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.
Melissa Rogers joins the podcast for a conversation about how each of us can take steps to promote religious freedom and the common good in the United States today. After leading the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Obama and Biden administrations, she shares her inside perspective on government, where we are right now, and how people can truly make an impact. Our religious freedom protects everyone’s right to bring their faith to the public square, and you won’t want to miss this conversation about opportunities we have as Americans to engage government at all levels and express ourselves in the face of injustice.
On this special bonus episode of the Respecting Religion podcast, we are featuring a conversation that could not wait until our normal release date. In this still-developing story, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was mistakenly removed by the U.S. government from Maryland to El Salvador. His case and series of injustices are not just things that move all of us as people of faith, but there are also profound ramifications of this situation on due process, the rule of law and freedom for everyone living in our country.
There has been no shortage of news from all three branches of government in Washington, D.C., but one thing hasn’t changed: the U.S. Supreme Court continues to be interested in religious liberty cases. On today’s show, Amanda and Holly review the recent oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin, which focuses on a religious exemption in the state’s unemployment compensation laws. There are big questions being asked in this case, such as where one draws the lines, how can “religion” be defined, and what is meant – exactly – by the term “proselytization.” Plus, Holly and Amanda take a moment to step back and talk about the current attacks we are seeing on the rule of law in our country.
