An atheist group has attacked the state senator of Connecticut for using his personal time during the Christmas season to ring the bell outside of a local Walmart for the Salvation Army. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  Maybe it’s the relentless ringing, the high-pitched clinging, or just the reminder that there’s something to this season beyond ourselves, but some find the bell ringing a little annoying.&nbsp; At the end of the day, though, the Salvation Army bell ringers do good work. That’s probably why Connecticut state senator George Logan rings the bell outside of a Walmart in Naugatuck, Connecticut each year.&nbsp;This would be an otherwise forgettable act of kindness, except that one atheist group took their annoyance to a whole new level. &nbsp;They sent him an angry Christmas letter. But, the letter was less concerned about the bell ringing and more upset that he would dare support an ostensibly religious charity.&nbsp; Rather than support what the group considers a “church denomination,” it strongly argued that Logan should focus his attention exclusivelyon secularcharities.&nbsp; This, the group suggests, would solve any appearance of promoting religion and “prevent citizens from feeling ostracized by their elected representatives.” Well, if it’s not clear to you, let me explain that the law does not require any elected official, during his personal time, to serve only secular charities.&nbsp;Indeed, the Constitution protects the right of every citizen, elected or not, to serve the charity or house of worship of his choice.&nbsp; The galling bigotry that this organization has evidenced toward the free exercise of this citizen is appalling—especially at Christmas. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

State Senator Under Fire for Ringing the Bell Outside of a Local Walmart for The Salvation Army

Memorials are symbols meant to remind the living of the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny an en banc review of the Bladensburg Veterans Memorial could be setting a dangerous precedent. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  Veterans’ memorials are symbols meant to remind the living of the service and sacrifice the fallen made for freedom. That is why Gold Star mothers in 1919 started work on the Bladensburg World War I Veterans’ Memorial.&nbsp; They did not want the world to forget the sacrifice their sons made.&nbsp; So, they, along with The American Legion, erected a cross-shaped memorial.&nbsp; The design mirrored the universally accepted symbol erected over the thousands of graves of men who died in Europe defending freedom.&nbsp; No one complained for almost 100 years. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to overturn an opinion of a panel of that court that would direct a federal district to consider whether the monument should have it’s horizontal arms removed or be razed to the ground completely. Such a decision sets a dangerous precedent for veterans’ memorials across America. If this decision stands, other memorials will be targeted for destruction as well. We will appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. I encourage you to go to DontTearMeDown.com and join us in defending this memorial to the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland killed in the line of duty during World War I.&nbsp; We forget what we do not see.&nbsp; Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the Bladensburg memorial and similar memorials in close by in Arlington National Cemetery may disappear as well. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Bladensburg Refusal Could Lead to the Tear Down of Other Memorials

Religious exemptions to the Contraceptive Mandate are under attack once again. After several states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration for protecting the rights of religious objectors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RFRA does not permit a broad religious exemption from this very mandate. The case now heads to The U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more at .&nbsp;  You would think that, in light of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision a few years ago and the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the so-called contraceptive mandate, the fight over forcing religious adherents to compromise their religious convictions would be over.&nbsp; You would be wrong.&nbsp; First Liberty recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging them to review yet another Little Sisters of the Poor case.&nbsp; This case stems from lawsuits filed by several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, against the Trump administration for providing religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate.&nbsp; The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against religious objectors, concluding that RFRA does not permit a broad religious exemption from the Contraception Mandate, jeopardizing the exemptions granted to the nuns and others. The Little Sisters appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. We argue in our brief that this decision ignores binding precedent and forces the courts to evaluate the sincerity of an employees’ religious convictions—which is against the law.&nbsp; Left alone, the Third Circuit’s decision threatens religious freedom by allowing courts to assess which religious convictions are reasonable. As my colleague, Keisha Russell said when we filed the case, “Enough is enough. The Supreme Court of the United States needs to finally protect Little Sisters of the Poor and all other religious objectors from government-forced violations of their faith.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .&nbsp;

