Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court

Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups.
The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services.
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings.
The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.'
The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment.
Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.'
Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment.
This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee.
Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes.
There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive.
The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

7 hours ago

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.

American Military News

9 hours ago

• American Military News

‘Stuff of nightmares': Alleged killer stalked lawmakers, stopped at 4 homes the night of killings

Federal charges filed Monday laid out the shocking scope of Vance Boelter's alleged plans to assassinate state lawmakers before he fled the Twin Cities, evading law enforcement for 43 hours before his arrest in a field near his rural home. Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, Minn., has been charged with six federal crimes, including stalking and murder, for the killing of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the shooting of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Acting U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Joe Thompson said those charges carry the potential for a death sentence. Law enforcement officers cross a farm field after searching a wooded area near where Vance Boelter has been apprehended on Sunday, June 15, 2025. (Jeff Wheeler/The Minnesota Star Tribune/TNS) 'It is no exaggeration to say that his crimes are the stuff of nightmares,' Thompson said. The 20-page federal complaint against Boelter provided the most detail yet about what happened Saturday morning through Sunday night, including that Boelter went to the homes of four Minnesota lawmakers. He also encountered law enforcement in two cities before fleeing Brooklyn Park and setting off the largest manhunt in state history. 'This was a political assassination,' Thompson said. 'Which is not a word we use very often here in the United States, let alone here in Minnesota. It's a chilling attack on our democracy, on our way of life. It's only the most recent example of political extremism in this country, and I hope it's a wake-up call for everyone that people can disagree without being evil.' One of the previously unknown lawmakers targeted, Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, said in a statement Monday she was informed Boelter parked near her home early Saturday. Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson addresses the media regarding the Federal charges against Vance Boelter, who has been taken into custody on Sunday evening, during a press conference at the United States Courthouse in Minneapolis on Monday, June 16, 2025. (Elizabeth Flores/The Minnesota Star Tribune/TNS) Boelter is now federally charged with two counts of stalking Rep. Hortman and Sen. Hoffman using interstate facilities; two counts of murder for Melissa and Mark Hortman; and two counts of using a firearm to shoot the Hortmans and Hoffmans. On top of the federal charges, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said she intends to pursue first-degree state murder charges against Boelter in District Court. The federal complaint says Boelter used extensive planning to surveil his potential victims, dressed as a police officer and drove a police-style SUV to the homes of Hoffman, Hortman, Rest and a fourth lawmaker from Maple Grove, who was not named, with the intent to 'inflict fear, injure, and kill members of the Minnesota state legislature and their families.' It also shows that in the wake of the killings, Boelter texted his family, 'Dad went to war last night … I don't wanna say more because I don't wanna implicate anybody.' Shortly after that his wife received a text message that read, 'Words are not going to explain how sorry I am for this situation.' At a news conference Monday, Thompson noted that the list of names of political leaders spanned several different notebooks found in multiple locations. He also dispelled the notion of any 'Unabomber-style' manifesto, referencing Ted Kaczynski. The criminal complaint says that in the notebooks were 'names, and often home addresses, of numerous Minnesota public officials' including Hortman. It included a note that Hortman was married to her 'husband Mark,' that she had two children, and that she was in her 11th term in the Legislature. Boelter used several websites to search for addresses and personal information of legislators and purchased materials from Fleet Farm to carry out the shootings, including flashlights and decals to create fake license plates that read 'POLICE.' He also wore a silicone mask throughout the night. When he arrived at the Hoffmans' house, Boelter knocked and repeatedly shouted, 'This is the police. Open the door,' according to the complaint. When the Hoffmans opened the door, Boelter shined his flashlight in their faces, and allegedly told them there had been a shooting inside the house. He asked them if there were any guns present, according the complaint, and Hoffman said their guns were locked away. Yvette eventually realized that Boelter was wearing a mask, and the couple told Boelter they knew he was not an officer. Boelter responded by saying something along the lines of: 'This is a robbery,' the complaint says. Sen. Hoffman tried to push Boelter away from the front door and Boelter then 'shot Senator Hoffman repeatedly.' Yvette Hoffman tried to shut Boelter outside by closing the door, but he then shot her multiple times, the complaint says. Boelter then went to the home of another state legislator in Maple Grove who was out of town with family. As Boelter pounded on the door, a doorbell camera caught him saying, 'This is the police. Open this door. This is the police. We have a warrant.' He then traveled to New Hope toward Rest's home. By that point, law enforcement in the Twin Cities had been alerted that there could be threats on state politicians and police were engaging in proactive investigations. A New Hope officer dispatched to a home came upon a SUV that resembled a squad car. The complaint reads that the officer approached the SUV and saw a 'bald, white male, staring straight ahead. The officer tried to speak with that man, but he continued staring straight ahead and did not respond.' Thompson said he believes Boelter was wearing the silicone mask when the New Hope officer pulled up next to him. The officer then left to continue the wellness check. When the officer returned to the area where the SUV had been parked, it was gone. 'I am so grateful for the heroic work of the New Hope Police Department and its officers. Their quick action saved my life,' Rest said Monday. 'While I am thankful the suspect has been apprehended, I grieve for the loss of Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and I am praying for the recovery of John and Yvette Hoffman.' Not long after that, the complaint reads, Brooklyn Park police encountered Boelter outside the Hortmans' home. He had a flashlight raised toward the house and as police arrived he fired several shots into the home before entering and killing Melissa and Mark Hortman and shooting and gravely injuring the family dog, Gilbert. Law enforcement officials said they are still investigating whether Boelter actively shot at police. 'This happened incredibly fast,' said Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. 'What I can tell you is the police officers that were there on the scene, that while they were assessing the situation that gunfire erupted.' Bought e-bike, car After the slayings, video footage shows Boelter returning to a north Minneapolis house. A witness said he met Boelter at a bus stop at 7 a.m. Saturday at the intersection of 48th Avenue N. and Lyndale Avenue, less than a mile to the east of Boelter's Fremont Avenue apartment. He was holding two duffel bags, and asked to buy the witness' e-bike. The man agreed, and the two boarded a bus and traveled to the witness' house, where Boelter also asked to buy the man's Buick sedan, which was later abandoned miles away from Boelter's house in Green Isle. Boelter and the man went to a U.S. Bank branch in Robbinsdale, where Boelter withdrew $2,200, emptying the account, the complaint says. He gave the man 'about $900' for the e-bike and Buick. About 2:30 a.m. Sunday, police received word about someone riding an e-bike some 2 miles northeast of his family home in Green Isle but were unable to locate him. The abandoned Buick was found near where the e-bike was sighted. Inside it, police found a handwritten letter directed to the FBI. The letter was signed 'Dr. Vance Luther Boelter,' and included him admitting to being 'the shooter at large in Minnesota,' according to the charges. After being arrested late Sunday in a field in Sibley County, Boelter was booked into the Hennepin County jail just after 1 a.m. Monday. His bail was set at $5 million, but he is now in federal custody. Two criminal hearings Boelter appeared in person in U.S. District Court in St. Paul on Monday afternoon wearing a standard orange jumpsuit. A federal defender was appointed for him after U.S. Magistrate Judge John Docherty said he doubts Boelter's finances could cover attorney costs given the 'severity' of his charges. Docherty asked how he pronounced his name and Boelter said it is pronounced 'Belter.' 'The 'o' is silent,' Boelter said. As Assistant U.S. Attorney Bradley Endicott read the criminal charges, Boelter looked on, responding 'yes, sir' to most questions, leaning forward to speak into a microphone and projecting his voice throughout the courtroom. He told Docherty that he understands the charges against him and has read the criminal complaint. He said he owns his home and works part time, making 'maybe $540 per week,' and has an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 in his bank account. His next hearing was set for June 27. Boelter was initially charged by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office with two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of attempted second-degree murder. Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Judith Cole handled the bail review for the state charges and Judge Juan Hoyos granted a bench warrant with $5 million bail. No court date has been set for his next state appearance. Moriarty noted earlier in the day that a conviction on a first-degree murder charge in Minnesota carries a sentence of life in prison without parole. 'It is a frightening time we are living in,' Moriarty said. 'We will seek justice and accountability for the victims of all these heinous crimes. We cannot continue this way.' ___ © 2025 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

