Religion at the Supreme Court: What happened this year and what’s coming next?

[Michie]

This Forum is a place for respectful discussion and debate of political issues, by Roman Catholics, in the context of the Roman Catholic Faith.


Here’s an overview of faith-related cases that could be argued before the Supreme Court next term

The Supreme Court is now on summer break, but, before signing off, the justices gave the rest of us some homework to do.


On Friday, the court announced 10 new additions to its slate of cases for next term, including a battle between a religious family and the state of Maine over whether public tuition assistance funds can be used at private, “sectarian” schools.

I’m sure I won’t be the only person spending the next few months researching and reflecting on what kinds of decisions to expect next year. This term served as a reminder that the court is full of surprises, even when one group of justices — right now it’s the conservatives — has the numbers on their side.

Here’s an overview of key religion-related decisions handed down this year:

• Tanzin v. Tanvir: Justices ruled 8-0 in favor of Muslim men who were placed on the FBI’s no-fly list. As a result, people of faith will now be able to seek monetary damages from individual government employees who trample their religious rights.
• Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski: The court created new opportunities for victims of alleged free speech or religious freedom violations to seek justice in this case involving Christian college students fighting their school’s speech policy. The justices ruled 8-1 that lawsuits can continue even after the government has abandoned the policy or behavior that prompted the suit.
• Tandon v. Newsom: In a so-called shadow docket decision, the court granted relief to houses of worship challenging the state of California’s lockdown rules. As I noted in a recent newsletter, Tandon v. Newsom outlined a new approach to free exercise litigation.
• Fulton v. City of Philadelphia: Justices unanimously ruled in favor of Catholic Social Services, enabling the faith-based foster care agency to continue partnering with the city despite the agency’s refusal to complete assessments of same-sex couples. The court said the government cannot refuse to offer religious accommodations to laws when it’s willing to offer other types of exceptions.

Given the court’s conservative majority, it’s not surprising that the religious plaintiffs won in all four cases.

Continued below.
5 religion-related cases the Supreme Court could hear soon

 

[BrAndreyu]

Justices ruled 8-0 in favor of Muslim men who were placed on the FBI’s no-fly list. As a result, people of faith will now be able to seek monetary damages from individual government employees who trample their religious rights.

Good, because the government under Obiden is going to come down harder than ever before on religious people and I hope that they all sue the pants off of the government and enrich themselves by doing so.

In a so-called shadow docket decision, the court granted relief to houses of worship challenging the state of California’s lockdown rules.

Also good. No state has the right to interfere in the free exercise of religion and if it was ruled that a state did have that right, I would simply break the law. I'm not going to be told by government that I cannot go to mass if I want to.