The Fight for Religious Exemptions Continues for Little Sisters of the Poor

Upon receiving a Gospel tract in the mail, New York resident Annmarie Trombetta sued the sender for causing “severe emotional distress” due to “extreme and outrageous &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; conduct.” Thankfully, a New York trial court concluded that sharing God’s Word isn’t intentionally harmful. Learn more at .  You will be pleased to know that a New York trial court has declared that proselytizing someone does not rise to the level of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Back in 2015, Lauren Kruse mailed a religious pamphlet to Annmarie Trombetta.&nbsp; The pamphlet, also known as a ‘tract,’ featured a cartoon depiction of someone who is sent into the "lake of fire" to "burn in hell" because they did not follow the version of Christianity promoted by the pamphlet which is evangelical Baptist. Eventually, she learned that Lauren had sent her the tracts. Lauren explained that she was concerned for Annmarie’s eternal soul, along with many others to whom she had sent the tract.&nbsp; Annmarie sued Lauren, including a claim for the intentional affliction of emotional distress, which requires a showing of (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress.&nbsp; Ultimately, the court noted that the “First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the courts of this State from evaluating the religious beliefs of a church or individual,” and, further, “While the court understands why the plaintiff found the tract and email disturbing, the court does not find that the conduct rose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.” And, for the majority of Americans, that’s a good thing. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

Christian Sued for Sharing the Gospel, Plaintiff Claims “Emotional Distress”

In a recent speech, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith. Ignoring both the Constitution and precedent, secularists are now accusing him for his “proselytizing religious speech.” Learn more at .  We recently discussed Attorney General Barr’s excellent speech on religious liberty.&nbsp; But, he’s not the only one in the Trump administration talking about religion. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also delivered a speech that progressives found troubling because he dared note that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith. The fourth in line to the presidency admitted to learning a great deal about leadership while at West Point, in his service in the Army and Congress, and as director of the CIA.&nbsp; Yet Pompeo&nbsp; focused on how his faith has informed his leadership. Secularists now demand that the Inspector General of the United States investigate and punish Secretary Pompeo for his “proselytizing religious speech.”&nbsp; It may come as a surprise to some that even civil servants look to their personal faith in making leadership decisions.&nbsp;When those decisions align with calls for social justice and progressive calls for economic equality, the Left celebrates. Yet, admit that a secretary of state relies upon his faith to be humbler, listen better, and make wiser decisions, and suddenly it crosses the line into a constitutionally dubious attempt to establish an official church of the United States. Americans of every walk of life — elected or not — are free to be known by their faith in both public and private life. More than that, they are free to rely upon that faith in their disposition, dialogue, and decisions. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Accused for Recognizing Faith’s Role in His Leadership Duties

A Cameron, Missouri, school district superintendent has received a series of complaint letters regarding religious activity in school. However, these letters are rife with unsubstantiated claims and unidentified sources. In order to be taken seriously, legal &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; demand letters require litigants and facts—not anonymous threats and gripes. Learn more at .  It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America, whether that is Tim Tebow’s eye black or Coach Kennedy’s silent prayer. However, with these public displays of religions often come needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent, demanding an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity. But something always seems to be missing with these letters: A litigant. Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — such a letter amounts to little more than a public gripe. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

Cameron, MO: Without Litigants, Anti-Religious Complaint Letters Lack Legal Standing

