberties regarding who can marry on all Americans when the issue was decided by the states as solemn expressions of the will of the people. I wholeheartedly disagree and find that, rather than a triumph of constitutionalism, the opinion of these five lawyers is an utter travesty as is my constrained adherence to the 'law of the land' enacted not by the will of American people but by five judicial activists." -- Justice Jeannette Theriol K

Supreme Court Primer: How It Should Work and Where It Went Off Course

Posted at Bound 4 Life: The United States Supreme Court was created under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act organized the Supreme Court, the federal circuit courts and the federal district courts. The United States Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. At its discretion, and within certain guidelines established by Congress, the Supreme Court hears a limited number of the cases it is asked to decide during the year. Those cases usually involve important questions about the Constitution or federal law. Photo: Matt Lockett / Bound4LIFE International United States district courts are trial courts of the federal court system, with jurisdiction to hear both civil and criminal matters. There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. These 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of w