New York Times

18 hours ago

• New York Times

Oil Companies Fight Climate Lawsuits by Citing Free Speech

Oil companies are employing an unusual tactic in some of their biggest court battles. They're alleging that their critics are infringing on their free-speech rights, invoking laws designed to protect people who challenge the powerful. The laws, known as 'anti-SLAPP' provisions, were created to stop companies or people from silencing their critics with the threat of costly lawsuits. Oil companies have turned this around, arguing that climate lawsuits against them should be thrown out because they infringe on the companies' protections under the First Amendment. 'What we're seeing now is a complete inversion' of the original intent of these laws, said Nicole Ligon, an assistant professor of law at Campbell University in North Carolina and expert on freedom of speech and SLAPP, which is shorthand for strategic lawsuit against public participation. The laws offer judges a way to dismiss cases that they determine lack merit. This strategy is playing out in courtrooms nationwide, particularly where oil companies are fighting lawsuits filed by state and local governments that claim the industry has misled Americans about global warming and should help pay the cost of adapting to climate change. The industry considers these climate lawsuits a major threat. Nearly 40 have been filed since 2017. They are seeking potentially billions of dollars in damages. Recently, the cases have come under increased scrutiny as the Trump administration has sought to stop them, even pre-emptively suing Hawaii and Michigan to try to block them from filing their own climate-change lawsuits. (Hawaii sued anyway, and Michigan has said it will.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.