No one can deny Lawrence VanDyke’s excellent credentials for the federal court system. Attempting to deface his reputation nonetheless, the ABA and its progressive counterparts in the Senate questioned his impartiality toward LGBTQ litigants due to his faith. Learn more at .  President Trump and I have a common friend in Lawrence VanDyke.&nbsp; I know Lawrence from the time he’s spent volunteering with First Liberty Institute and as solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana.&nbsp; President Trump nominated him to an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As you might guess, he took a few shots during his confirmation hearing.&nbsp; This time, the real culprit seems to be the American Bar Association.&nbsp; Somehow, the ABA is perceived to be a neutral evaluator of judicial nominees.&nbsp; So, rating Lawrence as “not qualified” is a severe blow to his nomination.&nbsp; When senators inquired if he would be fair toward LGBTQ litigants, Lawrence’s emotions got the better of him.&nbsp; Choking back tears, he managed to say, “It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God.&nbsp; They should all be treated with dignity and respect.”&nbsp; No one can honestly and credibly attack VanDyke’s sterling credentials. No one even tries. But attacks on someone’s legal research, writing, and advocacy are not in the playbook for today’s progressive left, which is driven by a militant secularism that worships at the altar of wokeness. Lawrence VanDyke is a compassionate man with a brilliant intellect who has donated hours and hours of his professional career defending religious liberty. &nbsp;I hope the senate ignores the ABA’s biased letter and confirms my friend, Lawrence VanDyke. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

Biased ABA Smears Lawrence VanDyke at Confirmation Hearing

After two years since First Liberty filed a lawsuit against the Village of Airmont, New York, the orthodox Jewish community will finally have its day in court. Get the full update and learn more at   In 2018, we filed a lawsuit alleging that government officials in the Village of Airmont, New York and the Suffern Central School District had engaged in a deliberate effort to dissuade Orthodox Jewish residents from staying in or moving to the Village of Airmont. Town officials required multiple rounds of permitting and endless inspections, costing tens of thousands of dollars for Orthodox Jewish residents to be able to use their own homes for religious meetings.&nbsp; They were even threatened with criminal sanctions by the Town of Airmont. Even when presented with the prospect of the United States Department of Justice weighing in against them, town officials would not relent, filing motions to dismiss the legal action.&nbsp; In January of 2020, Judge Vincent Briccetti issued an opinion, denying the town’s motions to dismiss. My colleague, Keisha Russell said, “Our clients are thrilled that they will get their day in court.&nbsp; We are pleased that the judge dismissed the effort by both the Village of Airmont and the Suffern School District to avoid accountability for their discriminatory actions.” Perhaps this will make town officials more receptive to treating its Jewish residents with respect.&nbsp; The Orthodox community in Airmont just wants to be left alone to peacefully worship and coexist without fear of criminal prosecution. The First Amendment and federal law protect the right of all Americans to pray together in their homes free from unreasonable and intrusive government interference. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .&nbsp;

Orthodox Jewish Community Will Have Their Day In Court

On Religious Freedom Day 2020, President Trump announced new initiatives that his administration is taking to preserve religious freedom in America. Learn more about these three key initiatives at .&nbsp;  On Religious Freedom Day 2020, we celebrated a major victory for the rights of students, teachers, coaches, public employees, and religious organizations who want to freely live out their faith in school, at work, and in ministry. Two of our clients, Coach Joe Kennedy and Hannah Allen, joined our president, Kelly Shackelford, in the Oval Office of the White House while President Trump announced new initiatives aimed at preserving religious freedom. First, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated guidelines on prayer and religious expression in public schools. The updated guidelines expand upon previous guidelines and will help students freely live out their faith, without as much interference by school officials.&nbsp; No student should fear discrimination for simply expressing their faith while at school. Second, the White House announced that nine federal agencies proposed new administrative rules to ensure that religious organizations and their secular counterparts are treated equally by the federal government. Religious organizations deserve to be treated just like secular organizations. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget issued new guidance requiring that the administration of federal grants is consistent with the 2017 Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran.&nbsp; Religious organizations should never be disqualified from federal grants just because they are religious. These actions by the Trump administration are an important step in helping end religious discrimination, while ensuring people of faith will be treated equally when they seek to partner with federal or state governments to provide services to communities nationwide. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit

