On our season 6 finale, Amanda and Holly explore some of the consequential decisions from the final days of the Supreme Court term, including Mahmoud v. Taylor – which involves parents who want to opt their children out of curriculum they find in conflict with their religious beliefs – and U.S. v. Skrmetti, which focuses on access to medical care for transgender youth. They discuss the real world implications of these and other recent rulings. Amanda and Holly also celebrate a decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Louisiana’s law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom and share why this case might find its way up to the Supreme Court before too long.
What’s the difference between religious privilege and religious freedom? How does Christian nationalism start to spread? Why do so many ideas that start in Texas expand to other parts of the country? On this episode, we bring you a special panel discussion on Christian nationalism in the Texas public sphere, recorded live on April 8. It features BJC Executive Director (and Respecting Religion co-host) Amanda Tyler, scholar David Brockman, professor Mark Chancey, and journalist Robert Downen. Moderated by Jack Jenkins, it was part of an all-day event focused on telling the story of religion in Texas through journalism, hosted by the Texas Tribune in partnership with Religion News Service, the Institute for Diversity and Civic Life, and Southern Methodist University’s Religious Studies department.
With decisions from the Supreme Court, a new travel ban, and a federally militarized presence in Los Angeles, there are many activities in our world that deserve attention. Amanda and Holly discuss several current events in this episode, including the revival of one of the ugliest policies of the first Trump administration. Plus, they review the unanimous decision in a Supreme Court case about religious exemptions to employment law and discuss the Court’s decision not to hear a case involving the protection of sacred land.
A case with a thin record is raising plenty of questions at the Supreme Court. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves parents who want to opt their children out of public school curriculum they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. But, what’s the difference between expected exposure and unconstitutional coercion? Does age matter? What happens when opt-out options become too burdensome and overwhelming to accommodate? Amanda and Holly examine the issues in this case as well as the challenges for the school district and for the parents. They also share what the oral arguments revealed about the justices’ interest in the books and discussions outside of the courtroom.
In a conversation broadcast live on May 27, Amanda and Holly provide updates on a day of big news in the religious liberty world. They first look at the surprising 4-4 deadlock from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board et al., v. Drummond case, which preserves a religious liberty principle by stopping the creation of the nation’s first religious charter school. They also discuss the troubling school voucher proposal that was slipped into the budget reconciliation bill that the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed on May 22, offering tips on how you can help stop it as it goes to the Senate. Plus, they give an update on last week’s court order stopping President Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education and share why that’s good news for public education and religious freedom.
The most consequential church-state case of this Supreme Court term involves whether the government could – or even must – fund religious charter schools. Amanda and Holly examine key moments in the oral arguments from Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond, playing clips from the courtroom and looking at how the justices may apply recent precedent to shape future law. As BJC noted in the brief we filed, if the government funds religious charter schools, it will drag our government deeper into questions it is unfit to answer on matters of doctrine and church composition. That’s not government neutrality toward religion – that’s religious preference repackaged as educational choice.
