Reflections on Supreme Court arguments in the Cross Case

BJC’s Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman share their takeaways from the Feb. 27 oral arguments in the Bladensburg cross case. Both were in the courtroom, along with BJC Associate General Counsel Jennifer Hawks. In this podcast, they discuss what it’s like going to the Supreme Court and hearing the justices (starting at 1:38), the “hot bench” as first advocate for the government’s side began (starting at 4:40), the BJC’s brief and it being used in questioning (starting at 7:18), the presentation of the other two advocates representing the government’s side who discussed changing the “test” for cases involving an establishment of religion (starting at 11:31), the presentation of the American Humanist Association’s attorney (starting at 17:00), the tough decision facing the justices on the broadness of their ruling (22:15), and the scene after leaving the court and talking to the media (24:55). 

For more on this case, including the BJC’s friend-of-the-court brief, visit BJConline.org/CrossCase. For more podcasts, visit BJConline.org/podcasts or subscribe to our iTunes channel. 

Additional resources related to this podcast:

• See photos of the BJC staff in action after oral arguments on our Facebook page.
• The arguments mentioned the case of Greece v. Galloway, which focused on government-sponsored prayer at local government meetings. As Tyler and Hollman point out, the facts of that case are very different from this case. Visit our page on that case for details. 
• For more on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, visit BJConline.org/religiousliberty