3 Ways the White House is Working to Preserve Religious Freedom

Judge Thomas Griffith’s ruling in Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB is a great example of what the Establishment Clause is supposed to do, limit the role of government in the affairs of religious groups. Learn more at .  The reach of the First Amendment is extensive in securing the religious liberty of individuals and organizations, including colleges and universities.&nbsp; Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in .&nbsp; When Duquesne, a Catholic university, refused to bargain with a group of adjunct faculty seeking to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board stepped in, recommending that the union be certified. But, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the Catholic university.&nbsp; Judge Thomas Griffith, authoring the opinion, notes that our Constitution restrains government agencies from excessive involvement with religious organizations. “The Establishment Clause,” he writes “limits governmental involvement in the affairs of religious groups, and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards the freedom to practice religion, whether as an individual or as part of a group.” That is critical, he said, because it means religious institutions retain the independence required to pursue religious activity, inculcate its religious identity, and teach according to its religious tradition. After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower its creep into every aspect of our lives. The importance of this decision cannot be understated. Its immediate impact should be welcomed by religious colleges and universities around the country. Furthering the autonomy of religious institutions to be unapologetically religious and free from government intrusion is an unambiguous goal of the First Amendment. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

The Proper Role of the Establishment Clause in Practice

Despite an article in Christianity Today claiming tax exemptions are leading churches to be more parasitical than independent, tax exemptions help to protect and promote the autonomy of churches. Learn more at .  The January 2020 edition of Christianity Today features the headline, “The Hidden Cost of Tax Exemption.”&nbsp; The author makes his case for why American churches may be better off for refusing what he calls the “government largesse” of tax exemptions. The article portrays churches in America as “basically parasitical” with pastors feeding on the benefits their churches drain from their host community without returning much noticeable benefit. The story contends that the appeal of the tax exemption is rooted in a historical desire to propagate racism and further discrimination against the LGBTQ community. The story ends with these words, “It might not be such a bad thing to lose tax-exempt status . . . The true church of God, after all, is not reliant on its special status in the tax code. We can walk by faith and not by government largesse.” In truth, rather than make churches more ideologically faithful, the loss of tax exemption for churches would invade upon church autonomy and curb religious liberty.&nbsp; The “true church of God” is less a target to be taxed or a parasite to be crushed and more a quiet blessing upon a world in need of the peace they preach and acts of service they humbly perform. A local gathering of religious believers should be viewed as a human right of religious association and free exercise worthy of protection, rather than a potential stream of revenue. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

Tax Exemption Helps Religious Freedom

All school organizations should be treated the same. When school officials at the University of Iowa exempted non-religious school organizations from its human rights policy and not groups like InterVarsity, they were held personally liable. Learn more at .  Holding government officials personally liable for violating an organizations religious liberty seems harsh, but is an important—and difficult—job of the federal courts. At the University of Iowa, university officials exempted a number of groups from their human rights policy.&nbsp; Sports clubs could distinguish by gender.&nbsp; The military dental club restricted membership by military members.&nbsp; Even acapella groups meeting on campus were allowed to restrict membership by gender. But, the university told the InterVaristy Christian Fellowship chapter that requiring its leadership to adhere to historic religious convictions on human sexuality was wrong and resulted in the club being deregistered. The club sued the university and the court held that not only did the University violate the law, but the university officials who investigated the student group were to be held personally liable for the constitutional violation.&nbsp; In civil rights litigation, if a plaintiff demonstrates that a state official acting under color of law deprives a citizen of any of the rights and privileges found in our Constitution, courts may hold them personally liable.&nbsp; Holding university or government entities liable is one thing, but when the full weight of federal law lands on the backs of individual bad actors, it has a deterring effect.&nbsp; Moreover, reminding state officials that they have a responsibility to protect the religious liberty rights of Americans makes them all the more cautious to come close to violating our first freedoms. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit .

Government Officials Held Personally Liable for Violating Religious Freedoms

First Liberty Briefing is an exclusive podcast hosted by First Liberty Institute’s Deputy General Counsel Jeremy Dys.

In about 90-seconds, three times a week, Jeremy recalls the stories that have shaped America’s religious liberty, from the founding era to current legal battles and more. It’s an insider’s look at the stories, cases, people, and laws that have made America the world’s leader in protecting religious liberty.

First Liberty Briefing

Popular tracks